Has the SLFP hijacked the process?

The dust is yet to settle after a flurry of high level diplomatic visits across the Palk Strait, in both directions. The carefully crafted diplomatic statements that followed these interactions, while they may not reveal all, give reason to think that their outcome could be the creation of conditions somewhat more conducive to an accommodation being reached between the Government and the Tamil political leadership.

The first of these signs was the President's proclamation on July 5 regarding the holding of the first ever Northern Provincial Council election. The Elections Commissioner has called for nominations in the North as well as in the North Western and Central provinces, but all eyes will be riveted on the experiment that is about to take place in the former battle zone. This election will be different from the parliamentary and presidential elections that have already been held in the North, because the unit is the province, and the council that is elected will most certainly have a Tamil majority, in all likelihood composed of the opposition TNA.

The next sign was the meeting between President Rajapaksa and TNA leader R Sampanthan at the President's invitation on Friday, at which we are told they discussed holding free and fair elections in the North. Here it appears that the seemingly invincible leader of the ruling UPFA juggernaut gives his blessings to an election he knows, this time around, he cannot win. The magnanimity of the gesture is unlikely to be lost on observers here or abroad.

According to a TNA statement quoted in the media, "The President expressed his desire to solve all outstanding issues relating to the national question." It said, "The TNA leader also reiterated the party's commitment to evolution of an acceptable, workable and durable political solution within the framework of a united undivided country." United, undivided country

"Workable and durable political solution in a united and undivided Sri Lanka" is the same phrase Sampanthan used in the 'Daily Mirror's bold interview with him last week where he was challenged on the alleged separatist agenda and his aversion to the terminology of a 'unitary state,' among other things. Sampanthan said the question was, whether you are prepared to evolve a constitutional arrangement "which enables the minorities … to be included in the process of governance in keeping with the democratic verdict of those people."

Clarifying what he meant by 'democratic verdict' he said "We are not saying that we should override majority Sinhala opinion in any unreasonable way …, but we are certainly saying that in areas in which we are a majority or in substantial numbers to entitle us to be included in the process of governance and not excluded. Based upon the democratic verdicts delivered by the people we should be able to enjoy some measure of governance… at least in areas in which we are the majority…."

While this sounds eminently reasonable, later in the interview it is somewhat jarring to hear him say "The term unitary in a constitutional sense has certain connotations; all that we want is that sovereignty must be shared between the people who inhabit the country." There seems to be an inability or reluctance in the veteran Tamil leader to entirely snap the connection with the federal idea of the 1950s, to which era he traces his own political antecedents. Yet on balance, the tone of the comments tends towards a desire to reach accommodation, and a recognition of Rajapaksa's readiness to make changes ("President Rajapaksa himself appointed an APRC, he appointed a multiethnic experts committee where he talked of 'maximum possible devolution'….") At a point in history when so much depends on the capacity for statesmanship in political leaders, the Sampanthan interview and the Rajpaksa-Sampanthan meeting would seem to offer some hope in the possibility that both sides may rise above the narrow, rabble-rousing propensities of the extremists in their ranks. Little room for optimism

But if it is to be of any use, this spirit will also need to guide the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) process that has been launched to arrive at what the Government calls "political and constitutional measures to empower Sri Lankans to live as one nation." On this front there seems to be little room for optimism, given the composition of the Committee to start with. The Government refuses to allow even the participation of its own coalition partners like the SLMC and the LSSP. How does it expect to inspire confidence in the opposition parties (none of whom has joined the PSC) that the committee's deliberations will be fair?

The Government cannot be faulted for wanting to 'revisit' the 13th Amendment (13A), a piece of legislation that was drafted in a hurry and under outside pressure. But the manner in which it is setting about it begs the question as to what it is trying to achieve through the PSC in the first place. The purpose of the exercise is supposedly to reach agreement between the majority and minority viewpoints. President Rajapaksa has said it is a 'top priority of the government to reach a consensus' on the 13A. How can the Government hope to do this if its main constituent party, the SLFP, keeps imposing its will on the others?

The bossy attitude was clearly seen in comments by SLFP's Kalutara MP and minister Rohitha Abeygunawardena who recently warned that 'pure SLFPers' would not tolerate dissension within the party by those who were 'insisting on the 13th Amendment' etc, and that such persons could leave the party. He seemed to be hinting at his fellow MPs from Kalutara, Ministers Rajitha Senaratna and Reginald Cooray, who have publicly pledged to defend the 13A. If the SLFP cannot rise above 'majoritarianism' within its own ranks, what are its chances of achieving consensus among the different ethnic groups, let alone the grander goal of "political and constitutional measures to empower Sri Lankans to live as one nation?"

The SLFP behaviour would seem to sug-

While this sounds eminently reasonable, later in the interview it is somewhat jarring to hear him say "The term unitary in a constitutional sense has certain connotations; all that we want is that sovereignty must be shared between the people who inhabit the country." There seems to be an inability or reluctance in the veteran Tamil leader to entirely snap the connection with the federal idea of the 1950s, to which era he traces his own political antecedents.

gest that the party's parliamentary group has decided in advance on the outcome it wants from the PSC. If this PSC is to end up no different from the farcical one before it that was used to impeach the Chief Justice, the exercise may as well be abandoned, because it will only take the reconciliation process several steps backward.