|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 27 October 2002 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Sixth Sense : Political instability may de-rail peace process, economy
by Raj Gonsalkorale The Supreme Court ruling on the 19th amendment is more than arbitration on a legal argument. The highest court in Sri Lanka has made a ruling which is sensible and which has given voice to what is felt by a majority of ordinary citizens of the country. Its ruling enshrines the rule of checks and balances that is a vital element in a democracy and it gives voice to the concept of balance of power. It also sets a precedent to prevent any future tinkering of the fundamental tenants of the Constitution with their ruling that the clause on the conscience vote was unconstitutional. This column made this specific suggestion in the article published on the 29th of September. In addition, this column suggested in this article and in several articles earlier, that the President and the Prime Minister should sign a memorandum of understanding that would provide the Prime Minister the certainty of tenure he needs and which would identify the specific conditions under which the President could dissolve Parliament, whether it is before a particular point of time or after that time. This column has consistently argued that the President should have the power to dissolve Parliament, but only under certain conditions, with loss of Parliamentary confidence in the Prime Minister being one of the fundamental conditions. Our leaders have two choices. They can either find some way to cohabit and find a solution to the ethnic issue and thereby lead the country to prosperity, or they can tread a path that destroys the window of opportunity that has arisen to move the peace process forward and take the country further back, economically and socially. Unfortunately, judging from the rhetoric and actions of leading figures on both sides of politics, it appears that we will travel down the latter path and go back to square one. History appears set to repeat itself and take us three steps backwards after having painstakingly taken two steps forward. It looks like deja vu for the umpteenth time in the history of modern Sri Lanka. Moving the peace process forward does not mean giving into any unreasonable demands from any quarter, be it the LTTE, the SLMC or the JVP. It means bringing in measures to satisfy the just aspirations of all people in the country and ensuring equality of opportunities and rewards to all people within a unitary State. If the LTTE has an agenda which is different to this, then, their demands needs to be tempered to fall in line with this overall objective of the peace process. The challenge before all of us, including the LTTE, is to find a mechanism that could action the overall philosophy and objective of the peace process. For this to happen, the major parties have to be united in their resolve and in action, to focus on this main objective of the peace process, and by being so, be in a position to temper an unreasonable demand from any quarter that attempts to derail or veer the peace process away from its primary objective. Any division at this level will result in a victory for extremists on all sides, and a solution arrived at will not be a solution, but the beginning of another problem. In terms of the second but intricately linked important issue of economic and social development, a derailment or an impasse of the peace process will have very detrimental effects; as such a development will result in a trickling of foreign investment and foreign economic assistance into the country. No one should fool themselves that this will not happen and that absence of foreign investment and foreign economic assistance will not affect the future of the country. Constitutional means to get over the current impasse arising from the dual mandate given by the voters to both the President and the Prime Minister is not going to work. The Supreme Court has been unambiguous in this regard. It is highly unlikely that a general election, which no one really wants, is going to address this issue either despite childish pouting, and threats being made by various quarters. If there is to be an election the most likely certainty is that the UNP will not get a two-thirds majority on its own accord. They cannot be certain of minority party support to give them a two-thirds majority, because of the fickleness of the Sri Lankan political establishments and personalities, and there is even the risk of the UNP losing the government if they opt for an election. In this situation, the only political solution to the cohabitation impasse would be for the President and the Prime Minister to sign a MOU, possibly on the basis of an agreed action programme at macro level, and giving recognition to criteria that will have to be met for the President to dissolve Parliament, and giving certainty of tenure for the government provided they act within the agreed action programme and the Prime Minister continues to enjoy the confidence of the Parliament. There needs to be mutual respect between the President and the Prime Minister for provisions of the Constitution, and there needs to be acceptance of the spirit of the dual mandate given by the voters to the two leaders. The Prime Minister cannot govern under a constant threat of dissolution, but neither can the Prime Minister ignore the reality of the political situation he is placed in. As constitutional means to overcome this reality has been vetoed by the Supreme Court, and as a general election is fraught with more risks for the Prime Minister than even a tempestuous cohabitation arrangement with the President, the only available solution appears to be a memorandum of understanding between the two leaders that would provide some certainty of governance for the Prime Minister and acceptance of the role of the President in providing the checks and balances that the Supreme Court has articulated through its historic ruling. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
