transcurrents

UNP’s double U-turn on devolution

October 6th, 2007

by Rajan Philips

“The two WCs!” That was S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike poking fun years ago at the political abbreviations of the plantations-S. Thondaman’s CWC add the rival DWC of Abdul Aziz. Last week, it was ‘one double U-turn’ for the grand old party that Bandaranaike reluctantly co-founded and rapidly left in desperation. Whether it was intentional reversal by the UNP or inadvertent misinformation by the media, the UNP’s repositioning and re-repositioning on devolution caught everyone off guard. It brought the Party some headlines that it has been struggling to have for some time. And it certainly gave a new zest to the devolution debate that was going tedious and fruitless.

The first alleged announcement from the UNP was that the Party was ditching the ‘Federal’ label from its proposals for solving the national problem. Depending on who was writing, the UNP move was either credited as Machiavellian or dumped as Kotelawallian-after former Prime Minister Sir John Kotelawalla’s 1955 flip-flop on the language question. Anandasangaree, who normally needs a pickaxe to open his mouth to say a word against the Rajapakse government, was quick on the oral draw against Ranil Wickremasinghe. Even Mangala Smaraweera was reported to have been on the telephone trying to persuade the UNP leader not to give up on devolution.

On the other side, UNP-friendly editorialists were pleased with the levelling of the ethnic playing field in the South and were starting to advise the Tamil leadership (such as who?) to get used to making moderate claims now that the UNP and the Rajapakse-SLFP have found common ground on devolution. While N. Sathiya Moorthy from Chennai also chimed in with the same advice, there was speculation in Colombo about a national government comprising the two main parties with Ranil Wickremasinghe as Prime Minister.

The reactions, it turned out, were too quick to be good. Before the week was over, the UNP delivered a “Special Statement” that appeared to be a sober second thought. The statement is a pithily written political circular that lays out what every Sri Lankan who is honest and intelligent at the same time about the burning ethnic question would like to hear from a political organization. Curiously, the mainstream media appears to have all but ignored it. May be they did not like what they saw in the Special Statement.

New UNP: Devolve power, ditch labels

Entitled, “UNP for a Credible Power Sharing Arrangement without Federal or Unitary Labels”, the Special Statement sets out what are unexceptionable premises for a Southern political party with national claims: opposition to separation, military response to terrorism, and a political solution to the causes of separation and terrorism. The political solution must be based on cessation of violence, observance of human rights, and acceptance of democracy. It must address the grievances of the Tamils, the Muslim fears in the North-East, and the concerns among “some sections of the Sinhalese” that a political solution based on devolution will lead to separation.

Significantly, while the media reports on the first U-turn indicated that the UNP had reverted back to the 13th Amendment position from the Oslo declaration to explore a federal solution, the Special Statement gives the lie to this interpretation. The statement indicates a position of flexibility about the units of devolution implying both Provincial and larger Regional Councils. The power sharing will involve the national government, Provincial/Regional Councils and Local Authorities. What is more, there is a specific reference to the need for a system to safeguard devolved powers. Except for their inclusion by way of rejection in the title, the unitary and federal labels find no place in the statement.

In the immediate term, the statement calls for a cessation of hostilities arranged by India and the Co-chairs under a revised Ceasefire Agreement, and for the inclusion of a Muslim delegation and other parties and groups in the peace talks with the LTTE. In the end, a negotiated political settlement ratified by the people of all communities in a referendum will be the basis for a constitutional amendment that will be passed by parliament and again submitted to the people for final approval.

Easier said than done, but better than saying and doing the same old, same old, that has taken us nowhere. The fact that the UNP has made the statement does not mean the UNP and its leader are capable of delivering on its promises. It may be that President Rajapakse is the only leader capable of leading a successful referendum campaign for a political solution and constitutional change at the present time. But the question is: what is the political solution that President Rajapakse will put to the test in a referendum?

A few weeks ago, President Rajapakse was hailed as the lone defender of the unitary state in Sri Lanka and, in the good old English imperial way, was compared to Horatius Cocles, the legendary defender of ancient Rome’s gateway at the Tiber bridge. If the UNP had stuck with its first U-turn, there would have been two defenders of the unitary state-Rajapakse and Wickremasinghe-and ‘two captains of the gate!’ instead of one, to modify Lord Macaulay’s English imperial rendering of the Roman Legend. But the UNP’s second U-turn has left Mahinda Rajapakse alone at the bridge.

New SLFP: United Lanka

But Mahinda Rajapakse has the option of leaving the broken bridge at the chauvinistic extreme and building a new bridge between Lanka’s different communities by moving to the political centre and a position of moderation. He will not be accused of plagiarizing if he takes over the contents of the UNP’s Special Statement and makes them his own. In fact, there is not too much distance between the UNP’s Special Statement and his own statements. At the UN, for example, he acknowledged the reality of Tamil grievances and aspirations, giving the lie to some of his cheerleaders back home who with adversarial intoxication speak about ‘perceived Tamil grievances, and undefined aspirations’. President Rajapakse is no doubt aware that the substance of the UNP’s Special Statement is already well entrenched among many Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims, even among the members of his own Party.

In a revealing but so far unappreciated media interview, Dilan Perera, one of the new generation of SLFP leaders, rejected the view that all SLFPers are in the communal cauldron with the JVP and the JHU, swearing by the unitary mantra. Describing his personal position in the SLFP, he said that he belongs “to the camp that supports the ‘united’ character. The word unitary is creating dissension. But it should not be so because until 1972, we never had the word unitary in our constitution. Despite the word unitary lacking constitutional recognition prior to 1972, Sri Lanka never got divided. History bears testimony to the sharing of power in an undivided Sri Lanka centuries ago. We were one country and the absence of one word did not divide us. I stand for a united Lank. I think that’s the camp the majority of the SLFPers belong to.” Mr. Perera had the courage of his conviction to admit that he is “a firm supporter of a federal form of government and not scared to use the word ‘federal’ but saw the need to “move beyond words”.

There have been other new sources of encouragement for devolution, notably Chief Justice Sarath Nanda Silva, who almost on the eve of the UNP’s first U-turn, weighed in with the call for the implementation of a meaningful devolution package to facilitate a negotiated settlement to the national problem. “End bloodshed, empower provinces-CJ”, was how an English daily entitled its news story. According to the story, the CJ “urged the government not to hold on to power but devolve powers without hesitation, without obstructing the State or the people of Sri Lanka.”

The UNP’s Special Statement and President Rajapakse’s promises at the UN throw a new spotlight on the deliberations and the potential outcome of the APRC. If both Mahinda Rajapakse and Ranil Wickremasinghe mean what they say and say what they mean, they are in honour bound to jointly encourage the APRC to conclude its work and produce its recommendations. The two men should then jointly ensure that the recommendations are implemented within a specified timeframe.

Entry Filed under: transCurrents NewsFeatures