Lanka Citizen

“Though amongst the privileged this is assumed to be the UNP position, we have been worried for some time about the right wing authoritarianism of the current leadership of the United National Party. When this is combined with the populism that it has unashamedly expressed in its most recent manifesto, we worry even more, given fascist precedents for this in the not so distant past.”

Following a meeting of its senior leadership with Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapakse, the Liberal Party of Sri Lanka has decided to confirm support for him at the Presidential Election.

The discussions made it clear that, on fundamental issues, Rajapakse would pursue policies in accordance with basic liberal principles of democracy, equity, pluralism and transparency, the Liberal Party aid in a statement released to the media.

On the national issue it was confirmed that he understood the need for devolution and decentralisation in the interests of strengthening people’s power.

In this regard the Liberal Party had previously made clear its opposition to Ranil Wickremesinghe’s abandonment of pluralism, when he proposed an Interim Self-Governing Agency which handed over total power in the North and East, and in all its component units, to the LTTE.

Mr Rajapakse’s agreement that devolution was a necessity, but that it should be based on democratic institutions which could appreciate and respond to people’s needs at all levels, seems by far the more principled approach.

We welcome further his affirmed readiness to negotiate with all concerned parties, including the leadership of the LTTE. It is necessary however for such negotiations to be based on mutual flexibility, rather than the previous intransigence of the LTTE, which met such ready acquiescence from the UNP leadership.

In discussing the structure and features of any future Constitution, it is vital that issues of principle based on maximizing representation and accountability at all levels be pursued, rather than ad hoc arrangements that permit authoritarianism both at the centre and in any units of devolution.

On social and economic issues, Mr Rajapakse confirmed his determination to pursue reforms based on the inevitability of globalisation and the necessity of ensuring that all our citizenry were provided with the skills and opportunities required for the modern world.

Though amongst the privileged this is assumed to be the UNP position, we have been worried for some time about the right wing authoritarianism of the current leadership of the United National Party. When this is combined with the populism that it has unashamedly expressed in its most recent manifesto, we worry even more, given fascist precedents for this in the not so distant past.

We have indeed previously expressed concern about Mr Wickremesinghe’s assertion, when he was last Prime Minister, that democracy was a luxury that it might be necessary to postpone in the interests of development.

On the contrary it is clear that an open economy would continue under Mr Rajapakse, but without the extreme features that Mr Wickremesinghe earlier seemed to advocate, though his current manifesto seems to appreciate that these cannot be implemented in a country like ours without severe social disruption. In this regard, as we have previously declared, liberalism as propounded in Sri Lanka has been based on modern liberal theory rather than libertarianism.

We should also note that we were moved by Rajapakse’s affirmation of the importance he had attached to the role of the late Lakshman Kadirgamar, a pillar of pluralism and moderation, and a confirmed liberal democrat as so many of the obituaries written about him declared.

We are glad that, despite his assassination, the principles he enunciated will continue to influence a future Rajapakse government.

We will do our best to further this in supporting Mr Rajapakse’s candidature in the coming months.

which is precisely what the candidates need to focus on instead of dabbling in false dichotomies. In fact neither appeasement nor war is tenable or desirable. The policy of appeasement has clearly failed to transform the LTTE, as manifest in the wake up call issued by the EU by imposing a travel ban and other restrictions on the LTTE, while reserving the option of listing the LTTE as a proscribed terrorist organization for its continuing terror killings and child conscription. That the State may be either directly or through proxies engaged in extra-legal and extra-judicial killings is no excuse to tolerate the culture of impunity that is masquerading in the guise of appeasement and incentives to the LTTE. Of course, that is no reason as to why the State should itself benefit from impunity if allegations of extra-judicial and proxy killings leveled against it by the LTTE are true.

By Kethesh Loganathan

The Presidential Election campaign appears to have peaked even before the filing of nominations by the candidates, which is scheduled for this week.

Barring a switch at the last moment, the issues that are being placed before the electorate by the key contenders Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapakse and Leader of the Opposition Ranil Wickremesinghe have been projected in the media and knowingly or unwittingly fueled by the candidates themselves as a contest between three sets of options. They are:

(i) Appeasement or War;
(ii) Unitary or Federal;
(iii) Closed or Open
Economy.

It is this writer’s contention that these are false options aimed at confusing and confounding the electorate and that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Let me elaborate by going through these three options.

Appeasement or War?

Colombo-based Peace organizations as well as the UNP have been castigating the demand for a redesign of the peace process, review of the CFA and Norway’s role and sanctions on the LTTE as a recipe for war, since it is argued that the LTTE would find these positions untenable and provocative and therefore would opt for the only option it knows – namely, war. On the other hand, the Mahinda Rajapakse campaign, led by the JVP and supported by the JHU, (at least for the time being and for different reasons), has been focusing on the threat to Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and territorial integrity brought about by the policy of appeasement pursued by the UNP whilst in power.

The campaign is focusing on the danger of the appeasement policy being advanced further if Ranil Wickremesinghe is elected, and the creation of conditions for secession by the LTTE with its ISGA proposals as the precursor. In other words the options placed before the Sri Lankan People (read: Sinhala) may be summed as follows: If war is to be averted one must continue with the offer of incentives to the LTTE or what could be broadly termed the appeasement approach.

On the other hand, if the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Sri Lanka is to be safeguarded then what one needs is a belligerent defence policy as well as the marginalization of the LTTE.

In reality, what is ignored is that there is a range of options between appeasement and war, which is precisely what the candidates need to focus on instead of dabbling in false dichotomies. In fact neither appeasement nor war is tenable or desirable. The policy of appeasement has clearly failed to transform the LTTE, as manifest in the wake up call issued by the EU by imposing a travel ban and other restrictions on the LTTE, while reserving the option of listing the LTTE as a proscribed terrorist organization for its continuing terror killings and child conscription. That the State may be either directly or through proxies engaged in extra-legal and extra-judicial killings is no excuse to tolerate the culture of impunity that is masquerading in the guise of appeasement and incentives to the LTTE. Of course, that is no reason as to why the State should itself benefit from impunity if allegations of extra-judicial and proxy killings leveled against it by the LTTE are true.

Be that as it may, it is abundantly clear that war is not an option that the State or the LTTE would want to exercise at the given juncture. While international pressure and logistical and manpower constraints would make the LTTE think twice before going for a protracted war, it is equally clear that the State would think thrice before going to war. This is despite the clarion call by the JHU and armchair militarists that LTTE should if necessary be militarily annihilated. All indications are that the Sri Lankan State and the military machinery is neither psychologically nor materially equipped to wage a protracted war against the LTTE which perhaps may be what promoted Somawansa Amerasinghe to declare that if the security forces cannot defend the country then it should be dissolved! In any event, what we may end up with is a continuation of psy-ops and proxy or low intensity hostilities by both parties. But then, this is precisely what has been going on from the time that the ceasefire agreement (CFA) was signed and is nothing new. It must be clearly understood that a peace process cannot be advanced through an endless process of appeasement of the LTTE without reciprocity or by holding the peace process hostage to the constant threat of war.

What is realistic however is to explore the range of options that lie between appeasement and war. This could be broadly termed as critical engagement of the LTTE on issues relating to human rights, humanitarian and interim solutions, while broad-basing and democratizing the peace process by bringing in other legitimate stakeholders like the Muslim polity and the Tamil democratic alternatives. Meanwhile, a concerted attempt should be made to evolve a package of constitutional and political reforms aimed at a permanent negotiated settlement to the unresolved National Question. Without such a package it will be nigh impossible to engage not only the LTTE, but also the Tamil democratic alternatives and the Muslim polity on negotiations on a durable and a just political and constitutional settlement to the Ethnic Question.

This brings us to the next set of options paraded in the on-going election campaign, namely, the Unitary or Federal dichotomy.

Unitary or Federal?

Again, it must be clearly understood that there is no single blueprint or system that epitomizes these concepts. There are unitary models which have incorporated substantial autonomy and devolution of power to the periphery and there are federal models where the State continues to jealously safeguard its centrality within the federal political system. This is something that any student of political science knows and is astonishing that the debate is presented as a straight cleavage between the two concepts. What is paramount is the formulation of a constitutional and political system that suits the Sri Lankan situation and addresses the primary contradiction at present, namely the National Question. Any solution must not only address the causes of the conflict, but ensure the acceptability and sustainability of the remedy. What is basically required therefore is a model or a system that ensures regional autonomy with substantial powers on matters that relate to identity, security and socio-economic advancement of the region and the people who inhabit it, in a manner that any future changes, for better or for worse, should be carried out only with the consent of that people and region. In this sense, it is clear that the existing unitary constitution is woefully inadequate, to put it mildly.

Human rights and democracy further should constitute the twin props on which these models are located. But, to argue that the debate in Sri Lanka is only between the existing unitary constitution and an abstract and undefined federal model is to engage in a false debate and a false set of options.

In this regard the Oslo Communiqué where the two parties committed themselves to explore a federal structure is exactly what it says and nothing more. It must be understood that the Roadmap to Peace or to a reformed and a restructured State need not be a single route. There are bound to be detours or alternative paths, but all heading in one direction. That ought to be the focus of the policymakers and the peace constituency – as well as the Presidential candidates, rather than engaging in a disingenuous play on words and concepts to confuse and confound the electorate. But, whatever may be the political and constitutional model, it will be reduced to naught if it does not lie on a solid economic foundation. Hence, we turn to the next set of false options being bandied about in the election campaign – namely, an open or a closed economy?

Open or Closed Economy?

It needs no gainsaying that there is no economy in the contemporary “globalised” world that is entirely open or closed. The advanced capitalist countries, which espouse neo-liberal economic policies based on liberalization and privatization could not have reached their present heights without going through a process of protectionism and State intervention - a process which in fact continues even in those developed economies.

The same would apply to the newly industrialized countries, including the “Asian Tigers”. Likewise, import-substitution and export-orientation are not mutually exclusive, while privatization and liberalization aimed at reducing the role of an over-burdened State does not mean the total withdrawal of the State on matters relating to social welfare, human and infrastructural development.

What is needed in Sri Lanka is a path of development that ensures equity with growth. While growth rates are important, a “fetish” ness may set-in where a high percentage growth rate is seen as the panacea for all maladies, disregarding the quality of the growth centres and the backward and forward linkages needed for sustainable and equitable development. Likewise the negation of growth and sole emphasis on equity will lead to a situation where there will be no cake from which one could cut a piece! This is how the wealth of nations soon get transformed into the poverty of nations. This then is the real challenge and not a sterile, hackneyed and irrelevant debate as to whether the candidates stand for an open or a closed economy.

In conclusion, it is this writer’s fervent hope that the remaining period of the Presidential Election campaign is utilised to address these real issues rather that get bogged down in the quagmire of false options. Ultimately, the candidates must realize that it is the middle path that would capture the imagination of the electorate and not the clash of extremes.

(The writer is a member of the Board of Directors of the Centre for Policy Alternatives and Head of its Peace & Conflict Analysis Unit)

( courtesy Daily Mirror)