Who wants
what in new alliance?
By Our Political Editor
- GL-Milinda secret document muddles
SLFP-UNP talks
- Angry JVP plans strong counter
action
Moragoda and Peiris
were daggers drawn in recent months, but the Common
National Agenda was their common bond to make friends
once again and together influence the powers that be.
Moragoda backed the Peiris initiative, but Senanayake
said that this was not a matter for the UNP to propose,
and in any event it was a matter for the Government
to come up with.
The trouble started this Tuesday with
the UNP's Working Committee meeting. The items on top
of the agenda went off smoothly with Sarathchandra Rajakaruna,
Sarath Ranawake and Lakshman Kiriella being inducted
into the party's highest policy making body. Then, it
was agreed to sack its one-time Labour Minister and
now Disaster Management Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe,
and that the annual convention of the party be held
in Colombo on November 19.
The election of the party chairman
and secretary was to be a thorny issue. Deputy Leader
Karu Jayasuriya had eventually relented to give up what
was initially offered to him -- the executive chairmanship
of the UNP, but some had their reservations against
these appointments.
In any event, both Party Leader Ranil
Wickremesinghe and Karu Jayasuriya agreed on appointing
Rukman Senanayake as the (non-executive) chairman and
Tissa Attanayake as secretary replacing Malik Samarawickrama
and N. Weragoda respectively.
Wickremesinghe spoke of the Senanayake
lineage, and said it was befitting for the party to
appoint the founder's (the late D.S. Senanayake) grandson
to the post on its 60th anniversary, while Karu Jayasuriya
said though the party decided to nominate him executive
chairman with full powers, that he was "donating"
his post to Rukman Senanayake.
But the still bigger issue facing
the party was not the appointment of either the chairman
or the secretary, but the moves by the Committee of
Seven who were negotiating with the Government on Collaboration
on what was called a Common National Agenda. The question
was how much was Common, how much was National, and
whose Agenda was it?
That same day, the Committee of Seven
met Party Leader Wickremesinghe, where Prof. G.L. Peiris,
the keenest of them all to collaborate with the Government,
presented a set of working papers for this collaboration.
The bundle of papers he gave the Party
Leader and the Committee contained the outline for the
formulation of a Common National Agenda on six prioritized
areas, viz., the Ethnic Issue, Electoral Reforms, Good
Governance, Economic Development, Nation Building, Social
Development -- all subjects that had already been agreed
to by the Committee -- and one area that the Committee
had not discussed.
This was on the Proposed Structure
for Collaboration. This paper seems to have been smuggled
into the bundle of papers that were to be handed over
to the Government as the UNP's proposal for Collaboration.
Only the newly appointed chairman of the Party, Rukman
Senanayake, and as it later transpired --Milinda Moragoda
had seen this document earlier -- not the others on
the Committee. Outgoing chairman Samarawickrama, John
Amaratunga and Ravi Karunanayake said they had not seen
this document, and whether Karu Jayasuriya knew about
it remains a mystery.
Moragoda and Peiris were daggers drawn
in recent months, but the Common National Agenda was
their common bond to make friends once again and together
influence the powers that be. Moragoda backed the Peiris
initiative, but Senanayake said that this was not a
matter for the UNP to propose, and in any event it was
a matter for the Government to come up with.
The upshot of the seventh issue --
the proposed structure for collaboration contained provisions
for UNP MPs to accept Cabinet Ministerships and Deputy
Ministerships while being in the Opposition. A neat
precedent was quoted -- the time in November 2003 when
D.M. Jayaratne and Lakshman Kadirgamar were appointed
from the Opposition by President Chandrika Kumaratunga
as Ministers in the UNP Cabinet.
Senanayake said that this was a matter
that the Party leader must decide on behalf of the UNP.
And what was more, the reference to D.M. Jayaratne and
Lakshman Kadirgamar becoming Ministers in a UNP Cabinet
was not a good precedence for the UNP to quote for its
benefit, because this was an issue the UNP Government
of 2001-2004 vehemently opposed as a bad precedence
in good governance.
Therefore, the Committee of Seven
shot down Issue no. 7 saying that the structure for
collaboration -- on how the UNP was going to implement
these other six issues they have agreed to collaborate
with the Government -- was a matter for the Party Leader
to discuss directly with President Mahinda Rajapaksa,
and was therefore, not a matter for the two sides negotiating
to decide.
This put paid to the attempt to make
the UNPers to accept Cabinet Ministerships. It was only
very recently that the UNP announced that their going
for collaboration talks with the Government had nothing
to do with accepting portfolios, so the G.L. Peiris'
proposal which specifically mentioned this very subject,
showed that the UNP was only craving for posts.
The Peiris Proposal says this;
"Members of Parliament who are
currently in the Opposition will continue to sit in
Opposition, and will remain members of the party to
which they belong at present, but they will be eligible
to hold Ministerial or Deputy Ministerial office. This
arrangement does not infringe any principle enshrined
in the Constitution which is entirely consistent with
multi-party involvement in the performance of executive
functions ".
While, it is true that the Constitution
provides for this, and where there is a National Government,
such could be the case, it was the motives behind such
a proposal that was the moot point. The fact that this
proposal was attempted to be smuggled in a set of papers
that the party was to hand over to the Government without
others in the Committee seeing it is horrendous to say
the least.
Compounding this was the fact that
Peiris thereafter went about saying that the Party Leader
was sabotaging the UNP-SLFP talks, something that reached
the ear of President Rajapaksa himself. Peiris then
met Prime Minister Ratnasiri Wickramanayake and wanted
the Structure for Collaboration to be mooted from the
Government side.
In any event, the UNP delegation that
went for talks on Thursday with the SLFP team headed
by Prime Minister Wickramanayake dropped this proposal
from its main submissions, and the official communique
issued later that day merely stated that the delegations
expressed agreement about the content of the reports
submitted by the sub-committees dealing with the Common
National Agenda in respect of the six priority areas,
and that the delegations "endorsed the report of
the sub-committee which had made recommendations to
the plenary on the structure appropriate for the implementation
of the CNA. In other words whether this is going to
be done by the UNPers accepting Ministries.
The delegations also decided that
all this will be done in 10 days time, and before the
Maha Nayakes, other religious leaders and representatives
of civil society.
By then, Party Leader Wickremesinghe
had already arrived in Sydney for the IDU (International
Democratic Union) Asia-Pacific roundtable, of which
he is the President, and Karu Jayasuriya gave him a
brief account of what had happened during the talks
with the Government.
There were some salutary aspects of
the Peiris Proposal. He has suggested the re-establishment
of the Executive Committee system that existed in the
old State Council where members from both sides of Parliament
join in Committees that could run Ministries through
Parliament.
Many opine that this is an out-dated
system, and propose the US style Oversights Committees
that enforce laws in the US, and which gave public hearings
and ask for explanations from Ministries. Japan, the
EU Parliament and Germany have followed suite.
President Rajapaksa himself is an
advocate of these Oversight Committees, a subject that
Wickremesinghe had discussed with President Chandrika
Kumaratunga once before when they were deliberating
on Government-Opposition co-operation at the time, with
most of the chairmanships of these committees given
to the Opposition. But the matter had been dropped as
the then President was fearful that her then Leader
of the Opposition and later Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa
who was in control of her party in Parliament would
run amok, and weaken her Executive Presidency through
Parliamentary control.
The climate of political change, the
UNP joining hands with the Rajapaksa Government under
a Common National Agenda comes in the shadow of two
significant developments.
The first, no doubt, is the breakdown
of talks between the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP)
and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP)over a Common
Programme. Last Monday was the final round. None other
than Senior Presidential Advisor Basil Rajapaksa, known
to be the President's main political strategist, did
his best to prolong the SLFP-JVP dialogue. He suggested
that the two sides should continue to meet and chalk
out areas for close co-operation. But it was the JVP
that politely declined the suggestion on the grounds
that it would not serve any purpose. They were insistent
that their 20 point demand that included the expulsion
of Norway as peace facilitators and the abrogation of
the Ceasefire Agreement should be conceded by the SLFP
leadership if they were to join the Government. Otherwise,
the JVP pointed out, it would be against their principles
to merely prolong a dialogue which would lead them nowhere.
Thus came the parting of the ways for the SLFP and the
JVP.
It no doubt was hurtful for the JVP
which prides in the fact that they enthroned Mahinda
Rajapaksa as President. This was both on the basis of
the agreement they signed with Rajapaksa as well as
the Mahinda Chinthanaya to which they contributed considerably.
If the JVP felt betrayed by the Rajapaksa Government
not seeing eye to eye with them, their disappointment
had turned into anger at the news of rapprochement between
the Government and the main opposition United National
Party (UNP), their arch rivals who sought to defeat
Rajapaksa's ascent to Presidency.
Cracks are beginning to appear. Last
Thursday the JVP held a rally at Lipton Circus to show
their strength. It was to re assert their call for expulsion
of Norway and the abrogation of the Ceasefire Agreement.
Senior JVPers were angered that the Security Forces
conducted intense checks on vehicles entering Colombo.
A focal point of this search was asking bus travellers
to alight and undergo a time consuming identification
process. Some turned up late or missed the rally altogether.
An irate JVP Politburo member asked whether the discovery
of a claymore mine was a ruse to justify intense security
checks and thus dampen the crowd turnout at the rally.
Trade unions under the umbrella of the JVP have all
been formed into a new front to carry on the campaign.
The coming weeks and months will thus see a growth in
the JVP agitation, a move that will distance the Government
from the JVP in a bigger way.
The other significant development
is the fresh peace initiatives by Norwegian facilitators
amidst continued fighting under Eelam War IV. Continued
interaction by the Government with Norway is anathema
to the JVP. And now, the first crucial issue on which
the UNP has vowed to co-operate with the Government
is on the peace efforts. It was the UNP leader Wickremesinghe
who placed his signature on behalf of the then United
National Front (UNF) Government for the CFA. Now, the
Rajapaksa Government has taken a new stance over future
talks with the LTTE. They have told Norway that in future
the Government would reserve the right to retaliate
militarily if the LTTE resorts to any attacks. Our Defence
Correspondent deals with this aspect in the opposite
page. Would this mean the UNP would now support this
position which appears to be different from the articles
they helped enshrine in the CFA?
Whoever said that in politics there
are no permanent friends or enemies is perhaps, right.
There are only permanent interests, personal and political.
|