|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 6 June 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Editorial |  |
| News Business Features Security
|
Please forward your comments to the
Editor, Sunday Observer. E-mail: [email protected] Snail mail : Sunday Observer, 35, D.R.Wijewardana Mawatha, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Telephone : 94 11 2429239 / 2331181 Fax : 94 11 2429230 Coalition politics Coalition politics has come to stay in South Asia. India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are all governed at present by coalitions or alliances of political parties. In the case of Sri Lanka, coalitions have been the norm with one party rule a rare exception. To a great extent the same has been true of India for over a decade. Coalition rule does not necessarily mean governments are unstable. We have had the experience of the PA government in 1994, running full term with only a single member majority. The last BJP government in India was not threatened at all with instability, though it was defeated at elections called before schedule. Coalitions, on the other hand, mean a wider consensus. In a way, it is a check on absolute power by a single party. Democracy is thus better preserved under coalitions. The recent polls verdicts in India and Sri Lanka show that the voters had in mind the necessity to check the anti-people tendencies that are associated with mainstream bourgeois parties. That is why the Left or more radical parties have been given a much bigger vote. Coalitions also have their problems. A coalition does not give a free hand to each of its constituents. Instead it binds them to a common minimum program, whether written or unwritten. All constituents have to be alert to the danger of the break-up of the coalition, if one constituent tries to ignore or dominate the other. Life is full of contradictions. Coalitions are also not spared of contradictions. They should be treated as natural and unavoidable. They should not, however, be ignored or played down. They must be resolved. Just as in nature the best way to resolve them is through unity and struggle of opposites. Unity and struggle have to be balanced so as not to engender the organism. We saw last week how the nascent coalition - the UPFA handled the first contradictions that had arisen in it. The SLFP and the JVP agreed to resurrect the Apex Committee to settle the differences that had arisen on the implementation or the non-implementation of certain elements in the common program. In this the JVP demonstrated both maturity and restraint much to the dislike of the Opposition who spared no pains to drive a wedge between the two principal UPFA constituents. Unlike the LSSP and the CP who passively bore all the humiliation they were subjected to by the dominant SLFP in the United Front of 1970, the JVP took a principled position that the commonly agreed program should be adhered to by all partners to the Alliance. It warned that it might have to reconsider their stand if they were ignored continuously. In this they had learnt lessons from the debacle of the United Front government of 1970. Past experience had shown them that the SLFP is not a reliable partner in keeping promises and undertakings. It has displayed hegemonic tendencies that always benefited reaction. It is to be remembered that all parties will be judged ultimately by their commitment to the pledges given to the masses and not by those given to individuals including defeated candidates and financiers. Social dimension of globalization The International Labour Organization (ILO) has called for a process of globalization with a strong social dimension based on universally shared values and respect for human rights. A fair globalization, in its opinion, should be people-centred. It should meet the demands of the people and offer equitable opportunities for all countries and contribute to the elimination of poverty, says the report of the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization published by the ILO. None could disagree with the conclusion of the Commission that problems encountered by the developing countries and the poor are not due to globalization as such but to the deficiencies in its governance. The Bretton Woods institutions and powerful countries largely shape global governance. As the Commission points out "there is a serious democratic deficit at the heart of the problem." What is required is a concerted effort to restructure the international institutions of governance, to make them more democratic and representative of the large number of poor countries. Donor countries and multi-lateral agencies should not impose their own conditions on the developing countries but take into consideration their needs and national interests. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
