|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 18 May 2003 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Co-habitation: inter-dependence or rival bases of power? Observations by LAKSHMAN GUNASEKERA That old fox, Junius Richard Jayewardene (his surname is not pronounced the way it is spelt), would have loved it. After all, the Third Republican Constitution is largely his brainchild, and certainly, it emerged from within a conspiratorial style of politics and a conspiracy-riddled Establishment also largely the making of one of this country's most able, most successful, politicians. JR's political contribution can now be said to have been as equally definitive as that of his one-time political peer, Solomon West Ridgeway Dias Bandaranaike (it's that deceptive class spelling again). If ole Banders made a huge, long-lasting impact with his enthronement of ethnic politics in post-colonial Sri Lanka, JR has firmly embedded both an authoritarian, 'centralist democracy' (to reverse a Leninist concept) as well as a Western-subservient form of capitalist modernity. So deep has been the impact of both men that it now takes people's war, no less, to prise apart the shackles of ethnic hegemonism and centralised State power. Of course they are only men and what men put together, other men and women can undo. More importantly, as mere men (and not even god-like ones), they were not omnipotent creators of reality but only made a significant contribution to on-going social-political dynamics configured by history and geography. Today, even as we are captivated by the current histrionics of JR's and SWRD's political inheritors, it is imperative that we understand the larger dynamics and the possibilities of a whole range of politics, not just that of the conspiratorial. Right now, the Establishment mass media wallows in the spectacle of 'power play' at national State level as devious move and equally devious counter-move is enacted in the unseen 'Insides' of the 'top' level State institutions and their co-habiting political parties. Media audiences are held captive by the petty drama of one powerful faction attempting to outwit the other side by hook and by crook. Media rhetoric not only enraptures but helps define the very nature of the politics and their significance. Hence, political theatrics in the halls of power in squabbling over sources of institutional finance and spheres of political influence are being dressed up as a 'constitutional crisis'. Even Sri Lankan media audiences want their 'Watergates' and 'Floridas' and, the media is happy to dish it out. It is certainly more entertaining and diverting than the horror of a possible return to ethnic war and the humiliation of having to placate a secessionist insurgent leader. So the squabbling over some of the lesser fruits of State power by the two main Sinhala-dominant national political formations is presented as national political drama and 'constitutional conundrum'. After all, the politics of the social elite must be dignified just as much as that of the mass of people (whether on an ethnic or class basis) has to be relegated to the garbage heap of 'terrorism' or 'subversion'. The overnight Presidential orders, the covert infiltration of the Government Press, the deployment of thugs on either side, the frantic counter-moves by Government politicians, the hurried political consultations and the presumed plotting, all constitute drama, no doubt. It is only in little Sri Lanka, however, with its little or mediocre Establishment, that such plotting and manoeuvres are presented as constitutional crises and grand drama. Even if JR would have appreciated the backroom manoeuvres, perhaps neither he nor SWRD would have considered the current conspiratorial theatrics as up to their standards in national politics. President Chandrika Kurmaratunga was once wrongly accused of antics "in the heat of the night" (the Editor of the guilty newspaper was rightly acquitted of the grandiose criminal charge). The humidity of early May, however, has seemingly aroused some kind of nocturnal political heat if not in the Presidential boudoir itself, at least from somewhere within the Presidential establishment. Even if the targeted Development Lotteries Board was, indeed, worth Presidential attention, I have no idea whatsoever of how attempts to physically intimidate the Government Press into printing a Presidential directive can be associated with Presidential dignity. True, there is no indication that the President herself had ordered any political thuggery, but there is no doubt that the incidents connected to the implementation of the Presidential directive pertaining to the DLB include some element of intimidation and counter-force. My criticism, however, goes far beyond any behaviour by political groups linked to the President's political party, the People's Alliance. Leaving aside the whole style of the operation, the attempt by the President to bring under her control the DLB must, itself, be questioned. The whole idea of 'co-habitation' is brought into question with this Presidential move. In the first place, having acted to take over the DLB, the Presidency as well as the PA have now acknowledged the need for 'consultation' with the Government and the UNF. If 'consultation' and discussion is necessary to resolve the issue of control of the DLB and its all-important money bags, then why did not the Presidency resort to a dialogue first, before resorting to the strong-arm tactic of a take-over? What impression do the people of this country have of this kind of behaviour? This kind of behaviour has to be measured against the overwhelming popular mandate given by the electorate to the two Sinhala-led national political formations to co-habit the main institutions of State power (in Sri Lankan-held territory) in harmonious manner that would enable not just viable governance but also ending the war. What is this electoral mandate? In recent successive elections (of all kinds from the Pradeshiya Sabha right upto the Presidential level) more than 90 per cent of the voters have voted for the two major national political formations, the PA and UNF and have done so with both formations making the ending of the war and inter-ethnic equality and power-sharing one of their major political projects. Likewise, if in the past, the electorate has tended to vote unilaterally to keep both the Presidency and the Government in the hands of the same party, in the past two years, this voting pattern has changed to one that now, if temporarily, maintains both parties in power: one holding the Presidency and the other the Government and Parliament. It is possible to argue that the bulk of the people of this country, of all ethnic communities, not only give primacy to the war as the most urgent national issue, but also want peace-making via negotiations and power-sharing to be the national political priority (which is why both national parties have made it their platform), and, furthermore, hope that both the UNF and the PA will collaborate in a joint effort to tackle the problem. That is why so much is being made of 'co-habitation' as against political competition. It has been presumed that co-habitation in State power would reduce if not remove the compulsions by these two parties to compete for power. While these popular expectations have clearly had an impact on the behaviour of these major political formations, there is not enough of a significant change of practice away from competitive politics to a collaborative one. Not that Western-style capitalist democracy is conducive to consultative and collaborative politics. At least in the South Asian post-colonial societies in which it has been inorganically implanted, this form of democracy has tended to complicate rather than ameliorate the ravages of colonialism and its aftermath, except, perhaps, in India. But after half a century of relative freedom from direct colonial domination, one would have thought that our second and third generation of national political leaders would have realised the nature of their inherited system and would have had the imagination and political will to transcend its compulsions in some way. Judging by the current so-called "constitutional crisis", however, these compulsions yet seem to overwhelm our political leaders. Of course, if one keeps in mind the important fact that the 'leaders' to whom I refer are the leadership of the two major Sinhala-led parties, then one can see some political logic (if mediocre logic) in their behaviour. Since the Sinhala community dominates the post-colonial Sri Lankan State, the endless rivalry between these two political formations can be read, at one level, as the rivalry over the 'spoils' of State between the sub-national political communities that form these party constituencies and between the leaders who must retain their electoral relevance by striving to deliver these spoils to their respective constituencies. But most recent electoral behaviour has shown that, to some degree at least, the larger electorate expects a transcendence of this sub-national rivalry in the larger 'national' (or, even ultra-nationalist) interest. That is the significance of co-habitation. Consultation, consensus and collaboration are essential components if the co-habitation in State power is going to bear the expected fruit and be more than mere co-existence in different official addresses. While constant, smooth, and even elaborate collaboration may only be in the realm of fantasy, certainly, one would expect to see the avoidance of competitive politics and politicking. After some initial bouts of name-calling, mutual blaming, and some manoeuvres by both side, the past year had seen some 'cease-fire' between the two parties just as there has been a cease-fire on the war front. Obviously, the compulsions to compete, to deny the other side any credit or legitimacy and, to undermine the other side's political power (if necessary, via an economic squeeze), yet prevail. Even if both parties share power in the State, the compulsions of rivalry are such that both sides are not content to remain inter-dependent but are striving to consolidate their own autonomous bases of power within the institutions of governance and State power. The President has accused the UNF Government of plotting to re-structure the Development Lotteries Board and thereby cut off a significant source of finance for the Presidency. Given the ethos of party rivalry and the legacy of party behaviour, such suspicions are not surprising and probably have a ring of truth. But if that is the case, and if the UNF is, indeed manoeuvring to reduce the President financial resource capacity, why does the Presidency close this competitive circuit by responding in the same manner? If consultation is the key to a successful co-habitation, as is being acknowledged by both sides, why did not the President's side (and the PA) seek to clarify the UNF's position on the DLB through consultation first? The bottom line is that both major national formations are quite wrong to continue to manoeuvre over the spheres of control and the resources within the State. The bottom line is that a successful co-habitation is based on an inter-dependence by the two parties rather than any attempt to carve out autonomous bases of power within the State. If the President feared an economic squeeze via a denial of the DLB resources, her option, in the context of a popularly mandated co-habitation, is to engage in dialogue with the UNF Government and to publicly challenge the UNF to clarify matters. It is before the public's critical eye that the President can challenge the UNF to end such manoeuvres. She, herself, cannot afford to engage in similar manoeuvres. Perhaps the positive thing that is emerging from the current political skirmishes is the importance and validity of the consultative process. If the UNF now sees merit in upholding the spirit of Article 44 of the Constitution, it also means that the PA can, in the future, hold the UNF to that spirit. But to be able to do that, the PA and its leader must categorically move away from its own resort to conspiracy and manoeuvre. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
