UNP's mandate and coalition politics

COALITION: With the invitation extended by President Mahinda Rajapaksa to the UNP to join the Cabinet of Ministers at Thursday's meeting between the SLFP and UNP that finalized the agreement on national consensus between the two parties, the die has been cast on the cooperation between these two main parties in Sri Lankan politics.

Whether UNP members would accept this invitation or not remains to be seen. They could well decide it is possible to cooperate with the Government on the areas covered by the six points on which agreement has been reached, without accepting Cabinet office.

The Cabinet decision which preceded the SLFP-UNP agreement on restricting the salaries of all Ministers to that of MPs should take away some of the criticism about those from the Opposition accepting Cabinet office doing so for pecuniary benefits.

This decision on Ministers' salaries would also blunt some of the criticism of the size of the present Cabinet of Ministers and the many other Deputy Ministers and Ministers of State, over the heavy burden they impose on the public purse.

It could well be that there are MPs in the UNP who are both large hearted enough and imbued with a sense of service to the nation that they will be willing to cooperate with the Government without any of the perks of Cabinet office, now that higher salaries are not on offer.

The Cabinet decision on Ministers' salaries based on a recommendation by President Rajapaksa himself, could help ease the concerns among some UNP members had about accepting office in the Government, saving them from suspicions of personal gain being larger than the national interest.

The people's mandate

On the question of cooperation between the UNP and the Government, following President Rajapaksa opening the doors for such understanding between the Government and opposition parties on matters of national urgency and importance, there are some voices, particularly from the UNP quarters who say the UNP has neither received a mandate from the people to join hands with the Government nor to accept Cabinet office.

The fact is that this question was never put before the people and their mandate sought on it. Also, the workings of a political party after election is not always totally adherent to the policies it placed before the people or not at the time it sought its mandate.

Those carrying on the not-so-well-thought-out sideline attacks on the possibility of an SLFP - UNP understanding, especially from rightwing quarters, do not seem to have understood the reality of a people's mandate or are trying to fool others about it.

What is significant is that every important political party that contests a general election, except those that contest only to carry their political message to the people, do so seeking the mandate of the people for governance, or share in it.

It so happens that very often one such party gets a larger number of votes and is able to form a government, either by itself or in coalition with others. This has been the practice in Sri Lanka for several decades with governments led by the UNP or SLFP.

The fact that a political party did not win sufficient seats to enable to form a government by itself does not hide the fact that those who voted for it did so in the belief that it would form a government.

There could well be very good reason for one to think that an alliance between the SLFP and UNP is not what is needed today. That is a matter of political judgment, which is based on political reality, ideology or opportunism.

The jury will definitely remain out on the question whether the proposed SLFP - UNP alliance is the sole means to resolve the ethnic issue and bring an end to the war. That such an alliance is not the substance of a national government needs no underscoring.

Yet, in the context of the deep political divisions we have, it is not possible to ignore the public feeling that a getting together of these two parties is necessary to approach a national consensus on the challenges facing the country today.

Thus, realizing this public feeling, President Rajapaksa has traversed the extra mile that leaders before could not go, to bring about the understanding between parties that the people have wanted for so long.

The past record

In this context it is irrelevant to raise issue whether the UNP has a mandate for such agreement or not. To do so leaves room for many questions to be asked about the UNP's earlier mandates. To begin at the beginning, did the first UNP government elected in 1947 have a mandate from the people to disenfranchise the plantation workers of Indian origin and make them stateless?

Did the UNP have a public mandate to raise the price of rice in 1952? Was it with a mandate from the people that the UNP opposed the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam Pact in 1957? Did the UNP, after the 1965 election, have a mandate to form a coalition with the Federal Party and the Tamil Congress among others?

When did the UNP get a mandate to change the electoral system from first-past-the-post to proportional representation, and that too with the prevailing preferential vote or ugly "manaapey" system? Who gave a mandate to the UNP to run down the CTB and bring it to final ruin?

Similarly, one has to ask the question whether the SLFP, LSSP and CP had any mandate from the people to oppose the Dudley Senanayake - Chelvanayakam Pact after 1965 and ensure its abrogation.

This is particularly moot with regard to the LSSP and CP that stood for parity of status for Sinhala and Tamil in 1956 and were courageous enough to risk their political fortunes over it? Was it because of an electoral mandate that the SLFP and JVP opposed the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord and Provincial Councils in 1987, and was it with any public mandate that they enjoy the benefits of Provincial Councils today?

What all this shows is that political parties are not, and cannot be solely tied down to the terms of a mandate they received at the time of a general election, when the ground situation changes after such election.

As long as it is not a gross departure from the policies enunciated at the time of election, all political parties and political leaders will of necessity have to alter course, make changes in policy and take action that they genuinely believe is for the common good. Intelligent and informed criticism of such action is a necessary aspect of democracy, but to cavil at such decisions is to undermine the democratic process.

Reality of coalitions

For the first time since independence what we see emerging in Sri Lanka is a grand coalition. It is certainly not a national government, for such would need a wider embrace. If the UNP comes into a fully working understanding with the SLFP, with participation in the Cabinet too, it will be a further step in coalition government; an expansion of the UPFA-led coalition that is in office today.

The trend of events may well make some within the UNP fear that getting too close to the SLFP may result in the latter swallowing up the former. But such fears can exist within the SLFP too about close relations with the UNP.

What is needed is to rise above such fears in what can be a major stride in the national interest, where the matter at issue is the country at large and not one of trying to figure out who would swallow whom between the two players.

Coalitions of one type or another have become the style of democracy in many countries. This is best seen in the governments of India, which have been a succession of coalitions that have even lasted the full electoral term, and had good performance sheets at the end.

While an SLFP - UNP agreement is not, and cannot be, the sole purpose of politics or the aim of good governance in Sri Lanka, it is certainly going a great distance in helping change attitudes regarding parties in government and in opposition, at least for the foreseeable future.

Mahinda Rajapaksa has been the catalyst in this change. There is much more to be done to change the futures of our people.