federalidea.com

by Kusal Perera

How could one interpret or understand the effort taken by Mangala and his prop “Mahajana Wing” (MW) after they placed their policies for public scrutiny? Others may have their own interpretations, but this is mine. For Mangala was very insistent that their list of “dreams” is for discussion and debate by all and sundry. And quite honestly, my one line citation to it is, “good dreams they are, but even crutches wouldn’t make them walk”.

[Mangala Samaraweera and Sripathi Sooriyarachchi amidst supporters]

Yes, crutches would only make them stand and stare at the dilemma around. The very selective approach in presenting the MW thinking depicts the seriousness of the dilemma the Sri Lankan politics is in, including Mangala. The dilemma is no linear slide down. Thus the contradictions and reluctance in facing the reality in its bitterest form. The very reason why the “introduction” to the policy statement captioned “Dare to Dream! Towards A New Sri Lankan Order” is stretched into almost three, A4 size pages to stress on a “glorious past” is to compromise with the very Sinhala extremists the document indirectly finds fault with. All those romantic quotes selected to justify the emphasized glory is out of context and heralds no such glory. The ancient past that never lacked feudal infighting quite contrary to what was quoted out of context in the MW policy document was that fathers, sons, brothers, wives and concubines, uncles and nephews conspired and killed each other to either save one’s throne or rob another’s. And that was what the introduction was all about. There in fact is no serious break with traditional political thinking when compromising with Sinhala extremism, which is a pity.

That said in a very affirmative tone, what most would say ‘yes’ to is the straight forward criticism of the present government in the MW document. The conclusion Mangala has reached in it is that we are at the edge of the precipice of a failed state, if not already failed, will not be disputed. And also the description of ‘form and content’ of this regime which is ridden with corruption, nepotism and inefficiency. Most importantly the issues raised on human rights violations and the ethnic war, are certainly right. They are all good criticism and criticism alone would not be enough to forgive Mangala, his supporters and his erstwhile ally the JVP for the burden they heaped on the people. Leading this country to live under this situation is no sin that can be easily forgiven and forgotten. Mangala making a public apology at the first media conference, nevertheless is a good and civilized way in getting started. But Mangala needs to go beyond criticism and break from all those negative strapping that he wanted for the sake of political power, to be forgiven. Despite that, Mangala has qualified on another creditable platform with his decision to break from political power he aspired to and challenge it openly. And it’s for that hard decision taken, this policy document is considered for discussion for that too needs to be respected in this country.

On the positive side of the policy document is the diagnosis of our national ailments. One, it says “the constitution that gives one individual unlimited executive powers” is the first glitch. Two is the “lack of an appropriate political solution to an unending ethnic conflict.” and the third, is the “complete lack of a focused, well planned national policy on development”. And concedes rightly that all are symptoms of, as well as reasons for the same festering wound. The point of contention with Mangala nevertheless is whether such deep socio political rotting could be treated without opening up and suturing.

Let’s ponder on issues discussed beneath the caption, “Complete Overhaul of the Country’s Government and Political System”. It’s not enough to say “we dream of an independent Election Commission”. That’s wishful thinking not at all decent for a political leadership to stop at. Mangala knows quite well the 17th Amendment to the Constitution that establishes independent Commissions was openly flouted by the powers that be. Therefore at least now if he is dreaming of an independent Election Commission, the policy position on the 17th Amendment has to be explained more firmly and with clarity. Will Mangala and MW push for amendments that would stop all Presidents from tampering with the appointment of all independent Commissions? Or else the independent Elections Commission would remain a sweet dream.

In that same vein, what is a miss in all what the MW proposes under 1.3 to 1.8 that covers parliamentary elections and its many facets is the future projection that they themselves see in a negotiated settlement for the ethnic war. The MW proposes sharing of power, subjected to majority consensus – an issue I would come to a little while later – but forgets that any sharing of power to what ever unit at the periphery, takes away quite a large slice of responsibility from the present parliament of 225 Members. The parliament at national level would then be only and mainly responsible for national policy, national defence, foreign policy and the like. Therefore, what logically arises first is not the issue of crossing over or the type of people nominated under the national list, but how many should be elected to the parliament that takes up only national issues after devolution. Let’s not forget that India elects only 552 Lok Sabha Members for its population that’s almost 55 times bigger than ours. Without going into such depths in voter representation, what complete overhaul of government and political system will there be, as claimed?

The second most important issue identified by the MW in their policy document presented for social dialogue is the ethnic war. Their thinking is captured as “2. Finding a Solution to the Ethnic Conflict” with three sub sections under it. Diversity in our society the document notes, is not a problem that needs sitting down for discussions to find a solution, and to achieve peace through devolution of power within an indivisible country”. This sure is very good phrasing of an answer to a political issue that runs into logger heads with Sinhala chauvinist protests. But it’s plain dodging when taken with other statements of policy. They are all plain abstract statements that avoid the mess that we face today.

What of today and how do we wake up tomorrow to the bloody conflict that the government keeps protracting? Will Mangala and his MW want to strengthen the Cease Fire Agreement (CFA) in order to provide space to salvage the lost peace talks? This is a crucial issue they don’t even mention in their policy document. They don’t accept there is still a CFA in its legal form and the SLMM mandated to watch over all violations. It is silently side stepped, for it was he and the JVP who campaigned to tear the CFA apart and burn it, till they formed their own government in 2004 April and installed their own President in 2005 November. They don’t even look at Interim Steps, till some day the negotiations could start.

What is Mangala’s and his MW’s position on the proposals that are with the APRC? What will they support? The majority proposal? Without taking up clear positions on these current issues, it is ridiculous to say they “believe that this divergence of opinions within our society need not be an obstacle to finding a lasting and durable peace that is acceptable to the majority of our citizens.” Will the majority accept a negotiated peace, unless there is an open and constructive dialogue in society on current issues that leads to negotiations with a reactivated CFA that actually works on the ground?

Let this be precise and clear. Issues of human rights violations, abductions and breaking down of law and order that Mangala continues to criticize are all out crops of CFA violations that in real politics relates to the government’s desire to press forward with an undeclared war. That is this government’s policy in satisfying the Sinhala sentiments on which it came to power. Sinhala sentiments that Mangala and the JVP projected against a negotiated solution. Today, if Mangala and his MW want to dissociate with this war, dissociate with all violations of human rights, abductions and break down of law and order, then they have to dissociate themselves with the very Sinhala ideology they crowned in society; The Sinhala ideology that allows and justifies all social crimes under the banner slogan of eradicating terrorism.

That is the truth of present day politics and if Mangala wants other political parties, all democratic forces and progressive elements to engage in a dialogue with his MW, then he would have to say where exactly he stands on these issues quite openly. That may not open a dialogue with the JVP at this moment which is mortally afraid a broader alliance including the UNP would compel the President to dissolve parliament and go for an election. It is now clear that democracy, justice and fair play within a New Sri Lankan Order as dreamt by Mangala and his MW are opposites of what they stood for all these years. The choice is now open. One can not dream of riding two horses at the same time in opposite directions. Dreams that blur clarity of political positions on immediate and urgent issues wouldn’t find feet to walk on credible grounds. So, it is over to Mangala and his MW to clear these positions for a more serious dialogue.