Archives

A four point programme for bipartisanship and peace

by Jehan Perera

The people - their choices matter

The Government has asserted that it is considering a request from sections of civil society that the South African experience should be emulated and that a referendum on the people's acceptance of the peace process should be held.

When the peace process commenced in South Africa, there was strong opposition to it from some of the political parties. Like their counterparts in Sri Lanka, the opposition in South Africa claimed that the peace process was a sell-out and a betrayal. The government was able to overcome this opposition by going directly to the people and getting their sanction to go ahead with the peace process.

Not surprisingly, the government's assertion that it is considering a referendum on the peace process has run into opposition from both the PA and JVP, and also rather unexpectedly from the LTTE. The position of the former is that it is pointless to hold a referendum at such an early stage in the peace process when the core concepts of the proposed political solution have yet not been gone into.

The LTTE has said that a referendum at this time would not be fair by the million or so displaced persons in the North and East who would not be able to express their views at the referendum.

The Government, however, is eager to find a way to foil the manoeuvrings of the parliamentary opposition to exploit the problems in the peace process and catapult themselves back into power. It is now 16 months since the present government was elected to office after prematurely unseating the PA-JVP government.

For at least half of this period, there has been a major question mark hanging over the government's stability. This has been due to the power conferred on the President by the constitution that enables her to legally dissolve parliament after the passage of a year.

In the minds of most people, the question is not whether the President will dissolve parliament prematurely, the question is when. Ironically, the practice over the past 16 months seems to suggest that the present system of government works surprisingly well when the Presidency and Parliament are controlled by rival political parties. Both sides are constrained to be on their best behaviour.

The Government cannot take aggressively anti-people measures, whether it is in the passage of draconian security laws or harsh economic restructuring measures. The main difficulty is the uncertainty that results from the President's power to dissolve Parliament at any time after the passage of one year of Parliament's life.

By scoring a convincing victory at a referendum on the peace process, the government may be hoping to negate the opposition's ability to use the peace process as a basis for attacking the government.

On the other hand, it is well known that most people are very happy with the present ceasefire and are broadly supportive of the process that has led to it. Public opinion surveys that have been carried out by NGOs have shown this fact time and again without there being any rival findings on that score.

Recently even the President has been going out of her way to reassure the international community and the people at large that she is also supportive of the peace process and would continue it if she came back to power.

Clearly then it is not a referendum on the peace process that the country needs. The most compelling national need at this time is a decision by the government that it will find ways and means to share power and credit with the opposition in the peace process.

The primary responsibility for achieving a bipartisan approach lies with the Government led by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe on account of its access to the levers of power and position. On the other hand, the opposition led by President Chandrika Kumaratunga has a duty to be responsible in terms of what it wants from the Government in order to support it in finding a political solution.

Four point programme

* In considering how to induce collaboration between the President and the Government instead of the present adversarial relationship, it is necessary to recognise a basic principle of conflict resolution. Parties that feel themselves excluded from a process until the last moment, or are not included in it at all, are less likely to cooperate in ensuring the success of that process than parties that are included from the outset of the process.

Several months ago, the PA requested the Government to include one of its representatives in the peace talks with the LTTE taking place in Thailand. There was no evident response from the Government.

The Government should seriously consider inviting a nominee of the President who can be selected after mutual consultations. The basis for this invitation would be that the President is herself a member of the Government, presiding over Cabinet meetings and appointing the members of the Cabinet including the Prime Minister.

The Presidential nominee need not necessarily be a member of the PA, but could be an official from the Presidential Secretariat in whom the President has the requisite confidence.

If the LTTE is serious about getting the opposition on board the peace process, as it has said on numerous occasions, it should have no objection to the inclusion of a presidential nominee as a Governmental representative at the peace talks.

* A second measure that the Government could take would be to build on the breakthrough achieved at the peace talks held in Oslo where together with the LTTE it agreed to explore a federal solution within a united country.

The Government should accordingly invite all political parties to an all party conference to start deliberations on what type of federal solution would be most appropriate to the country. At present a large contingent of 21 members of the LTTE are travelling through various European countries trying to glean the essentials of the federal and other constitutional models practised in those countries.

But the final political solution is not only for the Government and LTTE to decide on by themselves. It should be decided on by all sectors of Sri Lankan society.

* Third, the Government should invite President Kumaratunga to lead if not participate along with the Sri Lankan Government delegation at the Tokyo donor conference in June. The donor countries and multilateral organisations want to feel confident that the peace process is on track and there is a national consensus backing it so that their investments will not go up in puffs of smoke.

At the present time, one of the main causes of uncertainty where the peace process is concerned is the stability of the Government due to opposition manoeuvring. There is no doubt that the presence of President Kumaratunga at the donor conference would strengthen Sri Lanka's case for being solidly on the road to peace.

* Finally, the Government should be prepared to make a major political sacrifice and abolish the executive presidency at the end of President Chandrika Kumaratunga's term. This would ensure that the President would be able to continue in politics after her second term is over. She has failed in the past and made mistakes with tragic consequences for the country, such as escalating the "war for peace" beyond all measure.

But she has the intellectual capacity and emotional strength to learn from the past. As a leader she is a national asset with many years of service left in her.

A four point programme such as the one sketched out above may be sufficiently attractive to President Kumaratunga to win her over to giving her fully fledged support to the peace process until her term of office ends in December 2005.

This would leave a little over two years from today for the Government, opposition and LTTE to work out a final solution to the ethnic conflict. Thereafter fresh general elections could be held sometime between then and December 2006 by which time the term of the present Parliament ends.

(The writer is the Media Director of the National Peace Council)

**************************

S. J. V. Chelvanayakam - the man and his mission

by M.K. Eelaventhan, General Secretary, Tamil Eelam Liberation Front

"His life was gentle and the elements so mixed in him that nature might stand up and say to all the world

'This was a man!' - Shakespeare

S.J.V. Chelvanayakam

S. J. V. Chelvanayakam the founder president of the Ilankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi, co-president of the TULF, above all the undisputed beloved leader of the Tamils threw away his mortal framework and has gone to the land of no return. He passed away on April 26, 1977 roughly a month after the freedom lovers had celebrated his entry into the eightieth year. The wonder in Mr. Chelvanayakam was that though he was very old and in declining health he was not classified as a person who had outlived his usefulness. It was strange but true that even contradictory forces valued his presence in Tamil politics as the main unifying factor.

In fact the death of Samual James Velupillai Chelvanayakam, as his full name goes, removed from the political scene, a fatherly figure who was respected, loved, admired and venerated by all irrespective of their political ideologies. Many leaders were respected and admired but only few have been venerated. Mr. Chelvanayakam ranks foremost among them. Politics is a dirty game but it must be said to his eternal credit that he purified it to a very great extent.

When many politicians formulated policies to suit the next election, Mr. Chelvanayakam thought and acted in a manner that would give an everlasting solution to the future generations. That's why he was not classified among the ordinary politicians.

He was an ascetic, a saint, and a statesman of colossal stature. In fact he was a leader who could not be bought over for the plums of office.

He spoke less and wrote less, but his thoughts were profound. Every word he uttered was measured and was meaningful. His concern was more for the content of the words than for the beauty of words. A leader must lead and never be led. In keeping with this concept he led the Tamil masses and he was never led by them. But as a true leader, he was always conscious of the aspiration of the masses. He read their pulse in a perfect manner.

Mr. Chelvanayakam really entered politics in his late forties, in the year 1947. His hold on the Tamil masses and the respect he has earned from non-Tamils and his political opponents continued undiminished.

That speaks for the quality of the man. The Sinhala political parties and the Sinhala masses, though, opposed to his political philosophy, felt his continued presence necessary to prevent Tamil "extremists" taking an upper hand.

The Tamil youths remember with deep gratitude his political vision and prophecy. We fear to think as to what would have happened to the Tamils if he had not entered the political scene in the late forties to guide them. It won't be considered an exaggeration to say that if he had not taken to politics not only Tamil rights but even the Tamils as an entity would have ceased to exist.

Ceylon has witnessed the birth of innumerable politicians but it is not difficult to count on one's fingers the number of statesmen produced by this island. Mr. Chelvanayakam ranks foremost among the statesmen Ceylon has produced. After Sir P. Ramanathan and Sir P. Arunachalam the vacuum that was created, though filled to some extent by the late G. G. Ponnampalam was not sustained by him. It is to the eternal credit of Mr. Chelvanayakam that he has filled this void in a most able manner.

Though Mr. Chelvanayakam may not have attained such eminence as the Ponnampalam brothers yet he stands unique for his political vision, sagacity and honest conviction. It was a Herculean task he had to perform to convince the Tamils of the dangers that were in sore for them. The Tamils are now convince as to what political philosophy they should adopt if they are to survive in this country as a separate entity preserving their language, culture, civilization and their way of life.

As to how much our Sinhala brothers are convinced about our problems and as to how far they are prepared to concede our rights remains a debatable point. But it is beyond doubt that all Sinhalese are now convinced that there is a gigantic Tamil problem and that it should be solved if there is to be real peace, harmony and progress in the country. Mr. Chelvanayakam stood for a federal constitution for the past 25 years or more as the ideal solution for the multi-lingual and multi-national problems facing the country.

He pursued this policy with the sincere hope of changing the hearts of the Sinhalese leaders. After having agitated for this goal and after the repeated disappointments on talks and pacts he had with the successive Sinhala governments, he came to the irrevocable decision of having a sovereign Tamil State - Tamil Eelam State, as the only solution left for the Tamils if they have to live with self respect in this country.

This was not an easy decision. For Chelva it was a very painful decision knowing quite well the consequences that would flow from implementing same.

Mr. Chelvanayakam was by no stretch of imagination an orator. Oratorical skill was something unknown to him. But where brilliant orators and legal luminaries could not succeed, he succeeded immeasurably. When he spoke in an inaudible feeble voice measuring each word and pausing in between words, the audience tuned their ears to grasp the meaning of what he said because each word he uttered conveyed deep and profound thoughts. It was really a treat to listen to his speech and watch the reaction of the audience.

In his personal life he was simple. His residence at Tellipallai, Jaffna, and his rented house in Colombo revealed his simplicity. Anybody could meet him at any time and explain their problems. His patient hearing and above all his natural smile had a magnetic and a soothing effect on all who came in contact with him.

In Ceylon many enter politics with little wealth but amass wealth during their political careers. Mr. Chelvanayakam's career was just the reverse. As a leading civil lawyer he was very wealthy when he entered politics, but at the time of his death it can be said without contradiction that his wealth was at its lowest ebb. That speaks volumes for the enormous sacrifices he has made for the cause he championed.

Mr. Chelvanayakam who was a man of few words deep thought was an outstanding civil lawyer. Unlike some lawyers who for their love of words have lost their cases, Mr. Chelvanayakam was extremely careful in choosing his words. In fact every word was measured and uttered. If he was ever guilty of anything when choosing his words it was more the case of understatement than overstatement. It was often said that he used Biblical language. At the negotiating table he was at his best.

He was a hard bargainer who never yielded on fundamentals. The BC pact was a classic example of his grasp of the essential. Though Mr. Chelvanayakam was very often compared with Gandhi for his political honesty it would not be wrong to compare him with Jinnah for his grip and determination and or his unyielding attitude on fundamental issues. Typical of an able civil lawyer he knew how an where he should lay the stress.

Among the Tamil leaders only a very few have emphasized the preservation of the traditional homeland as an essential ingredient for the survival of the Tamil community. Mr. Chelvanayakam excelled in this thinking far above all leaders. "What the body is to a soul is the land to a linguistic group". It is necessary for its self-expression.

This undeniable truth had been repeatedly emphasized by Mr. Chelvanayakam and the Tamils are now much more conscious of this issue than any other issue that is facing them.

In conclusion Mr. Chelvanayakam was a rare phenomenon in Ceylon politics, a type of which may not appear in the future. Whether anyone agreed with this political philosophy or not it is readily accepted that his impact is permanent in the political sphere of this country. Mr. Chelvanayakam was essentially a man of peace. He liked to find solutions to problems in a peaceful manner.

But certainly he did not desire the peace that prevails in the graveyard. He wanted peace with honour. He was a political prophet nay a messiah who had shown the promised land to the Tamils.

It is left to the Tamils to achieve it and for the Sinhala brothers to readily concede and prove to the world that they believe and practise the Buddha Dhamma in its purest form.

It is only in the creation of a Tamil state that a true spirit of friendship and cordiality could prevail between the Sinhala and Tamils on a permanent and everlasting basis.

**************************

A peace plea

For the silencing of all guns - I thank You
For the returning home, of many daughters
and sons - I thank You
For the re-opening of roads and highways
For helping us not to insist on 'Our' way ...
Lord, I thank You.

* *

For each time I've said, "Do you call
this 'Peace'? - Forgive me
For each time I've said, "This problem's
not mine to ease" - Forgive me
For each time I've pretended to be blind
For the many 'friends', I've refused to find
Dear God, Forgive me.

* *

For the listening each day to my
pleas and cries - I thank You
For having a little child open my eyes -
I thank You
For making me realize that the weapons
of war
Have been silent - now for one whole year
Lord, I thank You.

* *

When in future days I'm assailed by fear
and doubt - remind me, that You're near.
When I understand not what is being done
When days seem black, when things
seem wrong
Help me remember through it all
that it's only You who'll answer that
hapless call
and that finally,
finally,
Peace will come ---
Dear Lord, some day
Thy will be done"

Rose Aserappa

www.crescat.com

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