|
|
|
  |
| Sunday, 20 March 2005 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
The blind spot on devolution Light Refractions by Lucien Rajakarunanayake The President's statement that she was convinced at least 80 per cent of the people supported devolution and her declared readiness to risk even her presidency or hold a referendum on the issue has led to a new upsurge in the political decibels against devolution.
It was not too long ago that the UNF contested the polls in December 2001, when it gave a promise of bringing peace to the country. The UNF scraped through to gain a parliamentary majority, although the SLFP and JVP together had more of the popular vote. It claimed that it had received a mandate from the people to bring about peace, and went about signing the MoU with the LTTE, leading to the Ceasefire Agreement that is somehow still in force. At that time, the criticism against Ranil Wickremesinghe and the UNF was that they did not get a mandate for the MoU that was signed. There could be, and in fact there are many flaws in the MoU, but one fails to understand how it is possible to proceed towards a negotiated peace in the absence of such an understanding between the two main rivals. Mere rhetoric about the UNF not having a mandate for the MoU is both hollow and funny as the UNF's own position that "mandate" they received at the December 2001 election, did away with the mandate President Kumaratunga received in the second Presidential Election in December 1999. Ranil Wickremesinghe and his coterie were obviously mixed up about apples and oranges in local politics. The people certainly did not take seriously the criticism that the UNP had no mandate to enter into an MoU with the LTTE. What they opposed was the manner in which the MoU was allowed to be used to further strengthen the LTTE, and the policy of appeasement of the LTTE in every way. That is the main reason for the UNF being booted out in April 2004. There were also many other issues such as its neo-liberal economic policies, the unashamed pro-Bush American policies and total neglect of the rural sector that contributed to its defeat. What is said in criticising the President's declared policy of devolution is that it will lead to the division of the country on ethnic lines. However, there is no explanation given as to how devolution will lead to division. Neither are there any examples by the new red ideologues of countries that had properly functioning federal structures of state being divided due to the federal nature of the state. It seems time to remind some people of Lenin's observation that left wing extremism is an infantile disorder. As for the so-called lack of a mandate for devolution, those who say it have forgotten that in every election in which President Kumaratunga led the SLFP and its allies to victory since 1994, she and the People's Alliance contested on the basis of peace through negotiation, with devolution as the means to the solution. In every election, people endorsed the policy of devolution by electing the PA to office, as well as in electing the President twice where she campaigned personally on a promise of devolution of power. In such a situation one can hardly say that there has been no people's mandate for devolution, merely because it was not put down in so many words in the manifesto of the UPFA in April 2004. There is certainly a large blind spot in the eyes of those who fail to understand the repeated support for devolution at several elections, and also see in devolution the embryo for separation. It is necessary, especially for those who claim to be the new leaders of the left in this country to look somewhat deeper into the meaning of words and concepts, than keep on repeating worn out slogans against devolution. The failure to do so can only lead such people into a blind alley of contradictions. They should study the concept of mutually agreed devolution, as they have studied very well the needs of the rural economy, and the means for its upliftment. Similarly, it is strange that Professori Verbal Diarrhoea of the UNP who was carrying the initial devolution package of the former PA government being so silent about it today. That was the time when devolution was criticised as the professor's own package. Of course it is part of recent political history as to how he delayed and procrastinated in getting the devolution proposals accepted by Parliament, and especially the UNP, to which he latterly did a home-coming cross-over. The UNP, through the professor, is trying its best to divert the people's minds about the possibility of a referendum and create public feeling against it. What the President said was that she was ready even to risk a referendum on the issue of devolution, as she was certain of public support for it, and not that there will definitely be a referendum on the matter. It remains a possibility, and the JVP which once opposed a referendum on the need for a new constitution, is now supportive of a referendum. The whirligig of politics is certainly driven by its own dynamics. Meanwhile, the UNP and its fellow travelling media, is already fixing dates for the referendum, and also talking more of suggested constitutional changes about abolition of the executive presidency and electoral reform, than talk of the larger issue of devolution which the President has now put on the table. For all its wrong thinking about devolution, those who blindly oppose it have sufficient vision to see that what the UNP is seeking is a break up of the UPFA, to pave the way for the UNP to return to power. No doubt the professor and the colleagues he mentioned recently, S. B. Dissanayake, Mahinda Wijesekera, and the others who crossed over to the UNP are eager to get back to the comfortable and enriching seats of power. The fact that such expectations are only pipe dreams is confirmed by the JVP 's statement that it will not cause the breakdown of the UPFA, and also its call to all forces to come together to prevent the UNP from being re-elected. Getting rid of that blind spot on devolution can make all the difference both to the UPFA and the country at large. |
|
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
| Produced by Lake House |
Some have already declared opposition to devolution as it was not
presented as a proposal to the people at the last general election, and
therefore, there is no people's mandate for it. Sounds all so interesting
but the question arises as to what in fact a mandate is. 
