President Rajapakse, addressing the meeting of the SLFP Executive Committee at the Temple Trees, stated that the government will adopt a flexible approach at the meting of the All Party Conference. He also stated that the government will hold consultations to find a political consensus.

He further stated that the proposals approved by the executive committee are the final proposals of the SLFP. There would not be anymore changes. Other parties might oppose it. They may submit their own proposals. The government might strive to reach a consenuss. He also assured that the party would again come before the SLFP executive committee regarding the final proposal of the APC and that the party would not waver.

The significant differences between the proposals submitted by the SLFP on the May Day and the present revised proposals are about the nature of the State. In the earlier proposals of the SLFP, it was motioned that, “Sri Lanka is a state, which is sovereign and independent”, whereas the revised SLFP proposals mention that “Sri Lanka is free, sovereign, independent, unitary state”.

As far as devolution of power is concerned, both sets of proposals refer to district as the unit of revolution.

Following SLFP proposals released on the May Day by the party General Secretary, there have been criticisms. A majority of the political parties did not support the political proposal. All the Tamil and Muslim parties rejected the proposals.

The criticism was based on two view points. One view point was that the SLFP proposals suggest devolution at district level which is much less that what is now in force and that such proposals cannot take the peace process forward.

The other view point was that there is no reference to unitary state in the proposals and that it could encourage the division of the country. President Rajapakse’s erstwhile allies such as JVP and JHU support this point of view.

If one analyses both proposals, it is evident that in revising the proposals, SLFP has addressed its mind to the concerns of the extremist racist parties.

The concern over the adequate devolution of power hasn’t been considered in revising the proposals. The message in the revised proposals is quite clear.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed