Ranil Emulates Mahinda in Accepting Unitary Label
by Sumanasiri Liyanage
The United National Party has changed its policy on ethno-political question and stated that it would withdraw from a federal type solution to a unitary solution that would be based on the 13th Amendment to the Second Republic Constitution. Clarifying this change, its spokesperson, Ravi Karunanayake, even used words decentralization and devolution as synonym. At a meeting in Monaragala, Ranil Wickramasinghe talked about adopting a policy framework that is doable. This change in UNP policies may be a shock to Colombo civil society, but it would not be a shock for someone who carefully observed the political line of Ranil Wickramasinghe since 1987. He took anti-Indo-Lanka Accord position in 1987; he refused to participate fully Parliamentary Select Committee procedure in 1994; he was critical of 1995 devolution proposals and was against 2000 draft constitution bill.
[Ranil Wickramasinghe, UNP leader]Â Â
In spite of his action in the past, he was branded as a federalist, even as an asymmetrical federalist, mainly because of the Oslo Communiqué. Now it is clear that for Ranil Wickramasinghe, Oslo Communiqué is an exception rather than a rule as far as his policy orientation is concerned. The Editor, Daily Mirror has welcomed this decision with grand words about conflict negotiation, but at the end taking a position on which all the talks should be based, namely, unitary state with substantial devolution. Wickramasinghe appears to be emulating President Mahinda Rajapakse not only visiting temples and carrying babies, but also accepting unitary state label. This signifies the poor quality of the Sri Lankan current political leadership, especially of the two main parties.
[President Mahinda Rajapakse]Â
UNP’s new change can also be interpreted as a coup against the progressives of the APRC and APRC’s attempt to find an amicable solution to contested issues in the context of pressure coming from India, the US, Tamil and Muslim civil leaders and many others. Now the UNP has given an excuse to the SLFP so that the SLFP can stick to its post 2005-policy changes, i.e. maintaining the unitary character of the Sri Lankan state. The constitutional discourse in 1994-2004 has generated a consensus that the controversial labels like ‘unitary’ and ‘federal’ should be avoided. And there has been a consensus that a new constitution should be adopted by parliamentary two-third majority and at a referendum or a single majority at a newly- elected constitution assembly and a referendum. So this will answer Ambassador Jayathilake’s argument that keeping unitary would avoid a need of referendum. Mahinda Chinthanaya explicitly stated that the citizen will be allowed to vote for constitutional change at a referendum meaning Mahinda Rajapakse was ready to go for a referendum. (And he has, I agree with Dayan Jayathilake, best chance to win such a referendum)
The draft constitution of 2000 was in fact based on the 13th Amendment, Managala Munasighe Committee suggestions, and civil society proposals for constitutional change. So it was not an outcome of radical change but result of a gradual change. The tragedy of the Sri Lankan politics was that it failed to adopt this step-by-step approach. Both the UNP and the SLFP supported Mangala Munasinghe proposals. The only significant changes introduced by the 2000 draft bill include the proposal to go back to cabinet system of government, an introduction of co-ordinate relationship between two-tiers of government as far as defined subjects are concerned and the requirement of provincial consent to make changes to power devolution. Tissa Vitharana proposals can be easily defined as 2000 draft + a second chamber.
So those who think that drafting a new constitution should begin with 13th Amendment of 1987 forget completely some of the agreements reached by two main political parties. It is necessary to emphasize that this should not be mixed up with Minister Devananda’s suggestion that the full implementation of the 13th Amendment would facilitate the constitutional discourse. In fact I suggested the same idea many a time when attempts at state restructuring were at the horizon in 1995, 2001 and 2005. So, in this article I appeal to federalists as well as to non-federalists that we should redemarcate the boundaries of the discussion to go beyond the conventional dichotomy between federal and unitary. Why do I suggest so? I suggest it for two reasons: First, as I mentioned earlier, the international discourse on power-sharing in pluri-national democracies (PNDs) has advanced very much beyond this conventional binary analysis. Secondly, there has been a general consensus now that two constitutionally separate competencies -namely two-tiers of governments- should be established as one main element of the constitution.
In this context, the most legitimate constitutional questions to be asked are: What should be the relationship between these two constitutionally separate competencies? How this two-tier governmental arrangement could ensure co-operative governance instead of conflcitual governance? We can also add a question that would have economic implications. How and in what manner could governance be effectively adhered to the principle of subsidiarity? The setting up of constitutionally separate two-tiers of government can be justified on multiple grounds. The notion of subsidiarity has increasingly been invoked to legitimize the setting up of a lower level of government. It has multiple meaning, but what is most common and relevant here is that it refers to organizational and territorial principle requiring that decision-making and implementation be carried out in a space that is as close as possible to the citizen.
This idea also goes with the notion of deliberative democracy that all the affected should be given an equal opportunity to participate in decision-making as equals in a non-coercive context. Secondly, in pluri-national societies, the concept of majority is a fluid one. Had different national groups been marginalized or dominated by the majority national group, an asymmetry of allegiances to the state would have been the result. Two-tiers or multiple tiers governance would provide a space to these national groups to exercise their authority in contiguous areas where they represent the majority. So it has conflict prevention or resolution aspect. Thirdly, as local representation in the center includes both individual and group interests, decisions that would be injurious to numerically small communities can be prevented. So that pluri-national character of the country will be reflected in making decisions.
I believe that we have now reached some kind of consensus on the above three points although there are unresolved complex issues. However, the question is how this two tier system of governance could be institutionalized to promote cooperative governance and to minimize prevailing suspicion, mistrust and fears of different communities. Different countries have tried different mechanisms. Some worked well while the others were not that successful. This mixture of results once again makes the constitutional design more problematic. In my opinion, the concepts of division of labor and subsidiarity would contribute in resolving these problems. I
n any country, there are issues that are nationally relevant. These subjects include in modern polity, inter alia, national defense, macro-economic management, international relations, maintenance of minimum standards on social welfare, education, health, environment protection and similar issues. Then there are issues that are locally specific. The distinction between national and regional may be blurred in some issues but quite clear in many issues. So the notions of subsidiarity and division of labor can be deployed in constitutional design. Hence the question of which tier is superordinate or subordinate would become a nonissue. The issue is which tier can perform the function effectively, and efficiently. In this sense, the criteria may be not political but economico-technical. So the relationship between national and provincial with regard to these two categories should be based on the principle of non-hierarchical horizontality.
In my opinion, Tissa Vitharana proposals have elegantly dealt with these issues in noncontroversial manner. Why are we going to invent the wheel once again after spending so much time and resources?
Ratna said,
October 1, 2007 @ 9:02 am
Sri Lanka = Ceylon – north and east provinces.
So, there is nothing wrong in their (Mahinda or Ranil) approach. Why do you need federal constitution for Sinhalese nation?
I just feel sorry for Sangarees and Devanandas.
Devinda Fernando said,
October 1, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
Who cares? The UNP are spineless Jellyfish in this conflict, they haven’t a backbone among them. Let them flip-flop all they want on stances. No one cares. Ranil would be better off fellating himself if he really feels he has to use his mouth for anything productive.
Can we just stop giving this failed loser of a politician 15 more Minutes of Fame? Really! He obviously does not seem to understand the mentality of Prabharkaran and the fact that appeasement from the time of JR have failed to work.
Let us not lose sight of the real issue, and get distracted by too much of this over analysis of the situation and remember that the only way to rid this island of this brutalTerrorism is to remain united as a people and finish this mess once and for all so that our children don’t inherit what our fathers created.
Suresh M said,
October 1, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
Who cares what Ranil & co do for winning an election? Ranil has never been a leader anyway. Under his leadership, UNP will never get any election victory.
Tamils have only one option that to fight on for Tamil Eelam. Coming months, so called International Community will come to their senses and support Tamil in their quest in self determination. Is it a crime if a people wish to separate from Terrorist State that terrorise their nation?
This is a good and repeated lesson our Tamil moderates are being taught.
I would call upon all Tamil moderates(?), and Tamil paramilitaries to join hands to fight Sinhala (State) Terrorists.
Gamini said,
October 1, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
This comes as no suprise to anyone who has observed his “leadership ” of the part y, paralysed, ieffectual, gutless we can now also add devoid of ideas to the list.
A credible and effective opposition is vital to a vibrant deomcracy at present we have anything but, Lift your game UNP !
dias said,
October 1, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
Why are we going to invent the wheel? Not quite re-inventing – but re-fining.
1] Issue of NE merger — should not be left for negotiations rather addressed by the Vitharana proposals
2] UoD’s — units of devolution could be made even more economic oriented, so that all have roughly same potentiality for even expansion
3] While agreeing w. Liyanage about the “conventional binary analysis”, we need to find a term, beyond “F” and “U”, that characterizes the new governing system – it should no be left as “no name”
Other, than these and a few symbolic changes such as including a verse in Tamil in the national anthem, I concurr w. the author’s assertion that Vitharana proposals are in relatively good shape — but, tell that to the nationalists!
Devinda Fernando said,
October 1, 2007 @ 11:41 pm
*** Tamils have only one option that to fight on for Tamil Eelam. ***
LOL! I have to take it easy when I laugh at your comments because if I laugh too loudly I think my sides will split.
Name a single thing Tamils in Sri Lanka (the South and West) CAN’T do that Muslims and Sinhalese can? Nothing? That’s the Truth. NOT a SINGLE THING.!
Now Name me ONE Freedom or thing that Tamils can DO under the LTTE that they cannot do in GoSL controlled areas,…?
LOL! Yeah, I think your silence is deafening!
A. Theva Rajan, New Zealand said,
October 2, 2007 @ 6:47 am
I am reminded of 8 January 1966 when the Bill embodying Regulastiions under theTamil Language.
( Special Provisions) Act No: 28 of 1958 was prsented in Parliament by the then Minister of State Mr. J. R. Jaawardene
amidst stiff oppositiion by the SLFP led Marxist coalition.The very Partty which passed the mother Act opposed te Regulations under the Act. They claimed Appi Sinhala. The then ruling Party (UNP) clamed Appii Sinhala. That was the
crudest behaviour of both Parties and was a SHAME.
Although the two Parties fight for power, they are UNITED in oppopposing the equality and/or the rights of the Tamils
throughout.. When they assume power they put up a show of being imnterested in solving the ethnic problem. Post Sinhala, only developments and attendant thinking has poisoned the atmosphere so irretrievably that none of the Sinhala Parties can work out a solution. The only way out fo the Tamils in separation. If Sri Lanka is to be Sinhala Buddhist only, then the corollary is Tamil Eelam. No ethnic group,can be in peace when crushed under the hegemony of another ethnic group.
Suresh M said,
October 2, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
Ref # 6,
I can understand your laughter; a normal human being would not laugh at another’s pain.
I.e. Tamils are denied of their basic human right of physical safety.
The Sinhala (State) armed terrorists are still abducting and killing Tamils in the Sinhala Government control area with impunity. Do not mix privilege with rights. Tamils are not looking for privilege, but their lost rights.
A.Rajasingam said,
October 5, 2007 @ 11:59 am
It is pure waste of time on waging war on the usage of terminology. Whether it is federal or unitary, the vital factor is the grievances of Tamils should be addressed which again revolves round the division of powers between the Central State and the Units which can be in the form of States or Provinces. This is a stark naked fact. All of us are tired of facing the Round Table conferences, All Party Conference, Accord, Pacts and so on. It is important to have a clear thinking on the nature of a constitution. If the constitution is not drawn as a ploy for the members and party then the question of terrorism will not arise. The drawing up of a constitution should not lead to the possible tyranny of the majority and encourage the militarization of a country which takes place with the beginning of passing emergency regulations which is now taking place by the Mahinda’s Government. The most important aspect of a constitution is the guarantee that government decisions based on majority rule shall be with the protection of the minorities which will allay the fears of the minority. Such fears of the minority do not become a major issue in democratic countries like Canada, Switzerland, Malaysia, Singapore and India which have federal system of government. In these countries, State governments are given total regional autonomy without affecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country and the question of terrorism never arise. I like to ask whether the 1972 and 1978 constitutions was passed with the final endorsement of all parties. Why can’t our political leaders learn a good lesson from the Canadian Constitution. It is time to realize that Federalism is a sacred word. I would say that prolonging a war or beating the drums of war may be thrilling, but it will only lead to famine and poverty and people will lose confidence on the Government. As an elected President, it is his responsibility to avoid bloodshed in the country. The President is elected by the people and has to be just and fair in his dealings without any discriminations. If his administration is characterized by military rule, it is common that there will be violation of human rights in a large scale and answerable to the international community.
Devinda Fernando said,
October 5, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
*** I.e. Tamils are denied of their basic human right of physical safety. ***
Sureah, The recent War (Eelam IV) was started by the LTTE – we all know this fact; so the fact that Tamils (my fellow countrymen) are put in Harms way by a Terrorist force that could care less about the people it claims to be fighting for because they use the Civilian polpualtions as cover for their operations.
The Sick Irony is that you Cavalier Diaspora Pro-LTTE ‘Barkers’ fund the very brutal oppression of Tamils in Sri Lanka. You think that if you really cared about Tamil civil rights you would look to your LTTE to stop using Tamils as Human Shields?
So spare me the Sanctimonious garbage about Tamil Civil rights and physical safety, the LTTE has once again put the East and North Tamil Populations in the Line of Fire – and we all know that they WANT Collateral Damage so that they can then use these misery of the situation to divert the blame to the Sri Lankan Government and recruit more people to their cause.
And as for Abductions? Well if you have any proof it is the government then please provide it otherwise kindly refrain from making wild baseless sensationalist speculations to which you have no knowledge about.
Devinda Fernando said,
October 5, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
Theva Rajan,
YOu seem to hold onto something that happened in 1958 like it were the case today? Have you been to Sri Lanka since then? If you haven’t I strongly suggest you take a trip there – flights cost about $1300 so it is not that expensive:
Times have changed drastically and those sorts of things dont happen like it did. Just to put it in Perspective ,in the USA in 1958 – the Civil Rights movement had not even gotten going, heck, only 3 years ago they had just ended Segregation! so those were backwards times,.
I have to serioulsy wonder why you are trying to apply something from 50 years ago to this current situation?
ilaya seran senguttuvan said,
October 6, 2007 @ 1:10 am
The UNP under Ranil since 2001 came close to the description “somewhat sympathetic towards the Tamil aspirations” but his gay abandon of the Oslo proposals only goes to strengthen the Tamil resolve that we must stand on our own feet to gain our rights.
Why did he do an about-turn at a time when India and the international community were beginning to accept him as a reliable, decent and acceptable leader – the man for the moment for Sri Lanka? The man-in-a-hurry and late-comer to the UNP Ravi Karunanayake rushes to answer “We have to re-position ourselves to come to power. Ranil has lost almost all of the major Elections due to our (UNPs) stand on the Sinhala and Unitary issue. How can we come to power except to go along with satisfying Sinhala sentiments and interests? Someone remarked Ravi K is more bent on “positioning”: himself to high positions in the event of the success of alignments now being worked out between the UNP, Mangala’s mangoes and the JVP. Political morality or principles have no place in the current structure of strategies to re-capture power. UNP insiders say unless the UNP goes along the JVP will not join the anti-Rajapakse bandwagon. The educated and other Tamils outside the LTTE have no where else to go in this climate of unprincipled political skulduggery. Decent Sinhala academics like Sumanasiri, Tissaranee, Vickramabahu, Vasu, Prof Tissa Vitharana, DEW, Collure et al may counsel sense to the Govt and its cohorts but Sinhala extremism is determined to take the country beyond the brink of disintegration. Tamils within the UNP are trapped by this volte face. Charlie Mahendran will be embarrassed. Newly appointed DM Swaminathan cannot be expected to appreciate the depth of the perfidy on the future of Tamils. Maheswaran will be OK so long as he is allowed to monopolise the trade between Colombo and Jaffna in the supply of foodstuffs, fuel and medicine where he makes a pack almost everyday. 1957, 1965, 1987 have all in one piece crashed on to the lot of the Tamils who cannot be faulted if they asked themselves collectively QUO VADIS?
ilaya seran senguttuvan said,
October 6, 2007 @ 8:18 am
I want to respond to#Devinda Fernando. Similar sarcastic questions have been asked by SL Gunasekera, Udaya Gammanpilla, Nalin de Silva and many others with an open anti-Tamil bias in them. No other community in this country but Tamils fear to return home from work in Colombo and elsewhere – be it man, woman or child – if by chance an incident happens in the conflict zone where several soldiers unfortunately were to ose their lives in the normal course of warfare.
Tamils will be slaughtered in the streets whether they are young or older women, children or whatever before law and order is restored. Curiously, the law and order machinery will be “allowed” to be non-functional for a few hours so that the necessary punishment is exacted from the Tamils. The Constitution may say one thing and guarantee many things but the “patriots” in the streets will be ENABLED by the Police, the Army and others to let the Tamils “get the works” This happened in 1958, 1977, 1983, Bindunuwewa. It will happen in the future as well. Look at the way men became beasts to their own Sinhala people during the Tsunami where even dead bodies were “traded” for money; where the ear-rings and chains of women were plucked while they were drowning.
What human justice can be expected in this background?
Suresh M said,
October 9, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
Ref #10
Ferando,
it’s not worth to reply for your sick comments. You are infected with anti-Tamil bias. You are not alone!
Devinda Fernando said,
October 15, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
*** No other community in this country but Tamils fear to return home from work in Colombo and elsewhere – be it man, woman or child – if by chance an incident happens in the conflict zone where several soldiers unfortunately were to ose their lives in the normal course of warfare. ***
And when you say “This Country” you are obviously refering to Toronto or London, because had you actually gone to Sri Lanka you will see that all this “Slaughtering of Tamils” you speak of is completely unfounded and Baseless.
Don’t try to pull the wool over our eyes for yet another year… we have been listening to that Old Song and Dance for 25 years now. From 2002 to 2005 Tamils poured into the South, and many Tamil Diaspora from around the world returned. No discrimination, No Racism, just good times and peace. The the LTTE start the war adn you Sympathizers funded them, encouraged and enabled them and now you cry discrimination and Human rights violations. You are Just and responsible as the LTTE for enabaling them to break the peace and start war again. So Please keep quiet as you have made your War,…now live with it.
Devinda Fernando said,
October 15, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
***it’s not worth to reply for your sick comments. You are infected with anti-Tamil bias. You are not alone! ***
Then Don’t reply, I have an Anti-LTTE bias not Tamil,…. you on the otherhand are a SOCK PUPPET for the LTTE – the Real SICK IRONY is that you who Shout from Western Countries about Human Rights Abuses are those who also fund the Brutal Oppression of Tamils in Sri Lanka. You should all be ashamed of yourselves! Their BLOOD is on YOUR hands – but denial is a Powerful Drug and after 25 years of injecting it up your rear ends you people remain hopeless addicted to it!
ilaya seran senguttuvan said,
October 23, 2007 @ 1:32 am
Devinda Fernado #15 can write much sense with the same ease which he often comes out with nonsense. “This country” My good man, is Sri Lanka or what was in those peaceful days Ceylon until jerks like you came into the discourse. Surely, it is only an idiot who does not know the world will say it was in London or Toronto minorities returning from work are slaughtered in the streets, in their cars, buses and trains only for some unconnected event with the slaughtered due to an ongoing undeclared war hundreds of miles away. Good Man, this happened here in July 1983 – since you chose not to know.
It was repeated only a few years ago at a Rehabilitation Camp at Bindunuwewa where unarmed Tamil youth numbering about a 100 were slaughtered by over 3,000 Sinhala villagers in the area. Not a single of the killers were caught although the Camp was full of Army and Police men during the attack. A few of the guards and officers were taken to Courts to satisfy local and international pressure – and they were all susequently released. That is Sri lankan justice for you.
So that is the justice you mete out to Tamil civilians in this great country blessed by the pure teachings of the Buddha – who, by the way, was a Hindu Prince from India, something which the Sinhalese here do not like to be reminded about.