During the 60 years of independence from the British colonial yoke, Sri Lanka has emerged as a vibrant democracy in this part of the world. Sri Lanka probably could, along with India, boast of this achievement.

Over the years, the country has witnessed many an election based on democratic principles and has elected several governments up to date. The UNP as the single largest political entity takes a prominent place in the country’s chequered history as a party that has ruled the country for more than 30 years.

From the very beginning, the UNP stood for liberal democracy, with leaders such as D.S. Senanayake, Dudley Senanayake, Sir John Kotalawela and so on. The UNP however, underwent drastic changes under President J.R. Jayewardene, who described himself as a social democrat and drafted a unique constitution for the country, taking into consideration how various democracies faced phenomenal challenges in the global political arena.

Dramatic change

He adjusted the UNP’s policies to suit the era. The era in which Jayewardene took over the mantle of the UNP had a leaning towards social democracy with Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike, at the helm of Sri Lankan politics, championing the cause.

Jayewardene too felt that the UNP’s more liberal outlook should undergo a dramatic change if it wanted to capture the SLFP vote base and ride back to power after the humiliating defeat in 1970.

He adjusted himself accordingly, which paid him dividends in a big way in 1977. However, it is difficult to say whether the resounding victory of the UNP had anything to do with the party reforms brought in by Jayewardene, or, if it was because of several socioeconomic factors which influenced the people at that time

All these factors are relevant today because the UNP is once again undergoing drastic policy changes owing to the current socioeconomic factors that influenced the masses with the advent of President Mahinda Rajapaksa to the helm of Sri Lankan politics.

The UNP recently announced its decision to be more specific on the stand taken in relation to the ethnic crisis that has plagued the country for over two decades when it said that it would not support a federal solution for the crisis but believed in extensive devolution of power under a unitary character. Perhaps, the UNP does not want to be specific on the nature or the character of the state.

Even when the 13th Amendment to the Constitution was effected, the UNP was keen to see that it would not change the nature of the state. However, the Supreme Court bench which examined the constitutionality of the bill to amend the Constitution was divided, with former Chief Justice Parinda Ranasinghe almost siding with the majority with an amendment to the amendment to which the government agreed due to the political expediency it had at that stage.

Quasi-federal

Though the 13th Amendment to the Constitution was labelled as a unitary constitution, it contained many features of a quasi-federal state. Even Justice C.G. Weeramantry admitted this fact.

At the same time, the Jayewardene administration changed the electoral system under which no government would be able to obtain a two-thirds majority in Parliament. The significance in a unitary constitution is that the centre could take back what is devolved to the peripheries at any time.

However, by virtue of the electoral system so introduced and the provision which required the centre to obtain a two-thirds majority to withdraw what was already devolved, the Jayewardene administration made the entire set up federal, rather than unitary. Though the centre could impose the presidential rule, it could not withdraw the power devolved to the periphery without a two-thirds majority in Parliament.

After the Provincial Council system failed, the UNP did not make any move until the Chandrika Kumaratunga government proposed a union of regions under the August 2000 proposed constitutional reforms, which the UNP opposed tooth and nail after having differences at the last moment.

During the 2001-2004 regime of the UNP, it was able to take the peace process started by President Chandrika Kumaratunga to new heights, where the UNP under the leadership of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe signed the Oslo Declaration under the auspices of the Norwegian facilitators.

The UNP advocated federalism under the Oslo Declaration as a viable solution to the country’s ethnic question, and it was reaffirmed by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe during the Tokyo Donor Conference.

Viable solution

Prime Minister Wickremesinghe speaking on this occasion asserted thus: “Meanwhile, the differences between us over an administrative structure are not that far apart. In Oslo both the government and the LTTE jointly agreed a significant statement, and I quote, ‘...the parties agreed to explore a solution founded on the principle of internal self-determination in areas of historical habitation of the Tamil-speaking people, based on a federal structure within a united Sri Lanka. The parties acknowledged that the solution has to be acceptable to all communities.’”

Against this backdrop, the UNP’s latest stance was the subject of discussion at the Working Committee meeting held last week. UNP’s Eastern Province Convenor Abdul Majeed Mohamed Naoshaad was the speaker. He said the UNP stands for United National Party and that it cannot be seen as a party imposing the will of the majority.

“It is not correct for persons who don’t have an understanding about the peace process to make statements that the party never agreed to discuss federalism as a final solution to the ethnic crisis.”

Naoshaad, a one time UNP assistant secretary, left the UNP at one stage to join hands with SLMC’s Rauf Hakeem. After a stint in the SLMC, he rejoined his former party, the UNP, and was brought directly into the Working Committee after being appointed as the Eastern Convenor.

Naoshaad walked into the Working Committee meeting armed with the speech made by Ranil Wickremesinghe at the Tokyo Donor Conference and read out the relevant quotes to prove beyond any doubt that the UNP stood for a federal solution for the ethnic crisis.
“When the party is repositioning itself, it would not be advisable to make such statements,” he said.

Consensual decision

Admitting the party has all the right to reposition itself and change accordingly, Naoshaad said that it has to be a consensual decision rather than a decision taken by a few.

“The UNP had not been able to put it across in the proper context. What we have to say is that a large number of people who were to benefit from the UNP’s stand did not vote with the party or support the stand taken by the UNP at the last presidential election,” Naoshaad added.

“To say that the UNP was not supportive of a federal solution is a diabolical lie,” he said.
In reply, UNP Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe said that the party was committed to finding a plausible solution to the ethnic crisis and is ready to go in for extensive devolution to resolve the ethnic crisis.

When Uva Provincial Council member Velauthan insisted that the Indian Tamils should be given due recognition as a separate entity in the peace process and so on; Wickremesinghe said that the objective of the UNP was to create a Sri Lankan identity which would augur well for the country as a whole.

Wickremesinghe added that though the UNP as a party may have withdrawn from the All Party Representative Committee, it would support its solution if it could come up with a formula acceptable to all communities and the international community.

Furthermore, in an interview with The Hindu Editor, Wickremesinghe reiterated that the government should come up with a solution not only acceptable to all communities in the country but also to the international community.

The Hindu then asked Wickremesinghe what he was expecting from India in order to resolve the country’s ethnic question.

Indian angle

In response, Wickremesinghe had said thus: “I think India’s help is required to get a political solution. We must have a political solution that has the backing of India. Politically, it’s a model that no one can wink at; even the LTTE has to sit down and talk about it. But if you don’t get this support from India, you can’t resolve this whole conflict. The government has to finally bring in a solution acceptable to the majority of the people in all the communities and also accepted by the international community. They know the parameters; they can suggest alternative parameters. But they must be accepted. Without acceptance, the solution is of no use.” It can be clearly seen that the UNP’s latest stand is associated with mere political expediency, but the party should not be blamed for the repositioning since the political environment and related factors had compelled it to do so. Otherwise, that party would be put into a difficult position as far as the majority community was concerned.

However, there are hiccups in the UNP’s latest political alliance and Mangala Samaraweera for one doesn’t see the latest stand as a step in the right direction.

All in all, it is up to the people to decide as to whether the UNP is on the right track and whether it would augur well for the people and country in the long run.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed