|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 7 December 2003 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Of razor blades and robber barons by Lucien Rajakarunanayake The news that the Government is seeking "extra time" of four months before coming to a decision on forming a government of reconstruction and reconciliation, as proposed by the President, shows a dangerous hand at work. One recalls what happened to the President's original proposals on devolution, which were presented to the country in August 1995. They went through so much of tinkering and re-shaping that what was finally presented to Parliament was in many ways different to what was originally intended. The second draft prepared by the Ministry of Constitutional Affairs had shed some key aspects with regard to Fundamental Rights. In fact by the time the proposals were presented to a Select Committee of Parliament nearly two years after the original proposals were made public, the Tamil parties that supported the first proposals were already disillusioned with what was on the table. Then came the long delay, especially by the UNP, at the Select Committee stage, where the Government accepted several amendments made by the UNP, but the UNP never gave its final assent to the draft. The President finally held direct discussion with political parties in Parliament, except the JVP, with talks with then UNP, dragging for nearly six months, before she presented the Draft Constitution in Parliament in August 1999. Those who were close to developments over the President's devolution proposals are well aware that the person mainly responsible for the watering down and delay in the proposals was G. L. Peiris, whose responsibility it was to steer the process of constitutional change. The delays by the professor were most evident after it went to the Select Committee stage in Parliament. As the UNP kept on delaying its final consent to a document of consensus, Prof. Peiris kept assuring the President that the UNP's consent would be obtained very soon. He was strong in his assurances that the then Opposition Leader, Ranil Wickremesinghe would come round and the UNP's support would be given. However, all this was to prove unreal. All that took place was an inordinate delay. The process was dragged out for so long that it was possible to build up ill-informed opposition to what was dubbed as "G.L.'s Package". All this is recalled by the reported statement that the Government is asking for a four-month interim period before taking a decision on the President's proposals a broad alliance for reconstruction and reconciliation at a national level. It is interesting that the UNP sources that seek this delay refer to a final decision on the forming of a "National Government". This is despite the President's repeated statements that what she is seeking is not a national government. She is even on record stating she does not even like the word national government, as it gives wrong impressions and creates false expectations. Verbose professor Judging from past experience, one cannot help seeing the hand of the verbose professor in this call for a delay. "Delay" appears to be the task allotted to him by the UNP leadership today, and he will do it as assiduously as he helped and served the UNP so well in delaying the President's Draft Constitution for so long, before taking his political leap back to the party from where he came, and always belonged to by class and politics. It is strange that sources reporting a stumbling block to the "Mano-Malik" talks with the UNP's requirement of longer time, also blame the Government for the delay in resuming talks with the LTTE. It is necessary to get the facts straight here. It was not the Government, nor any action taken by the President, precipitate or not, that led to the LTTE announcing it was "temporarily" keeping away from the talks in mid April this year. It was a unilateral decision taken by the LTTE, accusing the Government of not taking sufficient steps to ensure its presence at the pre-Tokyo talks held in Washington, where the LTTE remains banned as an international terrorist organization. The letter by Anton Balasingham announcing the LTTE's decision certainly gave the impression that at least some person or persons in the government's negotiating team had given the LTTE some hope of being accommodated at Washington. Since then the delay in the talks has been entirely due to the LTTE's insisting on the inclusion of the Interim Administration the subject of the highest priority in the talks. The rejection by the LTTE of the several proposals made by the Government on the IA issue caused further delay. Finally, it presented its highly controversial proposals on October 31, last and said it was ready for immediate talks. Even before this, the Government had already said that once its receives the LTTE's proposals it would have to study them, and due to the Government being involved with the budget debate, the possible date for the resumption talks would be in January 2004. That was the target date. We are still one month before that. So there is no justification whatever for statements that the talks have been delayed due to the President's takeover of three key portfolios, which the UNF government was grossly mishandling. It is best to recall the past delays over the PA's Constitutional Draft and be wary of persons who will use their crafty experience in delaying important issues, to delay action on present developments too. The UNF must be expecting the Wilkinson within its ranks to score a penalty at the crucial minute and outdo the President, as England beat the Aussies in the Rugby World Cup. What is important to remember is that Wilkinson is also the brand name of a razor blade, and before the safety blade came into vogue razor blades were used to slash the necks of rivals, too. It is best to beware of delaying tactics by a Wilkinson in politics. Moragoda and robber barons When I switched on to 'Sirasa' one night recently it was in the middle of a programme where Minister Milinda Moragoda, being interviewed by Sirasa's Chandana Suriyabandara. From what was said it was clear this would be a series of interviews, because Moragoda referred to some matters being discussed on future days. However, what he was doing in that programme was to give a lesson to a Sinhala audience on the free-market, the market economy and the benefits of capitalism, al la Moragoda. Using flashback shots of the late president J. R. Jayewardene and some shots of the Accelerated Mahaweli Scheme in progress, Moragoda reminded his interviewer that President Jayewardene had at one stage said, "let the robber barons come". He took great pains to describe to Mr. Suriyabandara and the Sinhala audience who these robber barons were. According to the Moragoda theory they were those entrepreneurs in the United States, who in the early years of the last century (i.e. 20th century), often narrowly avoided the law, and established the industries that became the foundation for today's massive and strong US economy. Knowing well Mr. Moragoda's exhilaration with all things USA, one felt the need to check the accuracy of this description of robber barons. The OED describes a baron as a "member of the lowest order of the British nobility; holder of a similar foreign title; great merchant in a specified commodity (beer baron); powerful or influential person" among other similar meanings. However, a further search in the Webster's Dictionary, gave much more than that. It clearly described a Robber Baron as "a feudal noble who lived by robbing people passing through his territory or holding them for ransom". (A touch of Prabhakaran!). It further states that according to American History a robber baron was "any 19th century capitalist who grew rich by exploitation". This description gives a different picture from Moragoda's very kind explanation of robber barons, especially in the American context. His somewhat charitable description of them as persons who narrowly avoided the law, nevertheless make them lawbreakers. More importantly, they were 19th century capitalists who grew rich by exploitation. It does not describe any limits to their exploitation. It certainly was people, and the natural resources of the country. Moragoda did say that a later President Roosevelt did some changes and made it difficult for these robber barons to break the law. What all this shows is the new twist to economic history that is being given in promoting an unbridled free market economy in this country. Obviously the desire of Moragoda and others like him, prepared to accept the US as the world's policeman and would like all our policies to be tied up to the interests of the US, would very much like to have today's robber barons to come here and exploit this country, its people and its natural resources, and strip it to its bones with nary a regard for the law. Do we really want such robber barons here, whether invited by J.R. then or Moragoda today? |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
