Security

Politics

World

Letters

Sports

Obituaries

Archives

Dissent not sabotage

If Norway's Deputy Foreign Minister, on his recent visit here, felt that the peace process was moving fast, the forces opposed to the current process also seem to be gathering momentum.

While those small extremist factions opposed to any form of a power-sharing compromise with the ethnic minorities are reiterating their hostility to the current process, far more significant is the emergence of an alliance of mainstream, parliamentary parties also hostile to it.

The expressions of dissent by the extremists is not un-expected. In any case, dissent is a necessary aspect of democracy and should be accommodated and even facilitated. This is because it is the practice of dissent that enables the critical review of governmental actions in a rigorous manner that will, in turn, ensure that the governmental action is fine tuned to meet all exigencies and the interests of as many sections as possible.

That dissent, however, must be practised in a democratic manner and should be content with whatever democratic response it receives from society. The Sri Lankan people have, in successive recent elections, clearly indicated their response to the extremists' rejection of a power-sharing compromise settlement. While democratic dissent must be allowed, those transgressing the democratic framework will then be liable to be dealt with in accordance with the law.

The extremist groups have been electorally put in their place by the citizenry. However, moves against the peace process by those bigger, mainstream parties that have received an electoral mandate to pursue a negotiated political settlement are another matter.

In the first place, a complete hostility to the peace process by these mainstream parties would be in contravention of their electoral mandate to explore all avenues of peace-making. Given their electoral mandate these groups have the authority to critically review the peace process but not to oppose it. Their posture must be one of constructive criticism and not of rejection.

Any attempts by these groups to agitate and whip up communal fears and tension on the basis of an opposition to the peace process would a betrayal of their popular mandate and would be irresponsible politics.

However, when senior politicians of these oppositional mainstream parties join a platform that is hostile to the current peace process, the public may well ask whether such contradictory political behaviour has some other political rationale. What may be prompting this inappropriate hostility to the current Governmental peace initiative? Is this motivated by other political tensions between the Government and the Opposition parties?

The Government, on its part, must ensure that no excuse should be given for rival political formations to sabotage a nationally vital initiative simply as a reaction to other political tensions. The citizenry must then observe the actions of the Government as well to ascertain whether anything is jeopardising an already fragile 'co-habitation'.

Sri Lanka, at this delicate stage in the most critical political process in modern times, simply cannot afford petty inter-party tensions to block the greater need for as many political forces as possible to collaborate to pull the nation out of the depths of disaster. Thus maturity and finesse are urgently needed qualities among our political leadership.

On the one hand, those gravitating towards anti-Government agitation, despite their popular mandate, need to re-assess their strategy. On the other hand, those who have initiated the current peace process must, on no account, indulge in actions that will negate their efforts and betray the interests of the vast majority of all Sri Lankans.

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security 
 Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager