Editorial

Security

Politics

World

Letters

Sports

Obituaries

Archives

'If UNP wins very undesirable cohabitation situation will recur'

by Hana Ibrahim

What was the rationale behind President Chandrika Kumaratunge's decision to dissolve parliament and call for a general election, the third in less than four years? Did the timing have anything to do with the MoU between the SLFP and the JVP?

What happens if the UNP is returned to power, or refuses to collaborate with the President, if the Alliance is voted into power? Lakshman Kadirgamar, the newly appointed Minister of Media, in a no-holds barred interview talks about the events leading to the dissolution of parliament and his efforts to guide the media in a new direction, at least for the next 50 days.

Question: Minister of Foreign Affairs, senior advisor to the President...Media Minister is an unusual role for you. What would be your primary function in this new role?

Answer: Yes. It is an unusual role. But of course I am very much a stop gap. I have probably got 50 days in office. So there is no time to formulate a long term policy or anything like that. But I have already issued a media policy for the general election that's really a set of rather idealistic goals. I don't think any of those are going to be practically achievable within 50 days. The purpose of the 10 to 12 point guideline is to get people to focus their minds on what I consider to be a desirable way of getting about this.

Q: How do you propose to ensure that the guidelines are adhered to?

A: For instance, I would try as best as possible to see that the news coverage is balanced. These are all objectives. I mean, it is not going to be easy to overturn a culture that has grown up over a decade, over night. But let me take as a possible hypothetical example, because so far nothing concrete has happened... If I get reports that some particular item of news is blatantly false or unbalanced, then I will certainly give instructions, that, that sort of thing should not happen again.

I will try, if there is a possibility for a 'Right of Reply', and whether that concept can be introduced.

Those are two practical examples. I will try to see if some of the discussions and debate programmes can be reformatted. This is with regard to the state media. With regard to the private media, I only hope that somewhere down the line, even during this campaign we can reach some measure of agreement as to how these matters should be handled.

Q: What is the rationale of going in for elections at this juncture. Is it realistic, especially given the fact that the UNP had indicated that it was ready to compromise?

A: For a good two and a half months, when the Mano-Malik talks were going on, one after the other, the Prime Minister rejected the proposals that were being put forward by the President. Many people said those proposals were reasonable. In this sense, the Prime Minister simply had to realise, after the Supreme Court ruling, there was no question of the Ministry of Defence being held by anybody other than the President. My feeling is that the Prime Minister hadn't quite come to grips with that.

He just couldn't accept it and didn't want to accept it.

Q: Is dissolving parliament and calling for elections a realistic move, given the understanding that the Mano-Malik talks were on the verge of reaching an agreement and a MoU between the President and Prime Minister was on the cards?

A: No. All that talk of a final agreement was hopelessly wrong. I noticed there was a lot of hype going on in the press. Everyday news items appeared about agreements being around the corner and everything being all right.... I must say that all that was utterly wrong. I think it was deliberately hyped up. There is no agreement around the corner, at all. So I am afraid, factually it is not correct that the talks were proceeding very cordially, towards very clear conclusions.

Q: But isn't it true that the Prime Minister had indicated he was agreeable to a comprise that allowed the President to retain the Defence Ministry?

A: At the last moment, a day or two before parliament was dissolved, apparently, he had said that he was ready to go back to the President's first proposal. I am not privy to the discussions that took place, but I understand that there were still some problems about defence... who was going to control defence.

There are some constitutional problems still. I was informed, I can't vouch for it. So there was no question of settling that issue. Frankly, I think the Prime Minister made a very late attempt to avert a general election, not because he had a good proposal to offer. He could very well have saved a lot of time and effort, by making an agreement that way, down the road. And faced with the reality that he could not have Defence, why take two and a half months to come to this point?

Q: Is this a question of his personal decision or him being given the wrong advice?

A: In the case of leaders, I don't think they can ever take up the position that they were given the wrong advice. One of the attributes of leadership is to accept a decision made as your decision. You have many inputs. But no leader can say I was wrongly advised. You have to take full responsibility. So I think other people should also not look at it like that. You get good advice and bad advice. Finally the decision is yours. It is a lonely position.

Q: In the same context, the President's decision to dissolve parliament and go in for elections, can also be viewed as her sole decision.

A: No question about it. She received many input for and against it. But the final decision was hers.

Q: Does the timing of the dissolution of parliament have anything to do with the MoU signed between the SLFP and JVP and the formation of the Alliance?

A: One of the purposes of the Alliance, in practical terms was to fight an election. The Alliance contained no dates about when elections would be held. The purpose of an alliance is that. You don't have alliances for academic purposes. But I don't think that had any particular effect on the timing of the election. I don't think the date of the elections was dictated by the Alliance. Many other factors came into play. I can tell you that one of the principal factors involved, was that things had come to such a state of affairs ...

The public is well aware that over the past three months, since the President took over the Ministry of Defence to strengthen national security, the Prime Minister has been insisting on holding that portfolio in order to carry out the peace process.

The Prime Minister was thus evading the responsibility which he alleges was given solely to him as a result of an exclusive mandate received by him at the general election of 2001. The truth of the matter is that no single party can claim to have an exclusive mandate to handle such a sensitive issue as the peace process which is vital for the future of the country and the solution of a major national problem. The President has always taken the view that the peace process must be conducted in an inclusive manner and in deliberation with all political parties and communities living in our country.

While the Prime Minister's arguments about the relationship of the Ministry of Defence and the peace process are not clear the President has made every effort over the past three months to accommodate the Prime Minister's wishes to the greatest extent possible within the parameters of the Constitution. The Prime Minister has kept on rejecting one proposal after another, insisting all the time that he must have the Ministry of Defence to conduct the peace process.

It is well known that the Supreme Court has decisively ruled that the Ministry of Defence cannot be alienated by the Head of State. As the Head of State the President is bound to discharge the responsibilities and observe the duties conferred on her by the Constitution.

Thus, the fundamental political difference between the Prime Minister and the President is that he believes that a single political authority must handle all elements related to the peace process for it be successful, while the President believes that on something as vital to all the people of the country as peace and democracy, all communities and parties must play a role if a fair and durable settlement is to be reached. This difference of view could not be resolved.

Therefore, the President felt that the time had come when in the interests of the country and the peace process itself this uncertain state of affairs should be brought to an end. In a democracy the people are sovereign, they are the source of political power. It is they, the people, who are, finally, the masters of the destiny of the State. Their voice is decisive, it must be heard, it is only they who have the right and duty to resolve a problem of this magnitude.

Conceptual and philosophical differences that underline all that's visible on the surface. And that state of affairs could not be allowed to continue. It had to be resolved. And if you have a deadlock there, you have no alternative but to go back to the masses, and say now tell us what you want us to do.

Q: What if the masses say they don't want an election, that the two leaders should work together?

A: But they were not able to work together.

Q: What is the assurance you can give the public that this election would resolve the deadlock?

A: Work it out and see at that time. You can't give hypothetical assurances. Depending on your political attitude, some people say the fault for all this was the President. I totally reject that. Some people, I think, are beginning to realise that the Prime Minister had been needlessly intransigent. He simply has not realised or accepted the reality that he cannot have Defence back.

And coming very late in the day, when other developments have taken place, other people have got involved and suddenly to say 'No, No I am going back to the first point' is not bona fide. The masses want a perfect state of affairs. They are entitled to ask. But if you can't deliver it, then what can you do?

Can you carry on with this impasse?

Q: Still, the general consensus is that the country cannot afford to go in for an election at this juncture and that arbitrarily calling for election is going against the wishes of the masses. How will the new round of elections, the 3rd in less than four years, build confidence in the country's leadership among the local people, in the international arena and investors, especially as the masses believe they have already given their mandate?

A: Yes they have. But there are changed circumstances. A mandate once given doesn't hold valid by itself for the entirety of the period. Legally it is valid, which entitles you to carry on with the mandate.

But when you have a dissolution power, then the exercise of that power at a particular point of time must be judged in the relevant of the context. In the Westminster style of parliament, the prime minister of the day is entitled to dissolve parliament before time. You see it happened in India six months before time.

Q: But the issue here is different....

A: Yes, the issue here is that the dissolution power is in the hands of the President and the parliamentary majority is in another party. In all other parliamentary democracies, the problem doesn't arise because you are dissolving yourself.

Q: In the Sri Lankan context, doesn't it get viewed as a hostile act?

A: Yes it could be viewed as a hostile act as against the party in power in parliament. But then, the fact that the powers to dissolve parliament is vested in the Executive President is a matter that has to be taken into account when you are assessing how it is to be exercised.

Q: What happens if the UNP wins election 2004 bringing about a repeat of the current situation. Is the President ready for systematic collaboration?

A: The very fact that the President comes from one party and the Prime Minister, in that event, will come from another party, means that we would be back in this very uneasy and very undesirable cohabitation situation because of the fault of the constitution. So again until you amend the constitution, which is again a dream because you need a 2/3rd majority, you have to struggle through a similar exercise. But the one big difference will be that the President will keep the Ministry of Defence. And then the President will have to try to see whether some kind of new alignment of forces can be arranged.

That's possible.

Q: Describe this alignment of forces.

A: National Government is not an appropriate word, but it can be some kind of collaboration on issues, something the President has been suggesting for two years. If one is fair to the President, one has to say that she has gone more than half the distance to be accommodating, against very, very hostile treatment. And the government has been very hostile.

There is a whole catalogue of events that show that the government of the day was not prepared to bring the President even into the most vital matter of all, which is the peace process. For instance, the Ceasefire Agreement was not shown to the President until it was signed. What could be more indicative of the Prime Minister's belief that he had got an exclusive mandate for the peace process, which I don't think is the case. Nobody should ever say that. We should all realise by now that there is no such thing as an exclusive mandate in a democratic country.

Q: What happens if the Alliance comes to power. Can you expect them to work with the UNP, given the fact that the election is going to be highly competitive, even confrontational?

A: Its too early to say. But I would say there is a large body of opinion in the country from all parties that want the major parties to work together. I would think that kind of feeling would prevail even after the election. But I still say its too early, because we are living in an era of coalition politics due to the PR System that won't allow any party to form a government without the help of others.

We've seen in the last 10 years how you get two major parties with the most number of votes and smaller parties joining one or the other. These smaller parties have built up a government and also brought a government down. This is the state of affairs we have to live with under this constitution. But given that situation, various kinds of arrangements are always possible, even after elections. That's why I say I wouldn't rule out any kind of arrangement, bearing in mind the ethnic question.

Not so much an alliance on economic questions. But on the ethnic question, the feeling may grow that parties simply have to get together to work out some common stand.

Q: If no agreement is possible with the UNP how would the Alliance proceed with the peace process, especially with regard to the required constitutional reforms?

A: That will be one of the continuing tragedies of Sri Lankan politics. If we do not seek that, no durable settlement will be possible unless there is a consensus in the country. If we continue to shut our eyes and fail to see, and act as though it is not necessary, we are all heading cumulatively and collectively for a permanent disaster. So the hope has to be that collectively light will dawn on our people.

If you start pointing fingers and try to apportion blame, of course you won't get very far. But that said, consensus is illusive. It is something you have to work for. You also have to separate hype and PR exercises which tend to cloud the issue. Consensus means a lot of hard work which means that egos must be shrunk. If you don't have people willing to do that, consensus is not going to happen. And you have to remember that when dealing with the LTTE, due to the monolithic structure there, they don't have problems of this kind.

Q: What would be the status of the Ceasefire Agreement, if the Alliance comes to power?

A: The Ceasefire Agreement will stand. The PA has complained of serious imbalance and we have been right. But there is no question about not wanting a ceasefire. The concept is fully supported by the PA, the President, the Alliance. We don't want a breakdown. The concept is more important than the document. The concept preserves the ceasefire. However, there are several unsatisfactory features in the document that need to be attended to.

Q: What about continuing with the peace process?

A: The Alliance is committed to a political dialogue for a settlement. We will initiate discussions with the LTTE and other parties.

The LTTE is party to the conflict, so we have to talk with them. But we also have to bring about a just and durable solution. So we will also talk to other parties. But who to talk to and what to discuss are issues that need to be gone into.

Q: If the National Freedom Alliance comes to power, will it enact laws to run the state media without political interference, as recommended by R.K.W. Gunasekera, who was appointed by the President to look into Media Freedom?

A: I don't know what is going to happen. But it is very desirable that comprehensive legislation be introduced once and for all as in many countries, to either abolish state media completely, or regulate it in a sensible manner. Details of how it should be done, I am not aware. But as a principle I think it is very desirable.

Q: Political violence has become a part of the local election process. How, in your view, can a climate of violence be prevented?

A: It is a complex question. Police have to play a better role. The Police have been politicised over the years and police culture is very polluted by political interference. A large section in the police, in this kind of climate look to see what their masters would want them to do. Independence of the police is in question, even over ordinary law and order, but especially in times of elections.

I'd like to see the media devoting a fair amount of time in creating a climate of non violence involving the public. As Media Minister I would see that state media preaches the concept of non-violence. Civil society has to play a bigger, pro-active part. I would be very much in favour of that.

www.ceylincoproperties.com

www.ppilk.com

www.crescat.com

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