Trust the people to choose the model of Governance

SPECTATOR

GOVERNANCE: There are three overriding inter-related issues on the National Question confronting the Government and, indeed, the country viz. continuing peace negotiations with the LTTE, the pursuit of robust military action to weaken, if not overwhelm, the LTTE and an agreed constitutional settlement to bind and bond the different language groups and communities in a united Sri Lanka.

Realism demands that the order should be changed. Fruitful peace negotiations with the LTTE depend very much on success relating to the two other issues.

Currently, what is there to talk to the LTTE except a ceasefire that provides it legitimacy to control an area to do what it likes? Few would now dispute that the 2002 CFA proved in practice to be an unmitigated disaster in terms of deadly destruction of lives and damage to property.

It was “peace for war” as far as the LTTE was concerned as they rearmed themselves, violated the ceasefire with impunity, attempted to grab territory and eliminated brutally Tamil opponents and informants. It took the emergence of this Administration for an effective fight-back.

One doubts the merit of going on the peace talks road again. Even more so because, as far as substantive issues on a political solution to the Tamil problem facing the country as a whole are concerned, it is frankly absurd for the Government to discuss them with one party when there are many other groups of Tamil stakeholders. The claim that the LTTE is the sole representative of the Tamils defies reality.

This is not to say that the Government should not offer the LTTE hope for the future.

It should be warmly invited to join the current all-party political process of reaching a consensus on a constitutional settlement, the primary objective of which is to satisfy the legitimate aspirations of the Tamil-speaking groups in the country as a whole.

That should be contingent on the LTTE decommissioning its arms and joining permanently the political mainstream.

LTTE activists then could and should be treated with magnanimity. Not even the most revengeful would begrudge if Prabakaran’s St Helena is the salubrious climes of Norway courtesy of Messrs Solheim and Bauer!

The second issue relates to military action against the LTTE. On this point there is an awful lot of muddled thinking displayed by the so-called Co-Chairs (foreign powers), NGOs (foreign funded) and perhaps the Leader of the Opposition.

All of them proclaim ad nauseam that there can be no military solution to the conflict as if repetition makes the opinion truer and unchallengeable.

That is wrong reasoning that they just seem not to want to let go. There may well not be a purely military solution to the conflict with the LTTE if it is meant in the same sense, for example, as there can be no totally military solution for the US led Coalition forces in Iraq against the insurgents and militants, the NATO forces against the Taleban in Afghanistan, government forces against FARC in Colombia, or even the Indian government forces against the Kashmiri and Naga separatists (the Khalistan militants were pulverized into oblivion with an iron military fist).

In all these examples, war is being conducted to militarily weaken the perpetrators of terrorist acts so that their destructive powers and potential are reduced to insignificant levels and to win the hearts and minds of the population.

It is time the international community, and the locals of all hues, realised that the biggest obstacles to peace and stability in Sri Lanka is the military strength of the LTTE. Until LTTE arms are decommissioned, voluntarily or by force, there can be no peace in the country. It goes without saying that military action has to be used sensitively to avoid (except accidentally) collateral damage to civilians.

Clearing LTTE controlled areas must be followed immediately too by rapid reconstruction, rehabilitation and the well-being of the population.

Above all, cleared Tamil areas must be largely run and managed (including policing) by Tamils themselves, especially locals (as now increasingly in the newly cleared areas of the Eastern Province), rather than the military or non-Tamil speaking administrators.

The third issue is shaping a constitutional settlement primarily, though not exclusively, to deal with the legitimate grievances of the Tamil-speaking communities. A permanent solution to the National Question is no doubt as important as bringing to a successful conclusion the ongoing military effort to subdue the LTTE.

Much thought and effort has gone into this exercise over the past year in the All Party Committee. One should not under-estimate the progress that has been made in reaching common ground on the “vision thing” — values and goals.

The achievements, to its credit, range from a common understanding that the legitimate grievances of the Tamils must be dealt with, that there should be increased decentralisation of administration right down to the village level regardless whether it is under a federal or unitary form of government, that governance should be improved and that corruption in public institutions minimised.

Yet it is blindingly obvious that attempting to reach a consensus on a single set of proposals on a constitutional settlement is a mirage. The differences on the institutional framework and design to achieve common values and goals are too fundamental to reconcile by a form of words, by compromises, or by “fudge and mudge”. .

The Government parliamentarians indiscipline and incoherence culminating in the recent sackings may be entertaining side-shows. But the fact remains that the Government Coalition is a heterogeneous, loosely knit group with few loyalties and widely different views on a new institutional model of government.

At one end of the spectrum, it embraces federalists and proponents of the merger (North and the East) as essential for a lasting political settlement.

At the other end, it includes those who are fervent advocates of a unitary form of government and strident opponents of the merger of the North and the East.

The UNP position reflects the opinions of the Leader of the Opposition. It is close to the so-called Majority Report. It is poles apart from the JVP position.

The latter has a no holds barred approach in support of a unitary form of government within which, it believes, the common “vision thing” could be achieved, and the actual and perceived problems of the minorities solved.

So how should the Government respond to this impasse? If it tries to impose one set of proposals, for example, the rumoured consensus proposals of Dr. Vitharna, the Coalition would implode, factionalism would be generalized, the international community grumble and the foreign funded NGOs quibble.

Worst of all tension in the country would rise as the JVP spearheads a revolt of the masses against the Government`s federalist ukase.

There is one way, and one way only, that the Government can keep its coalition together, have the prospect of satisfying other political parties, notably the JVP, obtain perhaps grudging acceptance of the international community and diffuse tension in the country.

That is to let the people in a national referendum choose, from a small number of alternatives, the model of government under which they wished to be ruled.

Additionally, for Government parliamentarians to be allowed the freedom to campaign in support of any of the choices presented to the electorate.

The decisions on institutional design are too important to be left to the Government or to Parliament or even to a “yes or no” vote on one proposal in a national referendum.

The extensive discussions so far have shown that there are three distinctive positions regarding the institutional design of a political solution to overcome the discontent of our times. One, a federal system exactly on the Indian model with the units of devolution based on the existing demarcation of provinces (or should it be by districts?).

That option, more unitary than federal, appears to be broadly in line with SLFP thinking, and presumably the President`s so far undisclosed choice. Two, a federal system on the lines of the so-called Majority Report, perhaps as gilded by Dr.Vitharna. That position seems to be in line with the views of the UNP, many of the parties representing the minorities and the old left. Third, a unitary form of government reflecting the position of the JVP.

A national referendum should be held with these three options in the ballot paper. People should be asked to vote for one, and only one, of them. The precise wording of each of the three choices to be put before the electorate could be undertaken by an All Party Group.

Should the referendum result in one option obtaining more than 50% (or to be more decisive 60%)of the vote that option should be the choice to be implemented. If none obtain the required percentage there should be a second national referendum after a month has elapsed.

The two choices receiving the highest vote in the first national referendum should then be ballotted. The proposal receiving the higher vote (or 60% if so agreed) should then be the choice to be implemented.

Finally, a declaration of intent. I support retention of the unitary form of government in improved form. But it is the voters who must decide. Two cheers for democracy!