Radical – Democratic Restructuring Of The State Or Preserving The Status Quo?
By Surendra Ajit Rupasinghe –September 30, 2016
Surendra Ajit Rupasinghe
The process of constitutional reform, establishing an accountability mechanism and seeking a political solution to the National Question is bound to be a highly contested and polarized arena of ideological and political struggle. Already, the new constitution is being labeled as a ‘death trap’, by the Joint Opposition. Any form of accountability will be trumpeted as betrayal of the ‘Ranaviruvos’. Any concession towards solving the national question would be blasted as promoting ‘separatism’. The 2/3 majority in Parliament held by the government would split, once these issues are taken out publicly in the form of referendum. This eventuality would lead to shameless conciliation, compromise and appeasement with the chauvinist-supremacist forces and preservation of the status-quo, with some reforms thrown in. The prospect of a radical restructuring, democratization and humanization, which calls for dismantling the chauvinist-supremacist State and its replacement by a modern, democratic – pluralist State – at the very least would be jeopardised. Some dominant sections of the TNA would be coopted, but the more nationalist militant factions would be severely marginalized. The sparks of separatism would gather more force than ever before, while all those who dreamed of radical change and a better future would end up in utter despair. In this context, it is worthwhile to look at the present alignment and configuration of the political forces and how the game would be played out.
Internal Contradictions Within and Between the Yahapalanaya Camp
One of the chief planks, if not the main plank, of the ‘Government of National Unity’ that has brought the two main traditional political parties- UNP and the SLFP – together, is the pledge to establish a Regime of ‘Good Governance’. However, it cannot be assumed that this overarching concept was understood in the same manner by each and every one that supported it and brought the new Regime to power. Nor can it be assumed that there was informed consensus even between and within these parties and their respective partners and supporters. It was simply the ‘catch slogan’ of the hour that cut through the major dividing lines of class, nationality, gender and geography. What was shared at the minimum was the need to end the era of dynastic dictatorship of the Rajapaksa Regime. It was, however, commonly understood to mean a cleanup of rampant and institutionalized corruption and abuse of power and the establishment of the Rule of Law, combined with prosecuting those found guilty of high crimes. For the progressive Tamil and Moslem voters, they expected to be recognized as nationalities, with parity of political status. This was the ‘Social Contract’ between the followers and supporters of the ‘Yahapalana – Good Governance- camp.
