|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 23 November 2003 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Towards an MoU between President and Government As a group of concerned citizens we have come together to support the large cross-section of society which has made strong pleas to the leadership of the UNF and the PA to work together to resolve the crisis which the country is currently facing. It is the gravest constitutional crisis since the peace process began and threatens to disrupt and frustrate all the efforts which are being made to restore peace and development. We were initially heartened by the restraint and the conciliatory approaches shown in the statements made by the President and the Prime Minister. They seemed to bring some hope to the people that the two-main parties are ready, at long last, to collaborate in the effort to strengthen the peace process. However, the reports since then indicate that there are no signs that the two parties are genuinely committed to seeking an arrangement which will result in such collaboration. On the contrary, influential groups within the parties seem to be advocating courses of action that will feed on the existing partisan rivalry and lead to further confrontation. We do not think that much purpose is served by apportioning blame for the present crisis. We recognize that the roots of the crisis are deep-seated and lie in the inability of the two parties to work out a relationship to adjust to the hard-realities dictated by the electorate and the constitution - realities which demand that an elected President from the PA must work with a UNF cabinet based on an elected Parliamentary majority. This crisis has come to a head as a result of disagreements arising from the handling of the peace process. In all their pronouncements, the leaders of both parties have reiterated their firm commitment to the peace process. Given these commitments on both sides, the management of the peace process should provide adequate space for the legitimate expression of disagreements and concerns of each other. The developments in the recent past show that the existing arrangements are unable to take due account of these legitimate disagreements and resolve them peacefully to take the peace process forward. We are firmly convinced that the present crisis therefore demands a new approach by the leaders of both parties - an approach which takes account of the demands of the democratic processes that have elected them. There are certain essential prerequisites for the success of such an approach. First, it cannot be an approach in which one party leaves the peace process to the other. The Prime Minister's offer to the President that she take over the peace process cannot lead to any constructive outcome and appears to be wholly impractical - if only for the reason that the process has proceeded midway and the constraints and complexities ahead are known best to those who have been in the negotiating process. We therefore construe the Prime Minister's initiative as a gesture calculated to bring home to the President the gravity of the situation, which has been precipitated by the constitutional crisis. Second, the approach has to be one in which each party leader recognizes the genuine commitments and concerns the other has in the peace process. All disagreements must be resolved on the basis of this understanding. The President for her part has been clear in her commitment to the peace process and the ceasefire although she remains critical of the way in which the process has been managed. What is needed on the part of both is statesmanlike magnanimity that inspires the essential confidence and trust in each other and enable them to work together to resolve the present crisis - magnanimity which is expected of true national leaders for whom the task of achieving peace and protecting the interests of the people as a whole is above party politics. Third, the President has offered to form a national government. The contentious issue in any national government is finally the distribution of power. The key issue to be resolved, however, is the sharing of power in the peace process, and this needs to be done effectively and urgently to keep the peace process moving. In that context, a national government may not be the right or practical answer. Both the PA and the UNP need to reflect on their last abortive effort to form a national government. The effort at forming a national government can easily flounder on the struggle for portfolios by party members and become an unconscionable exercise of adding portfolios and distributing the spoils of office. People are unanimous in their view that the Cabinet as it is and as it has been in the recent past is much too large for a poor country such as ours. What is required is in fact a considerable reduction in the size of the Cabinet and rationalization of its functions. Therefore, the answer to the present crisis lies in clearly-designed arrangements which help to overcome the present constitutional impasse and enable the President and the Prime Minister to work together. This could be done through a well-designed memorandum of understanding covering all the critical issues in the President-Prime Minister-Cabinet relationship and ensuring a stable process of government while the present situation of co-habitation lasts. This arrangement for collaboration should not be conceived merely as one which governs the relations between the President, Prime Minister and Cabinet. It has to be perceived as an arrangement in which the two main parties are involved as firm stakeholders and regular partners in the peace process. It is not beyond the capacity of the constitutional experts on either side to work out an acceptable and feasible arrangement. Such an arrangement could include a Council for Monitoring the Peace Process which will comprise the key Ministers engaged in the peace process and Presidential nominees from among senior PA Parliamentarians and co-chaired by the President and the P.M. Leaders who have been used to working with outright majorities which are subservient to their will often find it hard to adjust to an arrangement in which they share power at the apex of government. The past difficulties that the two leaders have encountered in working together are well-known to the public. Be that as it may, in the constitutional impasse that has arisen, a fair and reasonable power-sharing arrangement is inescapable. Our earnest hope and plea is that the two leaders would act with that knowledge and rise to their national responsibility. Such an approach will also enable the government to overcome the present deadlock in which there is no prospect of a two-third majority for any constitutional change that is needed for a negotiated settlement. The approach we recommend may appear unrealistic in the present context where the parties appear to be blinded by their own single-minded objective of either consolidating the power they have gained or overthrowing the party in power. But we appeal to the two parties to reflect on the electoral realities more soberly. They do not appear to have learnt from the lessons of the last few elections. The Parliamentary and Presidential Elections have shown that these two parties together have commanded well over 80% of the total number of voters and that the margins by which one has overtaken the other have been narrow. Neither party is anywhere close to the decisive majority that is required for the changes in the Constitution which are essential for the solution of the major national problems confronting the country. These data are a stark reminder that the people in their wisdom have voted in a manner which demonstrates that each party represents a large section of the people and no single party can claim to represent the nation fully. These parties need to realize that the option for either party to act unilaterally on major national issues no longer exists. They must understand that howsoever they may act, the balance of power will not alter dramatically to give any one of them the majority that would enable them to govern in total disregard of a large part of the popular will represented by the other party. All these hard facts point to the overriding need for the two main parties to take a consensual approach on all matters of national importance. Therefore, in this present crisis, we strongly urge each party to act with the realization that any partisan agenda which aims at depriving the other party of its legitimate power, based on manipulation of Parliament, cross overs, dissolution of Parliament or impeachment, can produce no meaningful or durable outcome. If the parties allow their partisan interest to override the national interest, the future of the country would indeed be tragic. At best we would be doomed to indefinitely prolonged and inconclusive negotiations with the constant threat of reverting to violence and armed conflict. At worst we would face political disorder in the South and threat of war and separation in the North East. In making this statement we believe we are voicing the demand of the large majority of citizens who have as their foremost concern the peace and stability of the country and the protection of their human rights. We are greatly relieved by the assurances given by all the main actors in the peace process - the leadership of the two parties, the LTTE and the armed forces - that the current developments will not in anyway jeopardize the peace process. We welcome and support the statements already issued by concerned groups requesting the two parties to place the national interest before their partisan agendas and work together for peace. We request the moderate elements in both parties to do their utmost to facilitate this outcome. We earnestly appeal to the religious leaders, professional associations, civil society organizations, trade unions and all concerned citizens to join together in bringing pressure on the two main political parties to collaborate in the national task of ensuring peace and development in the country. Signed: Ven. Madampagama Assaji Thera Fr. Oswald Firth Godfrey Gunatilleke Jehan Perera Ven. Weligamadhamisara Thera Indika Gunawardena Kumar Rupesinghe S. Balakrishnan Basil Ilangakoon P. Anthony Muthu Sunil R. de Silva H. A. Ranasinghe Ve. Kirandeniya Pannasara Thera Leo Perera Mano Rajasingham Mrs. S. Ranasinghe Lloyd Fernando Hiran Bandaranaike Dhammika Amarasinghe Fr. Tissa Balasuriya C. T. Jansz Kishali Pinto Jayawardena Sita Ranjanie L. Karunaratne Francis Pietersz Monica Ruwanpathirana Kingsley Rodrigo D. Gotabaya C. Athulathmudali H. Samarasinghe J. Samaranayake Neil Weerasinghe S. Candappa Ranjan Fernando Prasanna Gunasinghe Daniel Wijeratne Bernadine Silva Nirmalee Pieris Chandra Gunawardena S. Paranavitana Naro Udeshi Tissa Daulagala K. Pavithra M. Nell J. de Silva Gamini Edirisinghe M. A. M. Mohamed Saleem P. Wickremarachchi Lal Nanayakkara L. N. Pradeep de Silva Mahim Mendis A. G. M. Bandara David Selvaratnam Lakmal Ranatunge N. Ranasinghe 14th November, 2003 |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
