Test of placing the country first

The Sunday Times FT email survey on the MoU between Sri Lanka's two main parties drew a lot of comments and 'welcome' tinged with caution. Here are the general comments and specific comments to the questions posed in the poll.

General comments:
** If the intentions of both parties are genuine then as a nation we should be able to find a solution to the national issue rather than allowing this MoU to also die a natural death like other pacts.

** The LTTE will find themselves facing a united 'enemy' and under pressure. Internationally, it will send out positive vibes showing both parties are serious about tackling the problem. Sadly, we will not see the end of short term divisive politics. If we could, by now we would have been another Singapore or Malaysia.

** Apart from the joint consensus the UNP must also demonstrate that they are a viable opposition to foster democratic debate.

** We hope this will not be limited to a document and a publicity stunt.

** Joining together should not be at the expense of pushing the others (JVP for instance) out of the political mainstream as a result of them losing their political voice and risking another (southern) insurgency.

** This togetherness must also lead to a genuine partnership to rid the body politic of all corrupt and criminal elements and replace them with honest, sincere and hardworking people. The other side of the coin is the grave danger that the corrupt elements, who are very ingenious and creative, could get together and obliterate tracks of their misdeeds while an innocent and helpless majority look on. That would be tantamount to the leaders pushing Mother Lanka from the frying pan into the fire itself.

** We have seen such intent in the past too though not to this level, but it is in the implementation that the peace process has failed. One of the key reasons for such failure has been political leaders on all sides putting themselves and their parties' self interest ahead of national interest. I hope that it is different this time around.

** Civil society, the business community and media leadership need to go beyond issuing of statements or reportage to setting up processes to ensure that the alliance is used only for the purposes it is meant for and not to drive other agenda of either party or interest groups within the parties.

I believe that an intelligent public dialogue need to now take place on a continuing basis on how this alliance can work for the good of the country without leaving it only to those who have come together.

That dialogue must be on each of the six agreed issues and must be with a view to assisting the political leadership to look beyond their own agenda.

We are told and we like to believe that this alliance is the result of the parties heeding public's desire for them to get together to bring the country peace and prosperity. That being, the public (at least those who lead opinions) have a responsibility to ensure that it works for them, in the way it was desired to work.

Optimism
** We need to remain optimistic at a time like this, if only to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. But at the same time, reality kicks in and reminds us that the two main political parties are both on the same side of the national question, broadly speaking, and have always been. Their approaches and attitudes may have differed, but driven by Sinhala majority political imperatives, their gestures to the minorities have always been half-hearted, if not grudging. And that's what sustained the conflict and has aggravated it over a quarter century.

And the contours of this entrenched problem don't change simply because a piece of paper has been signed and exchanged between two political leaders -- it's not even clear if all their respective party members and followers endorse this new pact. Assuming they do, this is only the first meaningful step on a long and arduous journey to a political settlement. This new pact will help prevent one party pulling the other back -- or worse, tripping

** A positive development, but the proof of the pudding will be in its implementation. It is also left to be seen if this is a pact between two crooks. Both parties need to demonstrate statesmanship of a very high degree which means great sacrifices. They can make a start by pruning the cabinet to about 25 + 25 ministers & deputies and put this country on a fast track peace and development program. Even the LTTE will then recognize that we mean business.

** The agreement is good for the politicians of both parties, bad for the people. The system will further get corrupt now that there is no one to challenge.

Responses to specific questions:
Question No - 1: The SLFP and the UNP signed a historic MoU last week details of which are now known to the public. Will this help finally seek a political settlement to the national issue?

** National issues ought to be resolved by engaging all stakeholders and more importantly, by properly defining the issue. Terrorism is an unacceptable tactic and everyone needs to do their part to defeat it with or without MoUs, so that should be injected to our value system. However, dealing with devolution of power to people is a political issue and the MoU certainly is a step in the right direction. Its spirit should prevail at all times especially as and when matters of contention arise so that the MOU really becomes a long lived initiative. One needs to be cautious not to marginalize the aspirations of people who are not party to the MoU and they should not be at the mercy of the mighty.

** It will significantly increase the probability of achieving a settlement within two years.

** Will the pact lead to the consecration of individual rights, the rule of law and the democratic method? Or will it mean more of what we already have - the rule of man?

** At least now they can work on a common platform.

** Could give confidence to investors.

** Nothing to indicate that this will happen as the LTTE is committed to terrorism.

Wary
** One needs to be wary whether the leadership of the LTTE will settle for an amicable settlement for the Tamil issue as I feel there is only one issue at hand -- the LTTE issue which has been given 'packaging' called the Tamil issue.

** It's a step in the right direction if both sides are sincere.

** It's a start towards getting the two parties to look at some key issues in a bipartisan manner, particularly since they think alike on this.

** This will only be a collection of heads with the two groups agreeing to disagree. Both parties have been playing games with the national question either to gain power or consolidate same.

The UNP is somewhat flexible and liberal in its attitude but the SLFP came to power on a hardline stage and extreme communalistic stance.

The SLFP's strength is, needless to say, based on the majority Sinhala Buddhist sentiments and therefore can never agree to a settlement even close to a federal solution. If they do, their power base will erode and for everybody power is the most important factor. I cannot see them arriving with a substantial package for a solution and therefore a solution is very unlikely and remote.

Question No - 2: Will it lead to the end to divisive and confrontational politics in the country?
** It is a start for a new political culture although we are bound to revert to divisive/confrontational politics in time… that's life. But if politicians now and again could agree on common agendas for issues of national importance that would be great. But I am not optimistic…our people oppose for the sake of opposing.

** It is the beginning of a new era, but there is a high probability of reverting back to confrontational politics at the next election.

** Confrontational politics need not be divisive. Adversarial politics is vital to the democratic method. There is nothing more dangerous and elitist than lack of political competition and the presence of consensus among the political elite. Adversarial politics is part of checks and balances of democratic politics.

** This is a good start. The JVP however is there to resort to confrontational politics in Sri Lanka. They think that what they say is correct and that all the others are wrong.

** Signing an MoU doesn't signify a permanent cessation of political conflict.

** A positive step and should be encouraged. Hopefully a new political culture will emerge.

Too many MoUs
** Can't see this happening. As long as MR and RW are there it seems okay. But what happens when the next generation of politicians comes along? Will they also think on the same lines as these two? Also MR has a habit of signing MoU's with almost everyone.

** We still have a myriad of parties - the JVP, TNA, JHU - that will continue to go on that vein. One mustn't forget that they are just as influential as the SLFP and the UNP.

** Yes … provided the UNP will take an active role in the main areas identified rather than a passive role where they will do nothing. On the face of it this appears to be the case where the UNP will stay on the sidelines, not object to the government; not get directly involved in the peace effort or actively assist the government to solve the many national questions. In effect pretty much do nothing.

** Apart from the limits of the agreement on a few issues there are many other decisive issues for each party to confront each other. When it comes to elections and therefore, the question of power, will the UNP play second fiddle to the SLFP and vice versa for long periods?

Question No - 3: Will it help boost the economy, encourage business and investment?
** This is the starting point of a new journey that will shape our political landscape for the future and will have a great influence on the investment climate because one may expect a more consistent set of policies and long term development goals that go beyond the election cycle. So, the MOU can be expected to bring in some stability to the economic and development agenda for the country that will certainly help revive the economic climate. There is lot to be done though.

** At least a more favourable climate will prevail though the fundamental economic realities have to be addressed.

** Ha … now henchmen from both main parties stand to gain from statism.

** Foreign investors have, I believe, got used to the various political alliances over the years that promise to bring about change only to fizzle out and die. The SLFP - JVP alliance is a case in point.

** Yes it should, but the UNP wanted the economic areas removed from the MoU which is a pity as there should have been an agreed framework by both parties for the country's long term economic development.

Question No - 4: Has the divisive politics of the two parties in which neither the (SLFP or the UNP) wants the other to take credit for a resolution of the national question, resulted in the country, in the past, struggling - apart from the LTTE - to end the war with a political settlement?
**The political issue concerns people in underdeveloped areas of the country regardless of their ethnic origin. The LTTE is a terror outfit. Defeating terrorism requires the efforts of everyone as it is the collective effort that brings a sustainable solution. If one can forget about who gets the credit there are a lot of things that could be achieved.

** Most certainly: Yes.

** The lack of selfless leadership and statesmanship as well as the complete absence of accountability, the flagrant disrespect for law and order and the high levels of corruption displayed by the respective governments, have been the bane of this country throughout - not the LTTE and the JVP who have been touted by both parties as convenient excuses - though definite de-stabilisers of the country and its economy. It is the dearth of proper leadership that has led to Sri Lanka continuing to remain a banana republic or worse and of course been the cause of the continuation of the war.

** To some extent yes, but for me the biggest culprit is the JVP along with the LTTE

People forgotten
** Clichéd as it might seem, 'the people' seem to have been forgotten in the entire issue of who takes credit for what etc, in leading the country on a veritable roller-coaster ride.

** The problem lies neither in the UNP nor the SLFP but in the LTTE which is an unacceptable partner for negotiations. Can a sovereign nation surrender a third of its territory to a criminal organization that wants to set up a mafia state where it can engage in narcotics smuggling, the arms trade, human smuggling, forgery of documents and other activities under the guise of looking after Tamil grievances?

** Most definitely. All these years they saw each other as greater enemies than the LTTE. In fact it also prevents the country from taking on the LTTE militarily. If a substantial and credible proposal (as the government in power can demonstrate that it has majority support in parliament to carry it through) is put on the table, the government will have the high ground to take the fight to the LTTE, without having the international community breathing down its neck. It will also drain civilian support away from the LTTE.

** In the present atmosphere of pro-war sentiments being built up the UNP has no tactical alternative but to come to a consensus on limited issues.

If they didn't, the SLFP inclusive of other sectors of society will criticise the UNP and project is as anti-social, anti-country, etc. But the UNP knows that a political solution acceptable to at least the moderates will not be a reality and therefore, they feel comfortable.

On the other hand, the SLFP is in a dilemma, because of their power base and even if a substantial package is decided upon, the JVP and the JHU will play the Sinhala- Buddhist line more vigorously and increase their power base and even increase their representation in parliament, which situation, both the SLFP and UNP would want to avoid at any cost. So does the question of who takes the credit arise?