From time to time we have urged legislators to take a good hard look at the number of political parties springing up with a strong communal and/or religious bent, whipping up racial and religious disharmony - if not hatred, and to analyse its impact on Sri Lankan society.

As recently as May 24, in the flush of military victory over the LTTE, we said in this very space: "So long as we have political parties that emphasize a community in order to win a class of votes to be used as a bargaining lever in coalition politics, Sri Lanka will not be able to march to a single drum". The one-nation, one-people concept will remain a myth should that be the case.

Hence, we welcome the Government's introduction of legislation to ban parties that carry names that denote a community or religion. The proposed bill has understandably been challenged by those who will be affected, and unfortunately, the draft laws do not extend to racist parties and politicians espousing racial and/or religious bigotry. But at least a start has been made.

In colonial times, there was a need for national identity separate from the British Raj and so emerged the Orient Club, and then sports clubs bearing a community’s name. This extended to the political canvas with the advent of self-rule.

The country's oldest political parties like the Lanka Sama Samaja Party and the Ceylon National Congress (later the United National Party) embraced all races and religions, but gradually, ethnic politics gripped the nation.

In recent years, dozens of militant organizations branded themselves with the Eelam prefix and not to be outdone, a Sri Lanka Muslim Congress came on the scene, asking the people of the East in particular to vote for them or face the wrath of Allah. To complete the vicious circle, Buddhist monks entered Parliament and it was one political potpourri that caused indigestion to the body politic of Sri Lanka.

With the liberation of the North and East, fears mounted that the Government was proceeding on a majoritarian onslaught, kicking aside any vestiges of secularism and pluralism. A curious anomaly in the proposed law, however, is that while it forbids the use of racial and religious names it is silent on the use of the word "Eelam" for a political party. What an omission that is.

Three-quarters of Sri Lanka is Sinhala-Buddhist, but no one group can claim to be their spokesman. This applies to other races and religions as well.

This country is not only bitterly divided on ethnic and religious lines, but sharp divisions within them (as depicted on the opposite page) are also need to be checked. The need of the hour is unity and vigilance. But while commending the Government for introducing this aspect of legislation and hoping it will see safe passage through Parliament, we reserve comment about some of the other provisions in the same package.

These relate mainly to empowering the Elections Commissioner to supervise political parties, their accounts, finances, intra-party democracy and the like.

In the vacuum of the non-implemntation of the 17th Amendment that should see an independent Elections Commission, there is a real possibility of the selective exercise of these laws. This in turn would be detrimental to the fragile democracy that exists in Sri Lanka.

Myanmar- A friend in need

Strange happenings unfolded this week in Myanmar. Judges hearing what was clearly a 'show trial' of that country's unofficial Opposition Leader Aung San Suu Kyi gave a verdict sentencing her to a further period of detention and then the Home Minister dramatically turned up in Court to mitigate the sentence by order of the military Head of State to a lower term.

Sri Lanka's ties with Myanmar go back to the 11th and 12th centuries of the Polonnaruwa era when Kings Parakramabahu I and Vijayabahu I forged close political links with the country then known as Ramanna, later Burma and now Myanmar. These were further consolidated through Theravada Buddhism.

Ms. Suu Kyi's late father, General Aung San, considered the Father of modern Myanmar, led the freedom struggle. She went to Oxford University and led a quiet life until the pull of politics drew her home. At the national elections in 1990, she was not allowed to contest, but her National League for Democracy party won 392 of the 485 seats - the military refused to honour the results and a military junta runs Buddhist Myanmar even today.

Sri Lanka's Parliament has a proud record of expressing solidarity with freedom struggles around the world. One of its motions called for the release of Nelson Mandela from long years of imprisonment at Robben Island and another in July 1995, for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi.

Recent experience has made us somewhat wary of preaching to others. We have resented the 'forked tongue' sermons from Western powers, and sometimes India, so comment on political developments in other countries is dicey. Even in traditional conflict theatres like Palestine, our obligations to Israel for its help in liquidating the LTTE, see us remain mute. In the case of Tibet, we just cannot afford to antagonise China.

Economic sanctions are the West's way of dealing with countries that don't toe their line - i.e. other than bombing their cities. Sri Lanka made its position clear recently when the Commonwealth discussed punishing Fiji with economic sanctions after its military coup failed to re-introduce democracy, saying sanctions only hit the poorest of the poor and have little impact on dictatorships.

And yet, even in the midst of sanctions by the West, it is business as usual for Myanmar with China, India - and even Japan, as indeed it ought to be.

But these countries need to spare a thought for democracy for the people of Myanmar, and through quiet diplomacy urge the Generals to free Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners so that this lovely nation could fully enjoy the freedom regained in 1947.