Archives

by Sumanasiri Liyanage

The ethnic policy of the United National Front has been subjected to so many interpretations during the past few weeks. I read its election manifesto carefully and felt that it needs careful and in-depth analysis. I do not intend in this article to discuss all the issues raised in the UNP manifesto and its proposals to deal with those issues. I will confine myself to the sections of the Manifesto that have some bearings to the ongoing ethnic war in Sri Lanka. Anyone who was interested in a peaceful solution to the ethnic conflict will find the Manifesto totally ineffective.

It is clear that the UNP is trying to deceive all nationals in Sri Lanka promising everything but without putting forward effective and concrete suggestions for the resolution of the armed conflict. The UNP is once again playing a hide and seek game. In spite of its many drawbacks, the ethnic policy of the Peoples' Alliance (PA) is clear. It has clearly stated a policy framework that includes four major components. The main components are:

1. PA stands for unity and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka;

2. It proposes devolution of power that goes beyond the 13th Amendment;

3. It suggests an interim administration in the North and East until the new constitutional arrangements are put into practice; and

4. It prepares to talk with LTTE with third party facilitation.

One may with reasonable justification question the PA government's action program and its commitment in implementing this program in its entirety. A section of the PA has in fact come out with extreme chauvinist program and propaganda. A successful implementation of a policy framework depends on many factors. Ethnic conflict is a very complex and complicated issue so that the implementation success is conditioned by prevalent structures, agency and attitudes. When compared to the PA policy framework I would argue that the UNP does not even have a policy framework. The manifesto is full of banalities and empty promises without even a semblance of concrete policy suggestions as to how the war will be brought to an end.

I will quote some of the banalities below:

* "We stand for peace and peace alone".
* "We will end the war and build national unity".
* "We will initiate this process with warm hearts and cool heads".

Read the following statement:

"Today, in the context of increasing international anti-terrorist sentiments, we will create the atmosphere that will enable the conflicting parties to opt for peace".

What does this mean? Who are "we"? A government led by the UNP? Who are the conflicting parties? Is the government led by the UNP a neutral actor to the conflict?

How could anti-terrorist sentiments contribute in this exercise? Does UNP implicitly suggest that the LTTE is a terrorist organization? All these questions and many more would question the so-called "sincerity" of the UNP on this issue.

UNF/UNP appears to address vaguely two issues, (1) the political issue; and (2) the welfare issue. The manifesto is very clear about one important issue. It says: "We will not introduce constitutional reforms until we have arrived at a political solution acceptable to the majority of all communities." How could a political solution acceptable to the majority of all communities be arrived at?

This is the answer given: "Once we come to power, we will initiate a dialogue with all political parties, the clergy and civil society organizations, in order to arrive at a broad-based political solution acceptable to all." So the conclusion: unless and until a political solution acceptable to the majority of all communities through an all-party and all-sector dialogue, no state restructuring will be done through constitutional reforms.

Tamils in this country very well know that this is tantamount to saying that the UNP is not going to do anything to find a solution to the ethnic question.

In conflict resolution and transformation discourse, dialogue and problem-solving play an important and useful role in preparing the ground for two conflicting parties to come to direct negotiation. But the government arranging and organizing a dialogue between two main actors will not bring about any positive results. History has often times proved this fact in many conflict areas.

So the UNP wants to keep the problem under the carpet in the disguise of problem-solving dialogue. The root course of the ethnic question lies within existing structures and institutions. The most crucial of all has been the Sri Lankan constitution. What the past experience demonstrates is that the so-called dialogues had not brought about any tangible results.

There were all party conferences under the former UNP regime; but those conferences failed miserably. The select committee was not able to come to a consensus on issues related to the ethnic question. Mr. Wickremesinghe himself opted to stay out of the select committee proceedings. Unless a bold decision is taken to change and transform the existing structures and institutions at the political level no dialogue would bring about any results worthwhile.

Dialogues can go on at different levels and those dialogues will definitely help in articulating and implementing the solution.

People want a government to take action. Not to waste time in continuous talks.

Secondly, even to initiate an action-oriented dialogue, the party in power should come up with concrete suggestions. What are the concrete suggestions the UNF/UNP going to present? Nobody knows!

The UNF position is also contradictory. Making a promise that the UNP/UNF government will not introduce constitutional reforms until a political solution is reached the UNF proposes to set up an interim administration for the North and East. Is this an extra-parliamentary body? A body that would be set up outside the constitution? Will the setting up of the interim administration wait until political parties - clergy, and civil society organizations come to an agreement? Or will it be set up soon after the UNF forms a government?

Interim administration is a good and necessary transitional arrangement, but it should be a transitional mechanism towards a solution. So the important question in case of any transitional arrangement is; what would come next. It's a link between the minimum program and the maximum program. Without having at least a vague notion of this linkage, transitional mechanism is either an illusion or a cover for something. As I argued in another context, separation should not be ruled out as an option. Does UNF believe that all options should be left open? Or what are the limits? UNF/UNP manifesto is not clear about those issues.

This will raise the question of restructuring of the state. However, the manifesto's suggestions for constitutional reforms do not include anything about the restructuring of the state to accommodate the demands of other nationalities living in Sri Lanka.

The manifesto's emptiness in dealing with the ethnic issue is clear when it comes to its proposals to "re-affirm democracy". The final section says: "The UNP, in consultation with all parties, will propose the following constitutional reforms". So reforms for Sinhalese and for the South, but no reforms for Tamils and to the North and East!! Leon Trostsky once said that in politics what is important is not just identifying the issues but to identify the key to the understanding of the situation. All the constitutional proposals in the UNP manifesto have totally neglected the key to the understanding of the current situation in Sri Lanka, the ethnic issue.

Those measures suggested in the manifesto are good to satisfy the demands of the Sinhalese civil society especially in its Colombo sector.

Does the manifesto at least address the issue of economic and social welfare of the war-affected people? It proposes "an independent commission to solve the problems of people who have been displaced and rendered helpless by war". What about the acute problems of the people in the North and East? What about the hardships of the "legitimate travellers'? These are very concrete issues. But no concrete answers except the hollow promise of finding solutions to these problems after consultation with all parties and community leaders. I have a question: If this is the case, what is the government for?

The cat is out of the bag in the introduction to the manifesto. The manifesto talks about the recreation of "a proud Sri Lankan identity." I have never heard about this breed, a Sri Lankan identity. In this country we have many identities and all have a proud history. It includes my identity, a Sinhalese and it also includes identity of the Tamils, Muslims, Veddas etc.

What is necessary is to introduce necessary changes to make the state accommodative to all these identities. Sirasa morning news on Friday (November 16) reported Mr. Wickremesingha's statement about uniting once again all three Sinhalese.

UNP manifestos completely neglects those major issues and it tries to deceive not only Tamils, Muslims and other small nationalities but also the numerical majority nationality Sinhalese.

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager