The 1978 Constitution is now independent Sri Lanka’s most enduring. While it was intended to promote greater stability and direct accountability to the people, it has, in practice, led towards authoritarianism and eroded the rule of law. As we reflect over 35 years of presidentialism in Sri Lanka, it is worth pondering a hypothetical question: how would Sri Lanka have fared over these years had it retained the Westminster parliamentary system? In this essay, I address this question through a comparative lens. By surveying the history of executive power in India, which has stood by parliamentary government throughout its independent history, and contrasting it with Sri Lanka, this chapter seeks to draw some preliminary lessons about the nature of executive power in the subcontinent.