Archives

by Jehan Perera

One key reason why politicians do not do what is in the national interest is that they are also looking out for their own and their party's interests.

The same reason is likely to be operative in the current political crisis as well. The pursuit of power will always be a determining factor with politicians. But there are ways in which the political power struggle may be moderated. One is for the two sides to find solutions that benefit them both.

Taking the peace process forward is in the interests of virtually everyone in the country. It is also in the interests of the three main political actors, the government, the PA-led opposition and the LTTE. Already the government and LTTE have shown in their negotiations that it is possible to reach agreements that lead to a build up of confidence on both sides and also benefits the people. The same can be true of the Government and opposition.

President Chandrika Kumaratunga's proposed power sharing scheme a fortnight ago with regard to the peace process briefly raised hopes that a quick solution to the present political crisis may be in the offing. On the face of it, what the President proposed seemed quite reasonable. In her proposal she sought to address the peace process as a first priority.

The stalling of the peace process, coupled with the suspension of Norwegian facilitation, has been the most threatening aspect of the political crisis that erupted with the President's unilateral take-over of three ministries of the Government. Getting the peace process back on track would be the number one priority of the nation.

The President's proposals provide mechanisms for resolving the deadlock in the peace process that has arisen due to the Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe's insistence that peace talks and authority over defence go hand in hand. They also provide for a substantial broad basing of the peace process.

One of the major complaints regarding the peace process has been the exclusivist attitude of the Government. Only the members of the negotiating teams and a handful of others knew what was really going on in the peace process. It has sometimes been said that only the Prime Minister knows where he wants the peace process to go.

The President's proposals envisaged setting up a joint council co-chaired by both the President and Prime Minister which would set the overall policy direction of the peace process and to which the negotiating team would report. The inclusion of presidential nominees in the negotiating team and a civil society advisory body were some of the other key features in the President's proposals. While the Government interacted with civil society groups during the course of the past two years regarding the peace process, this was mostly on a spontaneous and ad hoc basis. The President's proposals would ensure a much greater participation from diverse interest groups in the peace process.

No alternative

It is easy to believe that the Government's rejection of the President's proposal was because they were brought up outside of the mutually agreed joint committee framework. Despite their merits, the President's proposals were unilateral and taken outside of the joint committee which she was jointly responsible for setting up along with the Prime Minister.

The problem is that unilateral actions taken when joint actions are both expected and necessary will create suspicion that what is really being sought is to implement a hidden agenda. In any negotiation much depends on the spirit with which the negotiators enter into the negotiations. Erosion of confidence at the outset itself due to unilateral action is a bad sign.

But the alternative to a negotiated settlement of the cohabitation crisis is not preparing for an election, as some members of the Government and opposition seem to believe. Elections may seem to be the easy way out when reaching agreement at the negotiating table is difficult.

But it should be clear to the politicians on both sides that people want the Government and President to work together. There is no popular demand for a snap election. Not a single religious, business or civic organisation of any reputation has made a call for another election. Far from calling for another election, the vast majority of people actually fear and shrink the possibility. In the past three years there have been two general elections.

People know that elections are arenas of violent conflict between the rival candidates.

Elections also cost a lot of money, both to the Treasury and to the candidates. In the budget that was presented last month, the Government imposed a variety of taxes to extract money out of even the poorest of the people. The country can ill afford to spend another billion rupees on another election as a tool of conflict resolution.

But the main reason an election is not an alternative to a negotiated solution is that it simply will not solve the problem. On the contrary, a general election at this time will only polarise the political situation even more. Under the present electoral system of proportional representation, neither the Government nor the opposition can obtain the 2/3 majority that offers the possibility of a unilateral solution. Without such a majority there is nothing to stop the President from utilising her presidential powers to take over ministries, including the Defence ministry, in the future as well. Another deadlock is likely to be the only follow up to another election, and in the meantime the country's development and peace prospects will decline.

Key motivation

The weightiest motive for a politician to do anything is to obtain or keep political power. It is through the wielding of political power that a politician can turn his or her dreams into reality. The primary way that politicians serve the people who elect them is not through educating people, as in the case of intellectuals, or advocacy, as in the case of NGOs, which are essentially indirect ways of ensuring change. Rather, it is through the direct and hands-on power of making decisions and having those decisions implemented that politicians can best serve the people.

Therefore, in crafting a stable political solution to the present crisis, the reality of a power struggle needs to be recognised, and the President and her party's abiding interest in political power needs to be dealt with. By taking over three of the most powerful ministries of the government, President Kumaratunga brought herself into the centre stage of national politics.

For two years, she was marginalised by the Government and treated without respect within the Cabinet by some of the members of the government. But now by taking over those ministries, the President has asserted her equality with the Prime Minister in governance, even though she has only three ministries and he retains more than 30.

However, a fundamental asymmetry still remains and the President would wish to end this asymmetry as well. Under clause 31(2) of the constitution, President Kumaratunga cannot contest the presidency a third time. But she is her party's biggest asset in terms of courting the votes of the general public. It is due to her leadership that the Sri Lanka Freedom Party became a middle of the road party both in terms of economic policy and with respect to the ethnic minorities. An artificial diminishing of Presidsent Kumaratunga's role in Sri Lankan politics is to the detriment of the country at large.

It cannot be forgotten that it was the President who virtually single handedly turned her party around and gave the country its correct orientation in terms of resolving the ethnic conflict. Without her presence at the helm of affairs, there is the possibility of the SLFP reverting to its pre-Chandrika roots, with its emphasis on the negative aspects of state socialism and insular Sinhala Buddhist nationalism. Such a political party would be the natural ally of ultra nationalist and left wing extremist forces. Therefore, a political strategy that seeks the exit of President Kumaratunga from leadership in national politics is likely to be a recipe for political polarisation in the future.

The reform or replacement of the Executive Presidency should be part and parcel of the overall political settlement. The joint committee of high officials of the President and Prime Minister who are meeting to find a workable compromise need to give their sincere attention to the overall political objective of their exercise.

They need to deal with the key issue, which is that of the future of President Kumaratunga as a fully empowered and undiminished political leader in Sri Lanka. If they are able to deal with the issue of the executive presidency, they are likely to be able to obtain the President's full cooperation on the peace process and on the framing of a new federal constitution.

Way forward

There are two options available with regard to a solution with regard to the Executive Presidency. One is the abolition of the executive Presidency. The other is the repeal of clause 31(2) of the constitution that debars anyone from running for the post of President who has already been twice elected.

The preferable option is the first, as the institution of the Executive Presidency has shown itself to be unsuitable for Sri Lanka's political culture. It is an undeniable fact that the three Presidents who were elected to that office have all ended up using its enormous powers for partisan reasons.

During the tragic years of Sri Lanka's civil war, one of the redeeming features was the steadfastness of sections of civil society and the international community in urging a negotiated solution between the Government and LTTE rather than a war for peace. Religious, business, civic, academic and labour leaders alike emphasised that the resort to arms was not the solution to the ethnic conflict. Members of the international community offered both economic and human resources to supplement the local initiatives in peace work.

In a like manner, it is very important that these same progressive sectors of society should once again step forward and affirm that there is no alternative to the present political crisis except for a negotiated settlement between the Government and President. Several non-partisan civic and religious organisations have already issued statements in this regard. There is no alternative to civilised and rational give and take at the negotiating table.

Today, the vast majority of Sinhalese people are united in desiring that the President and Prime Minister, representing two different political parties, should work together to take the peace process forward. What stands in the way is not nationalism but the quest for power of politicians.

Bipartisanship will be best achieved on the basis of the acceptance that the ethnic conflict can only be resolved through negotiations and that the framework should be a federal one.

The President and Prime Minister, with the backing of their respective parties, should agree to a joint initiative to democratise the polity through constitutional reform that also provides accommodation for an interim self-governing unit in the North-East of the country.

STONE 'N' STRING

www.ppilk.com

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

Produced by Lake House
Copyright © 2003 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager