|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 7 December 2003 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
On National Government : Sharing 'operational' power Sixth Sense by Raj Gonsalkorale The quotation that 'power tends to corrupt absolute power corrupts absolutely' could not have been more apt in Sri Lanka than in today's context. Giving our politicians unbridled power would be tantamount to diaster and the semblance of democracy we have now may never recover from such an onslaught of opportunities for corruption. While there are many sound arguments for formation of a National Government, the assumptions that must precede such an event do not stack up. An essential assumption is that politicians must be at least reasonably honest and think of the country before them. The idealism of John Kennedy's "think what you can do for your country and not what the country can do for you" must hold true at least to some degree. Let alone having to put up with people who are waiting to prove Kennedy wrong, and that one can achieve greatness for a country without having to adhere to such tiresome words of wisdom, we will have to live with the spectacle of the country being turned into a big business paradise where the now forgotten 'common man' will be delegated to complete oblivion. A national consensus on major issues will be a far more effective alternative to a national government and it will test the sincerity of our politicians, and especially their readiness to practise what they preach to others all the time. The single most important issue before all of us today is a consensus on how the ethic issue should be resolved, and whether it should be through violence and the prosecution of a war or, by negotiation through the peace process. If the argument for a National Government is for the purpose of arriving at such a consensus, then there is no validity for such an argument as there is already such a consensus. Both major political groupings in the South are on record that they are for negotiations and both have said they are agreeable to use the LTTE proposals as a starting point for discussions. In this climate, one is entitled to ask why there is prevarication and why the peace discussions have stalled. Well, as many commentators and columnists have said, the reason is a question of power, and who gets the kudos and the benefits from a peace dividend. The Prime Minister is in a state of pique because the President has pulled the carpet under his feet and pulled him down from his pedestal. The President has been in a state of pique for nearly two years as the Prime Minister shut her out of the peace process she commenced several years ago. Now that reality has struck and the President has established her constitutional position in no uncertain terms, we have moved from one round table discussion to another trying to resolve the issue of power and kudos. There is an obvious impasse at these discussions as there is nothing new or more to be gained for the UNF by sharing the spoils of power with the PA and the President. While there are at present two seats of power, i.e. the Presidency and the Parliament (and the Prime Minister) operational power that provides the kudos rests with the Prime Minister and he is naturally unwilling to share that power with the President, and hence the impasse. If is therefore not in the interest of the Prime Minister to join a National Government and dilute his hold on operational power. Of course, if we had true statesman at the helm, it could have been a different story, but in the absence of that rare species, we have to contend with reality. The idea of a National Government is a dead issue, because it was dead before it was even born. And, it might be very good that it is dead. Imagine giving such unfettered power to our politicians and leaving them without even an ineffective opposition! On the other hand, a national consensus which recognises the position and power of the Presidency, the Prime Minister and the Parliament will be far more effective in pursuing vital issues before us. There is already broad agreement on major issues, both in regard to the peace process and on economic issues. After all, both are dictated to by the IMF on economic reform and both are pressured by big business here and abroad to enter into a agreement with the LTTE sooner rather than later. What may be required is to determine the President's rightful role in the peace process, and a recognition by the Prime Minister that he has no real constitutional powers and that the President has all the constitutional powers and therefore, a constitutional power cohabitation process needs to be formalised through perhaps a memorandum of understanding between the Prime Minister and the President. The other important argument against the idea of a National Government is the impression that it will create in the eyes of the Tamil community that the Sinhala dominated South is grouping together to deprive them of their just rights for self determination. While at the end of the day, any constitutional amendments would require the support of both major parties, the Tamil community may feel it is within their rights to ask the question as to why they have to suffer the indignity of being beholden to the Sinhala community to have what is rightfully theirs. This philosophical issue, which could be the subject of endless debate, would be better addressed through a national consensus process rather than through a National Government, as the former option will provide an opportunity for a wider debate that goes beyond that of a National Government, and therefore would be less limiting and far more inclusive of public opinion. A true national consensus will pressurise both major parties to act in a far more inclusive manner than the way a national government will act as they will have to rely on parliamentary numbers to pass legislation. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
