The Political Column

UNP's hopes rest on SB

As we all know, the economy is in shambles especially after the ruthless terrorist attack on the Katunayake International Airport in July.

Several airlines pulled out, because of a high war risk premium imposed by insurance underwriters. Despite a reduction in the war-risk premium, only a few vessels call over at the Colombo Port.

The tourist and travel industry suffered one of its worst blows with thousands of people losing jobs. The situation was further aggravated by the September 11 attack on New York and Washington as the global economy was plunged into a recession. 

The stark reality of all this is that the mankind is at the mercy of a few terrorist groups who are holding the civilised world to ransom.

The attack on America is a wake-up call to the entire world to join hands in a concerted effort to eradicate terrorism.

But one would question as to how it could be achieved without addressing the root-cause. It is obvious that this target cannot be achieved by just declaring war against one country, which is sheltering a group of terrorists.

It needs a careful study and research and a solution based on justice if we are to eradicate this menace.

There are no immediate military solutions for terrorism. We in Sri Lanka had firsthand experience in this regard for the past twenty years or so. But for Americans, it is the first time they saw a catastrophe of this magnitude with the death toll being more than 6,000. It appears that Sir Isaac Newton's third law applies in politics as well — every action has an equal and opposite reaction. 

It appears that the United States is smarting over a humiliation caused by a terrorist group. The immediate reaction was to declare war — but against whom? Is it against a nation, which has no leg to stand on by itself. Poor Afghan people who are already suffering from pangs of poverty, famine and war are fleeing in their thousands to Pakistan. Can America, which believes itself to be the champion of human rights, inflict such hardship on a people in a bid to punish their hardline leaders? What is the role the UN plays in this campaign? How does a respect for international law reconcile itself with the now contemplated actions? All global arrangements and instruments of justice and fairplay may be seen to count a little when it comes to the US. They may appear to exist only to sermonize to Third World countries?

If Osama bin Laden is a prime suspect in the attack perpetrated on the WTC in New York, the Americans according to the rules that they themselves espouse, would have to establish at least a prima facie case against him and then deal with him under international law.

Fundamentally, the US also may have to review its foreign policy, especially its policy on the Palestinian issue, to avert similar strikes in the future.

No doubt, there should be a concerted effort in eradicating terrorism whether it be in the US, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India or Sri Lanka.

If the world powers re-adjust their policy with justice to all, there would be a significant change in the future political atmosphere of the world.

A war against Afghanistan is futile. Afghanistan could become another Vietnam. And there is also a danger of the war spreading to neighbouring Islamic states where there is resentment against the United States. 

Events in Sri Lanka, have seen the political equation changing almost every hour. At times, it takes the form of a pendulum with the balance of power shifting towards the opposition and the government.

The situation is such that a minister appointed today resigns the next day to pave the way for another appointment. The musical chair type appointments and resignations was all because of a pledge the government made to the JVP in exchange of the Marxist party's support. The memorandum of understanding the two parties entered into required the cabinet to consist of 20 members, including the prime minister. 

Events of the past few days show that certain people have tried to mislead the President. There is absolute confusion.

The opposition itself appears unable to move for ward as focused and united group. The UNP was deeply involved in a numbers game. First, it trusted the JVP to deliver the required number of votes when the no-confidence motion was to be put to a vote in parliament.

But, why did the UNP believe that a group which the UNP regimes crushed as recently as 1987-89 insurrection would back it?

The UNP's numbers game came to a close with the JVP withdrawing from the opposition alliance and decided to extend conditional support to the government. 

This forced the UNP to adopt a different type of strategy, shelving all its plans to defeat the government through the no-faith motion when parliament reconvened on September 7. Its new strategy was based on the PA-JVP deal. The UNP waited till the government appointed the 20-member cabinet to put its plan into operation. 

Party sources said a new motion of no confidence against the government would be tabled soon, probably tomorrow. The UNP is banking on the support of PA dissidents, especially those who did not find a place in the new cabinet. It is now no secret that the UNP's hopes are pinned on one person, S. B. Dissanayake, the defiant general secretary of the SLFP.

UNP top rungers are keeping in touch with Mr. Dissanayake who is in Patna, India on a pilgrimage. They want him to cut short his visit and come to Sri Lanka to map out the strategy for the numbers game. Reports said Mr. Dissanayake would be in Sri Lanka by today.

There are a few former ministers who are unhappy over the manner in which the cabinet was selected, though nealy all have been given deputy minister posts if not portfolios.

Besides, Mr. Dissanayake, former ministers G. L. Peiris and Mahinda Wijesekera have been identified as dissidents within the PA. The question is how strong is this PA dissident group and will it extend its support to the UNP at the crucial time?

When Parliament meets tomorrow, Mr. Dissanayake and other ministerial drop-outs will be relegated to backbenchers.

The PA dissident group is perturbed over the political somersault of Minister Jeyaraj Fernandopulle who withdrew from the group and accepted a portfolio, saying his supporters wanted him in the government. But his critics claimed he stage-managed the demonstration while others said that he accepted the portfolio at the instance of the Catholic Church.

The long disgruntled Mr. Fernandopulle joined the dissident group after a dispute arose between him and the President over the LTTE attack on the Katunayake air base and the airport. An angry Mr. Fernandopulle asked the President whether it was true that she had blamed him for the airport attack. But the President and he sorted out the dispute after he along with three other dissident ministers handed in their resignation letters two weeks ago. 

During five hours of talks with Mr. Fernandopulle, the President reportedly revealed some names of key UNPers who she claimed was planning to close ranks with her to strengthen the government.

The President was confident that she could carry on for some time until she dissolved Parliament to face a fresh election.

But her move to appoint Wijeyapala Mendis, the archrival of Minister Fernandopulle, as a minister, backfired. Some senior PA ministers are said to have sent protest notes to the President over this move. In addition to this, the appointment of Arumugam Thondaman as a minister swelled the cabinet to 21 — one more than what is required by the PA-JVP deal. 

The President tried several times to call Mr. Mendis to seek his resignation, but failed.

While PA General Secretary D. M. Jayaratne maintained that Mr. Mendis had resigned his portfolio, Mr. Mendis' supporters, including his private secretary Kamini de Livera denied this.

Reports said the problem was solved on Thursday after Mr. Mendis had agreed to a compromise deal. Under this deal, it is reported that Mr. Mendis wanted to be appointed as the chief minister of the Western Province. But the government prefers giving him a governor post. 

It is very unlikely that Mr. Mendis who is one of the most senior parliamentarians today, would take up this position which would mean a virtual end to his parliamentary career.

Meanwhile, the government and the opposition clashed over the composition of the constitutional council envisaged in the 17th Amendment.

The PA-JVP draft contained a clause whereby the President was empowered to appoint a nominee to the council while the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader are permitted to appoint three representatives each. The UNP and other opposition parties argued that allowing the President to nominate a member would give a political colouring to the council and tilt the balance in favour of the government. 

The objective of the constitutional council is to advise the President on the independent commissions on Police, Elections, Judicial Service and Public Service. For this, the constitutional council has to be independent. If politicians are allowed to appoint their nominees, there will eventually be political tugs-of-war in the constitutional council. 

The original proposal had some substance as it called upon the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to jointly appoint five members to the council which also includes the Speaker, the prime minister and the leader of the opposition.

The talks between the UNP-led opposition parties and the JVP ended yesterday, striking a note of consensus. The JVP was represented by Wimal Weerawansa and Nandana Gunatilleke while the UNP team comprised party leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, Karu Jayasuriya, Tyronne Fernando, K. N. Choksy, Mahinda Samarasinghe and Rohitha Bogollagama. Sihala Urumaya's Champaka Ranawaka and ACTC's Vinayagamoorthy and TULF's V. Anandasangaree were also present. 

Mr. Ranawaka said an impasse had been created due to the power struggle between the PA and the UNP and called for measures that would ensure the independence of the council and the commissions.

Mr. Jayasuriya said the equilibrium would tilt towards the government if a presidential nominee was included and one could guarantee that the council and the commissions would take unbiased decisions. Mr. Weerawansa: The President has a role to play as sovereignty of the people is exercised by her. If the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader could nominate their choices, how can you undermine the President's power? This is an erosion of executive powers of the President and this power could be alienated only with the people's consent at a referendum.

Mr. Choksy: We could overcome that problem by making the prime minister the President's nominee.

Mr. Jayasuriya: Excellent idea.

JVP representatives: He's already in the council. You are trying to overcome the problem technically. We can convey your proposal to the government, but it will not resolve the crisis. 

Mr. Weerawansa: Why not you go for the abolition of the executive presidency. Mahinda Samarasinghe told a TV interview that if the UNP swerved from this goal, he would quit the party.

Mr. Samarasinghe: I said so because the working committee had taken a decision to this effect.

Mr. Fernando: So it is either Mr. Samarasinghe or the President will have to go home.

Mr. Bogollagama: We have to focus on the need to resolve the impasse. We have to concede the President's right to have a nominee. But we must make provisions for the opposition leader also to appoint a nominee in consultation with the parties in the opposition.

The JVP representatives said this idea could be marketed to the government. 

It was then agreed that both the President's and the opposition leader's nominees should be retired judges of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal.

This compromise deal enlarges the constitutional council to ten. 

Five eminent persons jointly appointed by the Prime Minister and the opposition leader, three ex-officio members — the Speaker, the prime minister and the opposition leader — a nominee from the President, and a nominee from the Opposition leader.

If there is a deadlock in the council, it was agreed the Speaker would cast the decisive vote. 

On the setting up of the independent judicial commission, the JVP said that the government felt the Chief Justice should head the commission but other members should be judicial officers from the lower rung. 

Mr. Wickremesinghe did not agree.

Whether the constitutional council and the independent commissions will strengthen democracy and good governance can only be seen once they come into operation. But one positive aspect is the independent elections commission could intervene and prevent the government from using state resources for political activity during election time.

But little can it do to stop mass-scale rigging even though the police deployed for the purpose of elections directly comes under the writ of the commission.

The other question that arises is the one immediate problems of the country. Both parties should make a joint effort to address problems such as the North-East conflict and the sagging economy on a priority basis.

When the tug-o'-war was continuing between the PA and the opposition over the presidential nominee in the constitutional council, the JVP played the role of a go-between. But observers said the JVP had a bias towards the PA.

The JVP argued "whether we like it or not we have to agree to such an arrangement to avoid the bill going before the people at a referendum." 

"What puzzles us is that if the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition who are elected members of Parliament could be given an opportunity to appoint three members each, why the President who is directly elected by the people is debarred," the JVP had said.

The UNP committee comprising Karu Jayasuriya, Tyronne Fernando and K. N. Choksy said both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition should agree on the five members to be appointed to the council and if there was no agreement between the two, the Speaker should step in to appoint members who command respect and the confidence of both the government and the Opposition.

But there was some reservations in the higher echelons of the UNP on the Speaker's involvement. But now the opposition parties have reached some consensus on the matter after the UNP and the JVP agreed in principle to this arrangement.

The Organisation of Professional Associations has also expressed concern on the modus operandi followed in appointing the members of the constitutional council.

In its view the constitutional council members should be appointed by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Speaker on the recommendations made by civic societies.

It is a very fair disposition, but will our politicians awak to this call?

The government's proposal to control the private media during election time under provisions in the 17th amendment also drew criticism from the opposition and media activists. 

The draft envisaged strict measures to control both government and private media during elections time. The opposition was in agreement with control on state media but opposed any move to stifle the private media. However, the particular clause was removed from the draft as it was presented to the Supreme Court to decide on its constitutionality. 

Under the controversial clause, if any publisher or broadcasting institution intends to support one candidate or a particular party, such institution is required to make a declaration to the Election Commissioner who will in turn give adequate publicity to the fact over the media.

Situation Report

Editorial/ Opinion Contents