News
TNA’s commitment to unitary state –biggest achievement of Constitutional reforms
View(s):A worrying and critical feature of Sri Lanka’s current political discourse is the absence of policy-based national dialogues in respect of the issues facing the country. A democracy functions best when there are contending points of view in respect of matters of Governance, which can inform any decision the country takes.
Instead, what we witness today are irrational and emotion-driven statements designed to upset and drive insecurity among the people, in the pursuit of political objectives. What is worse is that, often facts are distorted and falsified to achieve the desired effect. And when all this fails, individuals are personally targeted, on the premise that it is easy to give the dog a bad name and hang it, rather than engage in meaningful and constructive dialogue.
Recent events cast ominous shadows with regard to the direction that the country can take, and the inevitable roll back of the democratic achievements of the past few years, if urgent steps are not taken to prevent such a trend from overtaking the country.
Take the case of Vijayakala Maheswaran’s statement calling for the revival of the LTTE, as a way of resolving the concerns of the Tamil people. The Joint Opposition (JO) and its supporters have seized upon her thoughtless statement and blown it completely out of proportion. Mrs Maheswaran is only an individual, but the problem is that, Mrs Maheswaran made such a statement as a State Minister, causing great embarrassment to the Government in general, and the UNP in particular.
The Government and Parliament took immediate action against Mrs Maheswaran who was asked to step down from her position, and a CID inquiry immediately launched, while Speaker Karu Jayasuriya sought the Attorney General’s advice on the matter. Seemingly dissatisfied with the actions taken by the Government, some members of the JO entered the well of Parliament in protest, as they are now in the habit of doing when they wish to make a point.
What else they expected the Government to do is not clear. It seems they were more keen on creating a rumpus, to divert public attention, rather than getting the issue addressed. Unless of course, they wanted summary justice without due process against Vijayakala Maheswaran, as was the case with Sarath Fonseka.
By her rash and irresponsible statement Mrs Maheswaran has not done the Government, the UNP, the Tamil community or the country a favour. None of them, least of all any sensible Tamil, will want the return of the LTTE. The untold damage caused to the Tamils, politically, culturally and socially, is irreversible. An independent research of the role of the LTTE and its impact on the Tamil community in particular and the country in general, will help document for posterity, that dark period in the history of the Tamils and the country as a whole.
The TNA seems to have realized this and is doggedly pursuing its objective of addressing Tamil grievances through Constitutional Reform. Where the TNA fails is in taking the message to the Tamil people that, while there is progress on some fronts, the delays in addressing the issues is not due to unwillingness on the part of the Government but, because of its sluggish pace in all areas of Governance.
The Government too should market the fact that the TNA which earlier called for federalism, has committed itself to a united, undivided and indivisible Sri Lanka and thereby, addressed the fears articulated in the South that federalism can lead to separation. This is, undoubtedly, one of the significant achievements of the current Constitutional Reform process.
The JO’s actions in pouncing on Vijayakala Maheswaran’s statement and attempting to create the impression that the LTTE is at the doorstep of Colombo, is a continuance of its strategy of using every handle, particularly those with communal overtones, to create instability in the country. This strategy is as irresponsible as Mrs Maheswaran’s statement, and is detrimental to the well-being of the country and the relationships between the communities.
One could not fault the Opposition for criticising the Government, if it failed to act against Mrs. Maheswaran, but even such criticism should be couched in sober language designed to douse the flames, rather than inflame passions to mislead the public and cause a dent in inter-communal harmony.
Another example of news being distorted and fed to the people is the issue of Army camps in the North. When the Army relocates its camps in the North, to return private lands occupied by it during the ‘civil war’, the JO makes it out as a withdrawal of the Army from the North, to pave the way for the return of the LTTE. This distortion has found some resonance in the South, with even some leading members of the Buddhist clergy believing this story. The Government, for its part, seems indifferent to correct this wrong impression, without communicating the correct position to the people.
In the wake of the expose by the New York Times (NYT), of the payments allegedly made by the Chinese to the Rajapakse camp, on the eve of the last Presidential elections, JO members are claiming that the US funded the regime change in the country. They are relying on US Government reports that the US funded programmes to strengthen democracy in Sri Lanka and two other countries. There is no argument that, if the JO has specific allegations against the US (like in the case of the NYT) such allegations should be investigated.
However, with regard to the information in the public domain, there is a marked difference in the two allegations. The NYT allegations refer to clandestine payments made to individuals and political parties, which only surfaced after the media expose. The US Government’s funding was done publicly and through official channels, and probably had the objective of creating and strengthening democratic norms through attitudinal changes in the country, rather than funding political parties.
The newest trend in the political and public discourse in the country is to personalise criticism of individuals with whom one does not agree. This is evident from the criticism made against National Human Rights Commission Chairperson Dr Deepika Udagama, by calling her an LTTE agent. Civil Society has come out strongly in defence of Dr Udagama and the Prime Minister’s office too, has strongly condemned the statement made by ex UPFA MP Rear Admiral (Rtd) Sarath Weerasekera.
Last week saw a continuation of this trend of deliberate distortion and personal vilification, when various allegations were made against Parliamentarians Dr Jayampathy Wickremeratne and M.A. Sumanthiran, as well as the Panel of Experts assisting the Steering Committee (SC) of the Constitutional Assembly (CA). Allegations were made that the two Parliamentarians and one of the Experts had drafted a Constitution or a Constitutional paper (media reports do not make it clear which one it is ) without the rest of the Experts being aware of the contents of such a document.
On Friday, in Parliament, Dr Wickremeratne and Mr Sumanthiran set the record straight and explained the sequence of events that took place, and denied that either of them had been involved in drafting a document without the knowledge of others in the SC. But one can be sure that, notwithstanding such clarifications, the JO will find avenues to criticise the process.
From the outset of the CA process, it was very clear that the Panel of Experts had been appointed to provide technical expertise to give effect to the policy decisions of the SC. Before any document is placed before the CA, the SC, which also includes JO representatives, will have to approve such a document.
The most hilarious in the latest disinformation campaign is the claim by Dayasiri Jayasekera and other JO members that, there is a conspiracy to oust the President through provisions contained in the alleged draft. According to them, a provision has been included whereby, the Speaker, Prime Minster and Leader of the Opposition can remove the President, if all 3 agree. No one in his right senses will even suggest such an absurd provision which will, in any case, be shot down by the Courts, and will violate the sovereignty of the people. So, in all probability, this is another figment of the imagination of the JO, designed to derail the Constitutional Reform process.
The Government needs to be alert and get its message across to the people through an effective media strategy. If it fails to do so, it will have to face the consequences at future Elections.
(javidyusuf@gmail.com)