An Independent University – A Free Student

By Jayantha Dehiaththage/ Lakmali Hemachandra/ Ramindu Perera/ Ravi Tissera -May 31, 2013 

Sri Lankan university system is confronting many problems in the present day. Autonomy of the universities is threatened by undue influence and university education has degenerated both intellectually and culturally. As a group of concerned final year students, who has been in the university for four years, we are publishing a manifesto on how we see this problems and the stand we take for a better culture with in the university.

Democracy in the University

Democracy is a value system and a life style. Democracy is the force that every law derives its power from. Therefore we believe that relationships between,

- the administration and the students

- students and students

- lecturers and lecturers

must adhere to values of democracy.

Administrative decision in the university should be taken with the participation and agreement of the student body, giving priority to the needs of the students’ needs and an open and a transparent procedure should be adopted in taking these decisions. In the absence of such participation administrative decisions are imposed on students violating democratic values. Similarly the student body must practice democracy by listening to the opinions of the administration and decisions must be made with the agreement of both parties.

The decision making process within the student body must be fully transparent while ensuring the participation of all student groups. The decision making process should be enriched with the participation of students from different ethnic and religious communities as well as with female participation. The student union as the decision making body for the students must include representation of all groups mentioned because the responsibility and the consequences of the decisions taken by the student representative are shared by the entire student community.

Students’ Autonomy

University students are citizens above the age of eighteen. Therefore they have the right to autonomy in decision making and the right to be treated as adults. The students have the right and the freedom to engage in their own activity and that must not be infringed through unnecessary control of student activism by the administration. There exists a clear contradiction in regarding students to be independent and capable in their academic studies while adopting a patronizing attitude towards student activism outside of academics.

Academic Culture

The academic culture in the university is different from a school or a tuition class. A university is a place where lecturers along with students engage in exploring knowledge, not an institution that follows the teacher-student relationship that existed in the feudal society. Feudal traditions of standing up at the sight of the teacher entering the class and chastising the students and belittling them are not suitable for a modern university. While we believe that students must respect lecturers for the value of respecting human dignity, we do not think it should be in the nature of a feudal worship of the teacher.

The student in return is qualified to receive that same respect by virtue of being a human being. From the time before the renaissances universities were the birth places of fresh ideas and ideologies that changed the world. However Sri Lankan universities today have been reduced to vocational training institutes where students memorize the notes in order to get jobs. The existing academic culture does not encourage the student to think independently. Instead of a student who mechanically engages in academics fearing the year end exams the academic culture within the campus must be conducive to create scholars with critical and analytical views. The fact that the current academic culture has substituted the role of the scholar who seeks knowledge with a student who seeks attendance is truly a tragedy. It is futile to hope that an academic environment that has minimum facilities in lecture halls and hostels will create great scholars with strong personalities.

Student Politics

The word ‘politics’ has become a profanity inside universities. However the scholars, who denounce politics publicly, engage in it secretly as it happens with all things considered obscene. To insist that universities must be apolitical when everything about the world is political shows lack of perception among scholars. University students must be political, they must engage in critical political activism.

Student politics should move beyond the petty politics of eating and drinking at parties with ministers to a more meaningful, principle based political activism. Opinions must not be suppressed in the university. There should be a space for political discourse and debate. Universities, throughout the history, have

played an important role in creating and nurturing great political ideologies. The result of this imposition of an apolitical character on universities is apparent today with the reign of thugs, who have forgotten their memories, in our current mainstream political space.

The Role of the Scholars

We believe that the role of the lecturers and the students in the university should not be limited to academics. Today, the place of the student in universities is narrowed down to the four walls of lecture halls and libraries. The least possible participation in a cultural activity inside the university too is done with a lackluster attitude. Matters of social, cultural and political importance are not debated and discussed in the university among scholars and when such rare discussions do happen there seems to be no interest to join them. The university in its current form is producing scholars lacking the ability to be visionary, intellectual or critical. Is it not this intellectual deterioration that is reflected in the national level as well? We believe that this situation should change and that a thousand ideas should clash from the lecture halls to the canteens without the students who hold that opinions clashing with each other.

Universities are maintained by the tax money collected from not only engineers and cooperation chiefs but also from farmers and labourers. Therefore university students and lecturers have a social responsibility of standing up for common problems. Although there are lecturers and students who are trying to make changes in attitudes of the university community towards representing and striving for public good, most scholars remain apathetic to the problems of the masses.To pursue private advantage, career and petty individuality, ignoring the social responsibility the scholars are trusted with, is indeed a tragedy. Especially in the recent times we see a breakdown of democracy in the country and the enactment of the 18th Amendment, politicization of the judiciary and amending the criminal procedure code with adding oppressive provisions are a few examples of the said breakdown of democracy. The role of the true scholar when faced with such injustice is not to approve them or to be silent in front of them, willingly or unwillingly, but to stand up against them actively and vivaciously.

Free education and freedom in education

We believe education to be a right and not a privilege. Education is a quintessential factor in human development and every citizen has an equal right to education. This equal right can only be achieved through an education that is free at the point of delivery or as well call it, free education. Market forces are not successful in performing that function of education as a necessary tool of civilization. However in the recent times we have seen privatization of education being adopted as the government policy on education.

We condemn such policy and believe that a thought provoking debate should exist within the universities about the importance of free education and freedom in education. Empowerment of free education and the force it will have are decisive in establishing all the other good practices that we discussed from the beginning of the manifesto (democracy in the university, autonomy of students, a good academic culture and the role of the scholars). During these times when most have forgotten this empowering role of free education we believe that defending the right to free education is a duty that we cannot cast aside.

The purpose of this manifesto is to document the main principles and values that we believe are essential to build a better culture in the university. Instead of a university where we follow a meaningless routine with mechanical precision without giving any second thought, our hope is too see a university community that acts on principles with critical intelligence, following higher values of democracy and human freedom. Some might think this hope is utopian and impossible to achieve but let us remind you that in the medieval time when a few dreamt of democracy instead of a feudal society ruled by a monarch, the same allegation of being utopian was thrown at them as well. Every step the world has taken towards development and advancement has been a result of the continuous struggle to achieve a goal that was once utopian. We request from you to discuss and debate the ideas presented here. A university with a greater cause and a culture will only be possible if such debates and discussions ultimately lead to vivacious and unending activism.

*JayanthaDehiaththage/ LakmaliHemachandra/ RaminduPerera/ Ravi Tissera - Final year- Faculty of Law, University of Colombo

‘Unity with power-sharing’ Answer to national problem By Dr. Vickramabahu Karunaratne-WEDNESDAY, 29 MAY 2013  The cry for devolution is not a new phenomenon to Lanka. In ancient times too, Lanka was divided into three provinces though it was united under one umbrella. With the rise of Lankan bourgeoisie the federal idea was originated among the Sinhalese. In 1925 S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike was prepared to come out with that suggestion. The young Bandaranaike was a brilliant student of Oxford; he returned to the island in 1925 with a firm resolution to serve his motherland as a national liberal politician. In the same year he founded a political party known as ‘Progressive National Party’ to achieve national emancipation. He was the leader of that Party while the Secretary was C. Ponnambalam. " Indian leaders cannot give any more concessions to Mahinda and lose their vote base in southern India. On the other hand if Mahinda does not comply with the request of global powers then they may use instruments of destabilisation against his regime " At that time, most of the Tamil leaders preferred a unitary system of government to that of a federal form. While the Sinhala leaders propagated the concept of a federal formula the Tamils strongly opposed it. The latter wanted a balanced representation on the basis of communal interests within a unitary state. In that manner they expected to counter the Sinhala majoritist tendency in the state assembly. Today, the irony is that the Tamils want self-rule for the Tamil homeland in the NE while the Sinhala chauvinists arouse the suspicion that federation may be a ploy to separation. In these circumstances the national problem must be resolved by ‘unity with power-sharing’ that could satisfy the suffering Tamil people, while defeating the chauvinist Sinhala elements. It is interesting to note that despite the political trend of that time, Bandaranaike introduced the federal concept for the first time into the mainstream of political life of Lanka. He stated emphatically in the Constitution of the Progressive National Party, that the only solution to the problem would be the adoption of a federal system of government. He further declared that -“the majority of us feel that in view of the local conditions, particularly racial differences, the most satisfactory method to minimize and gradually remove such differences is a federal system of Government. Such a system of Government has in other countries particularly in Switzerland, tended national unity. We feel that the present arrangements of nine provinces should remain and be the basis of the Federal System”. Unfortunately he later aroused the very forces he feared would cause difficulties. Today, President Mahinda has to control the new generation of these trouble makers. Global powers including India want the government to hold Northern Provincial Council elections according to the present Constitution and they dismiss any support to reducing powers of the PC setup. Holding elections, it is generally assumed, has to be done before the Commonwealth Conference. The President cannot postponeelections and hold the Commonwealth Conference. Already steps have been taken to reduce high security zones and to hand over agricultural land to Tamil claimers. Weerawansa and the JHU will have to be satisfied with gimmicks within the Parliament. They will avoid mixing with JVP campaigns in the streets. India with Global powers will use the conference to press for complete implementation of the LLRC recommendations. Indian leaders cannot give any more concessions to Mahinda and lose their vote base in southern India. On the other hand if Mahinda does not comply with the request of global powers then they may use instruments of destabilisation against his regime. They will of course argue that some international pressure is necessary to resolve the national problem in Lanka. First they supported and promoted the war against the Tamil rebels, now they demand implementation of the LLRC recommendations. If the Northern Provincial Council elections are held then the TNA is sure to win, provided it contests as an anti government united front. Will that anger the Sinhala chauvinists and will they create trouble in the south? So far the government has taken no action against chauvinist trouble makers; but the state cannot allow communal unrest to develop without taking steps to arrest such forces.

Sri Lanka at a critical crossroad: JHU and the 13th Amendment

Sri Lanka at a critical crossroad: JHU and the 13th Amendment

Udaya Gammanpila, Senior Member of the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU), courtesy FT.lk

Groundviews

Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka-30 May, 2013

The country stands at a crossroad. A parliamentary victory for the JHU bill will complete the negative process which commenced with Sinhala Only in 1956 and the distortion in 1972 of the laudable shift to a Republic with mono-linguistic and mono-religious hegemony. If ’56 and ’72 were paving stones for the Tamil Eelam project, the passage of the JHU bill to abolish the 13thamendment will complete the process of the legitimisation of secessionism.

A victory for the JHU will also cast a pall over the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and guarantee Sri Lanka’s defeat at the UN Human Rights Council in March 2014. It will embarrass our allies Russia and China and drive South Africa and much of the Non-Aligned Movement away from us. It will irreversibly discredit and radically isolate the country and the Sinhalese, regionally and internationally. In short, in terms of Sri Lanka’s national interest, it will be the single most self-destructive act this Parliament could perform.

Conversely, a defeat of the JHU bill will enable Sri Lanka to put the stigma of majoritarian extremism behind it. Such a victory will be the necessary complement of the military victory of May 18th 2009 and the diplomatic victory of May 27-28, 2009.  Having militarily defeated the secessionist minoritarian fascism of the LTTE, Sri Lanka has a chance to defeat majoritarian extremism of the JHU-NFF-BBS politically.

In the run-up to the parliamentary battle, is a dual debate in Sri Lankan politics. The Sinhala polity is divided between on the one hand, those who wish to abolish the 13th amendment or delete land and police powers from it and on the other, those who see fit to proceed, however reluctantly, with elections to the Northern Provincial Council without attempting any drastic truncation of the powers devolved upon it. The Tamil polity is divided between, on the one hand, those who are keen to contest the Northern PC election and regard the 13th amendment as worthy of defence, and on the other, those who regard the 13th amendment as hardly worth the paper it is written on.

What is missing in the picture is any drawing together and mutual reinforcement between the moderates or pragmatists on both sides of the ethnic divide who defend, however reluctantly, the provincial council and the prospect of elections to it in September.

What is also missing is the engagement of the intelligentsia, especially civil society intelligentsia, in either supporting the Sinhala moderates in this important battle or in building a bridge between the Sinhala and Tamil moderates in defence of the existing system of devolution of power to the provinces.

The lack of a structured dialogue between the Sinhala and Tamil parliamentary moderates across Government and Opposition lines, deprives each other of vital support and partnership.

That, taken together with the absence of engagement in the ongoing battle by the intelligentsia prevents the construction or reconstitution of a zone of moderate opinion in polity and society.

The battle over the 13th amendment provides an enormous opportunity in the battle of ideas, because the arguments adduced in favour of abolition or gutting are symptomatic of the most retrogressive notions within our society ranging from the conservative to the militarist, the neoconservative to the racist. Grappling with and combating these ideas provides a fine opportunity for asserting the values of reason, democracy and pluralism.

Why then isn’t the battle being joined? The answer is political and ideological sectarianism. There are important precedents. When SWRD Bandaranaike was striving to defend the pact with Chelvanayakam, the powerful, union-based left was absent from the fray. Had it thrown its weight behind SWRD, the history of this country may have been significantly different and better.

Contemporary sectarianism takes two forms. The first is that the 13th amendment doesn’t deserve defending because the Tamil people need and deserve something considerably beyond it. The second is that the hole is on Mahinda Rajapaksa’s side of the boat, or that he is patently insincere and merely playing ‘good cop’ to the far right’s ‘bad cop’.

The first argument is easily dispensed with. The TNA should contest the election even if the council is gutted of most of its powers, just as one should not abandon even the skeleton of a house that is one’s patrimony simply because someone has made off with its roof.

The second argument, even if true is irrelevant. The opportunity for a politico-ideological battle against neo-conservatism, racism and ethno-religious fascism is far too important to be contingent upon a reading of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s politics, let alone speculation about his psyche.

The JHU’s counter-reform bill constitutes a classic ‘wedge issue’. Resistance provides the only opportunity that has arisen in years, for the SLFP parliamentary group to defeat the parties of the extremist fringe which have ideologically dominated the UPFA administration and distorted its discourse.

The battle to defeat the JHU-NFF-BBS attack on provincial devolution is thus utterly decisive. Against such a backdrop, only an aficionado of black humour would appreciate as I do, an invitation I received in the mail for a conclave at which the best and the brightest of Sri Lanka’s cosmopolitan intelligentsia are scheduled to discuss and debate such exquisite irrelevancies as “Ethical Reconstruction: Primitive Accumulation in the Apparel Sector?”, “Philanthrocapitalism, Philanthronationalism: the ethics of corporate gifts in post-conflict Sri Lanka” and “On Heterophobic and Heterophilic Casteism and anti-Casteism”. Where the topic is relevant, such as “Diplomacy at the UN Human Rights Council”, the sole designated presenter is Yolanda Foster of Amnesty International (which exclusivity is no fault of either Ms Foster or AI).

No Gramscian ‘organic intellectual’ stuff or words for a Modern Prince, here. If these are the good guys and gals and this is their discourse, no wonder the bad guys are way ahead: they have the advantage of being organic and sounding ‘national popular’.

If the bad guys win, the centre of gravity of Sri Lankan politics and society will shift still further to the right. It may even impact upon the choice of candidacy. If the neo-con project with its totalitarian notion of national security succeeds, the present dispensation will appear in a roseate afterglow as an era of tolerance and democracy.

Racial And Religious Hatred That Leads To Tragic Consequences

By Shanie -June 1, 2013 

They had nothing to say to each other, thirty

children in a camp.

Plucked like hard green mangoes, sharp with the tang

Bishop Duleep de Chickera, the former Anglican Bnshop

of distrust; and deposited,

sweating nervous mango-milk,

into a single gunny bag-

not knowing what to expect-

But fear, of course- that was always expected,

They had been taught to expect it from their mother’s lap.

So they held their faces carefully blank, as taught;

expressionless- behind still masks

sullen suspicion lurking. Always on their guard,

what was coming next?

Racial and Religious Hatred That Leads to Tragic Consequences by nelvely

No solution under a unitary state: TNA FRIDAY, 31 MAY 2013  The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) does not believe in a power sharing arrangement under a unitary state, TNA MP Mavai Senathirajah said yesterday. “Under a unitary rule, it is not possible to find solutions to the national question,” he told a news conference held at the Jaffna Press Institute. “Power sharing under a unitary system is questionable in today’s context of domination by Buddhist extremists.” Mr. Senathirajah said the United National Party (UNP) had released a copy of a draft constitution for a unitary system of governance. He said Mr. Sumanthiran was reported to have accepted it but that was his own personal view. “The TNA will meet shortly and announce its official stance with regard to the UNP-proposed draft constitution,” Mr. Senathirajah said. “We submitted a proposal regarding a power sharing arrangement about a year ago but up to now we have had no response from the Government.” He said if war displaced people were to be resettled it was imperative for the Army to vacate the lands belonging to the Tamils. “Government is telling the international community that the war displaced people have been fully resettled. I reject this statement. More than 100,000 people are living with relatives, friends or in welfare camps and are still to be resettled,” Mr. Senathirajah said. “More than 80,000 refugees are living in India. We are requesting the Indian government to guarantee their resettlement in their own lands.” Mr. Senathirajah said the Tamils were badly affected by the long drawn war and now we have to struggle against the government, which is intent on wiping out the Tamils. (S. K. Prasath and Sumithy Thanagarasa)

A jumbo-sized promise

Editorial-May 30, 2013, 7:34 pm 

The UNP has unveiled its draft proposal for a new Constitution. Some of the main features thereof released to the media are salutary but, overall, it has chosen to leave much unsaid and, in the process, left room for ambivalence, ambiguity and polysemy.

Having blown hot and cold on the question of presidential powers, it now says the executive presidency should be abolished, but adds in the same breath that the executive powers currently vested with that institution will be divided among the Head of State (to be elected), the Prime Minister and the Speaker’s Council. This means the Head of State won’t be without executive powers.

In the event of the Prime Minister and the Head of State being elected from two different parties, there may arise a situation where they do not cooperate as we saw from 2001 to 2004 with a PM from the UNP-led United National Front (UNF) and a President from the SLFP-led People’s Alliance (PA).

The UNP’s position on devolution remains highly ambiguous. It says Sri Lanka shall remain a unitary state or, in other words, has ruled out a federal solution. Power shall be devolved to Provincial Units, but the draft proposal does not mention the degree of devolution. It, in our book, only obfuscates the issue by referring to communiqués between the UNSG and Sri Lankan government, Tissa Vitharana report etc. Interestingly, the UNP says: "The member who commands the majority of a Provincial Council shall be appointed as the Chief Minister and the Leader of the political party which has secured the next highest number of seats shall be appointed as the Deputy Chief Minister." This arrangement may look good on paper but its practicability is in doubt.

Is it that the UNP has found the Supreme Court wanting in some respects? Else, it would not have proposed the establishment of a Constitutional Court (CC) to interpret the Constitution, examine the constitutionality or otherwise of Bills and hear and determine election petitions. The CC will also have the powers to investigate charges against judges of the superior courts in the event of attempts to impeach them. But, what would happen in case of such charges being brought against the head of the CC? Will he or she be allowed to remain at the helm pending the probe thus leaving room for interference?

The proposed Council of State (CS) consisting of the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, leaders of the political parties represented in Parliament and the Chief Ministers of the Provinces to ‘decide on all political directions and national priorities’ with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet of Ministers legally bound to implement its decisions has all the trappings of a flight of fancy. This is a country where the two main parties did not cooperate even on the country’s war on terror or tsunami recovery programmes. So, it is only wishful thinking that the CS will work.

As for electoral reforms, the UNP is for a mixed system where representatives are elected on both first-past-the-post and Proportional Representation systems. It says Parliament shall consist of 225 members. But, if the German Model is adopted, the number of parliamentarians is likely to vary slightly at times and this is an area where the UNP should do some more research. The proposal to do away with the preferential voting or manape system may go down well with the public as it is widely considered the mother of all clashes. (However, if a future government could ensure that the country is ruled according to the tenets of Buddhism as the UNP promises, then the preferential vote will cease to be a problem!)

Measures proposed to ensure good governance such as the setting up of independent commissions are salutary. What is of special interest is the proposed anti-corruption law to tackle bribery and corruption in the private sector. "Anti-Corruption Agency law shall include Bribery and Corruption in the private sector and shall apply retrospectively." This has been a long felt need. But, doesn’t it go against the grain to make any law apply retrospectively? While praising the UNP for having realised the need to combat malpractices in the private sector which has become the engine of corruption, one may ask whether it will deal with its senior members responsible for mega corrupt deals declared null and void by the Supreme Court itself such as the illegal sale of Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation and the Lanka Marine Services property during the UNP-led UNF government (2001-2004).

The UNP’s draft proposal, we are afraid, reminds us of the promises political parties and their leaders made in the past while striving to capture power. J. R. Jayewardene promised to create a righteous society; R. Premadasa undertook to eradicate poverty; Chandrika Kumaratunga pledged to rid the country of bribery, corruption and political violence and Mahinda Rajapaksa vowed to abolish the executive presidency. But, we are where we are today because all of them heeded Machiavelli’s advice after being ensconced in power: "The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present."

The existing Constitution is the UNP’s own creation and among those who voted for its passage in 1978 were some of the present-day UNP bigwigs including the incumbent party leader. We thought they had no problem with their own Constitution but only took exception to the 18th Amendment which was passed without their concurrence. Will they explain why they want the JRJ Constitution scrapped now? If their vote face is due to any draconian provisions therein will they tell us why they did not campaign for the abolition of those features when their party had a five-sixth majority in Parliament?

Who Should Decide On The 13th Amendment ?

By Chandre Dharmawardana -June 1, 2013 

Prof. Chandre Dharmawardana

A seemingly democratic-looking statement, popular with the liberal-minded types like the candle-vigil people of Colombo is the proposition, “It is up to them, and not to  us, to decide what the scope of the 13th amendmentshould be.  Who are we to impose our will on them?

If the TNA is representative of the Tamils, then we know that they have always officially rejected the 13th amendment in any form. They have merely found it useful as a bone of contention. Last year at the party session in Batticaloa (Madakalapuwa) Mr. Sampathan rejected it. Here is Mr. Mavai Senathiraja again rejecting it again, as reported in news media (e.g., the Daily Mirror, 31st May 2013). Mr. Sumanthiran has rejected it in several well-known statements. The LTTE fought against the Indian Peace keeping forces sent to enforce the 13th amendment. It was the Indians, and not ‘us’ or ‘them’ who formulated and decided in favour of the 13th. No referendum on the question was ever held to ask Sri Lankans for their vote.

Who gets to decide?

So, the criterion “it is they, and not we who should decide” leads to no support for the 13-th amendment in any form. However, the left-over leftist activists (Tissa Vitarana, Dew Gunasekera, Vasudeva nanayakkara, Dayn Jayatillke et al)  have themselves unilaterally decided for the Tamils and are strongly pushing for the 13-th amendment together with police and land powers. The learned lawyers of the LLRC, drawn heavily from the candle people of Colombo also hold similar views, although their mandate forbade them to deal with constitutional matters. If the North decides to also have army, navy and air powers, then by the same logic ‘liberal-minded people’ should be supportive of it too. In effect, the explicit logic goes that any group should have the capacity for `self-determination’. Following this, writers like Wickremabahu Karunaratne and Kumar David had no difficulty in supporting the LTTE even at its most gory days of carnage.

Further more, when it is asserted that “It is they and NOT we who should decide”, how do we decide who is grouped with “we”, and who is grouped with “them”?

Take some one like Mr.  Sumanthiran.  He went to school  in Colombo from his young days, and was in the same class as one of my young relatives. Sumanthiran ended up in the law school and practices law in Colombo. He lives in Colombo, just like my relative. How does Sumanthiran become a member of the ‘they’ while my relative becomes excluded from the `they’ and get included in the `we’? This seems to be a racist decision.

In fact, there is no “they” and “we”. All of us are in the same boat.

Furthermore, according to Jaffna custom, you cannot even sell your own property without the concurrence of your neighbours. That is the essence of the Thesavalam law. So, the North cannot do anything without the consent of the Mannar (Mannnarama), Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa, Trincomallee (Gokanna) regional administrations. They too have a stake in the final outcome, and they too get to decide. The North  is populated by about 5% of the country’s demographic, producing no revenue for at least a generation, but costing the south immensely in money, life and limb. And yet, all the development money comes from the south. Furthermore, electric power and other resources come from, e.g.,  the hydro-stations and in the hill country. Hence all parts of the country are stake holders and  they too need to have a say.

This is why the simplistic “they, and not we should decide” becomes faulty.

We live in an interconnected world where we need to co-exist. It may seem as if Tissa, Dew, Vasu and other leftover-leftists have attempted to simplify matters to a ‘yes or no formula’ involving two sides, and politics is just too complex for that. This was also the problem with the ‘workers versus capitalists’ interpretation of history — radically too simplistic.

Samasamajist policy of Parity for Sinhala and Tamil

The current politics of the left-over left has to be understood as a historical evolution from the 1960s-LSSPpolicy of parity for Sinhala and Tamil (although some theoreticians like V. Karalasingham argued for more Sinhala for the Tamils as well as greater sensitivity to the nationalist-awakening of the South). Many young idealists at the time viewed the parity proposal as a remarkably generous ‘principled gesture’ . The Sinhala nationalists pointed out that it was utterly unfair for a mere 10-12% to impose itself on the remaining 90-88% of the population, requiring costly parallel administrations in two languages.

However, the appearance of bending-over-backwards to be fair to a minority disappeared when the real-politik of the decision was understood in detail. The Government Clerical Service Union (GCSU) was the basis of the leftist struggle, while the left also hoped to capture the Tamil-speaking plantation-workers sector. The power of the Jaffna English-school system was such that the GCSU had a much higher Tamil demographic than the 10-12% national voter base. It was essential for the LSSP to adopt the Sinhala-Tamil parity policy if they were to hold the GCSU and woo the plantations. Although the policy of linguistic parity was electorally suicidal, elections were deemed to be secondary in a revolutionary agenda. The left leaders believed that the  populist SLFP was just the `Menshevik stage’, to be followed by the Marxists capturing power as a historical necessity, a la Marx and Giorgi Plekhanov.

The realization that the much-hyped ‘principled stand on parity’ taken by the left leaders was a political pretence similar to the ITAK‘s claim to be a ‘federal party’ was utterly disillusioning to many young soft-socialists. Nevertheless, the rhetoric that the sinhala-only policy will pave the way to two-nations had been ingrained in the thinking of most people – especially the candle people of Colombo. Thus we see that even the learned body of lawyers who comprised the LLRC naively concluded that the fundamental reason for ethnic strife is the `denial of language and other rights of the minorities’.

The more fundamental reasons for communal strife, starting from the time of the Donoughmore constitutionhave been ably documented by the British historian Jane Russell. K. M. de Silva, Michael Roberts, Gerald Peiris and other learned writers have provided enough material to avoid the simple pit falls. The control of land ownership by a small upper class of Tamils living in Colombo, preferential politics of colonial administrations, continued enjoyment of caste privileges without interference from a central administration etc., demand for an equal role carved out on a racial basis (even though the Tamils formed only 10-15% of the population) were central to the origins of the strife going back to the 1930s.

The Tamil dissident writer Sebastian Rasalingam has been  a vocal critic of the simplistic view where Tamil Terrorism is regarded as resulting from language legislation and majoritarian hegemony. He argues that ethnic polarization was deliberately promoted by the ITAK with its sovereignty agenda, right from the 1949 Maradana declaration. Vaddukkodai (called Batakotte even in 1900) was the venu of a declaration affirming the ITAK-Arasu policy by even the Colombo Tamils who were previously closer to the old UNP. The caste-based hierarchical structure of Tamil society that demanded obedience from the lower strata was central to the success of the Tigers. Many of Rasalingam’s writings have been collected together and may be found at http://dh-web.org/place.names/rasalingam/.

In 1964 the LSSP leadership changed its tactics, abandoned the revolutionary path and joined the SLFP, now alienating the hard-socialists who broke away. The English-educated Colombo leftists could find no dialogue with the naive Sinhala revolutionaries of the JVP. They continued to believe in the earlier LSSP claim that  the `denial of language rights of the Tamils’ to be the main cause of civil strife in Sri Lanka. Thus historically, the candle people of Colombo and the left-over leftists ended up in supporting devolution via the 13th amendment, while even the TNA does not support the ill-numbered amendment. Some leftist ministers like Vasudeva Nanayakkara have taken upon themselves to push for a tri-lingual Sri Lanka, forgetting the failure of the bilingual policy of the old LSSP, with  `parity for Sinhala and Tamil’.

As we have argued elsewhere, there are simple technological or organizational solutions for cutting these political Gordian knots regarding language. The internet now enables anyone to have instant translations of normal conversation (but not poetry !) carried out in one language to be rendered in another language. Thus a Tamil seller of onions living in Jaffna can speak in Tamil to a Sinhalese buyer  in Colombo who hears a good translated version in Sinhala, while storing the original message in the memory of the cell phone for reference. The technology is easy, inexpensive and practical. No one is forced to learn any new language. No devolution is necessary in Lanka which is a tiny patch of the global village which now extends into outer space, with space stations and a slew of earth satellites that we constantly link with, via our cell phones, GPS, facebook, twitter and other social media. Given a bullet train like in Japan, and a fast highway complementing A9,  Jaffna would become the Aluth- Wellawatta (Puthu-Vellavattai), a new suburb of Colombo!

The 13th amendment belongs to the stone age before communications moved to the 21st century.

Radical UNP and its New Constitutional Proposals: A Radical Farce?

Radical UNP and its New Constitutional Proposals: A Radical Farce?

Photo courtesy Sunday Observer

Groundviews

30 May, 2013 Kalana Senaratne

When regimes are dictatorial and dangerous, alternative forces which promise a better society and future do tend to be taken seriously by the people. This, quite simply, is because the future promised by such alternative forces tends to be better than the present. But one thing many people can’t do about the present UNP is to take it seriously. The UNP’s new constitutional proposals/principles – which it claims will shape and form the new constitution it hopes to place before the people once elected to power – tell us why this is the case (see, ‘UNP draft proposal for new constitution’, The Island, 30 May 2013). Apart from a few grand promises, the UNP’s guiding constitutional principles are generally known to the people and can be easily found, stated in different words, in the 1978 Constitution.

The new set of constitutional principles and proposals needs to be viewed in the context of the grand promise of radical transformation of party and polity which the UNP started making sometime ago; a ‘radical change’ (see “UNP’s ‘radical change’ before Exec. Comm”, Sri Lanka Mirror, 12 Oct 2012). What transpired on further inspection was that the UNP’s promise of radicalism was firstly to keep Mr. Ranil Wickremasinghe as its leader. This ‘radicalism’ was followed by Mr. Sajith Premadasa’s own brand of radicalism when he recently admitted (on Derana 360 programme) that his attempt to oust Mr. Wickremasinghe may have been a bit premature.

So it is this ‘radical’ UNP that now comes up with a document promising a more democratic country. But even before you proceed to the end of the Preamble of the document, it begins to appear why the grand promise of the UNP amounts to yet another grand farce.

For example, the UNP begins by stating that: “During the last several years under Mahinda Rajapaksa’s regime, the office of Executive President has been completely desecrated, by destroying all the checks and balances that were built into the system.” The UNP also states that the “dignity and integrity of that office has been reduced to a despicable state…”

While it is true that the incumbent has done much to desecrate the office of Executive President (and much more), what is alarming here is the implication of the statement: i.e. the UNP believes that the Executive Presidential system that the UNP introduced was actually one which had a lot of checks and balances. In other words, the UNP’s alleged radical programme begins by justifying the 1978 Constitution as well as the Executive Presidential system in particular, which it promises (somewhat dubiously) to abolish. It constructs the idea that there was a ‘pure’ form of Executive Presidency and a ‘pure’ 1978 Constitution which the Rajapaksa-regime has now desecrated. This is reason enough to make anyone cynical about the UNP’s promise of abolishing the Executive Presidency or radically changing the current constitutional framework. So the UNP begins its discourse by glorifying the very thing that it seeks to reform/abolish. And the internal contradiction becomes clear. And furthermore, what was that statement made recently by the likes of Mr. Wijedasa Rajapaksa that the Executive Presidency will not be abolished but be reformed? (see ‘Video: UNP says no abolishing of Executive Presidency’, Daily Mirror, 16 May 2013).

Apart from such total confusion, it is also to be noted that any call for the abolition of the Executive Presidency, has to be accompanied by a serious and radical transformation of a number of fundamental principles and policies underlying the current constitution. The abolition of the Executive Presidency will not mean much, and cannot take place, without a more meaningful and palpable restructuring of the State and its policies towards religion, devolution, etc. Without such changes, there will only be symbolic changes, a different set of words and phrases to explain the post of ‘Executive President’.

That the UNP is nowhere near of promising such a radical transformation becomes very clear when one observes its principles concerning ‘Restoration of the People’s Sovereignty’ and ‘Devolution of Powers’.

So, for example, the UNP states that: “Buddhism will be given the foremost place while assuring the rights of all other religions in compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).” But what’s the difference between this promise and the current constitutional provision on Buddhism (Article 9 of the current Constitution)? The only difference is the deceiving and perhaps meaningless reference to the ICCPR. Not that the ICCPR is meaningless, but inserting reference to the ICCPR is meaningless if you are still going to give ‘foremost place’ to Buddhism.

The UNP cannot explain why Buddhism should be given the foremost place if all other religions are also to be accorded non-discriminatory status as per the provisions of the ICCPR. To do so, it will have to adopt the line of the Sinhala-Buddhist nationalists. But the moment it does so, the relevance of UNP’s ‘radical’ alternative becomes useless. For the people, it would be far better to stick to the current regime and its Sinhala-Buddhist nationalist groups who would do the same job for them.

So too is the case about the UNP’s principles on devolution of powers. When the UNP said it is going to be radical about such matters, one thought whether its plan was to perhaps discuss a political solution on the lines of extensive devolution or perhaps some form of a policy akin to that advocated by the likes of Mr. S. Kajendren of the TNPF (i.e. ‘two nations, one country’). Not in a hundred years, the UNP says. What the UNP is promising is as unclear as the promise made by the present regime. For example, the UNP states that the country shall be a “unitary state” (but then, we have Article 2 of the current Constitution which sets that out in very clear and unambiguous terms). And this, to be sure, will not take you any further than the 13th Amendment under current circumstances. If then, what’s so different between the UNP and what’s being promised by the current regime (or the present Constitution)?

And in yet another meaningless fashion, the UNP promises that in this regard, it will take into consideration a number of documents such as the Rajapaksa-Ban Ki Moon joint communiqué, the UNHRC resolutions on Sri Lanka and the LLRC report. Also promised is the taking into consideration of the Tissa Vitarana Report and the papers exchanged between the SLFP and the TNA. The UNP also states that it will take into consideration President Rajapaksa’s speech of May 2009!

At best, what these documents promise you is the 13th Amendment. But if 13th Amendment is what can be promised, why not stick to the present Constitution and the present regime. Furthermore, there’s nothing clearly stated about devolution in a number of these documents except for the promise to implement the 13th Amendment. The UNP does not make clear whether its version of implementing provincial-level devolution includes the devolution of land and police powers, for example. Obviously it cannot do so, given that it was only recently that the UNP stated that it is open to change on devolution (see ‘UNP is open to change on devolution’, Daily Mirror, 22 May 2013). And it was stressed therein that the UNP would even think of constructing a new mechanism based on the will of the people. What that is going to be, if opinion polls are to considered somewhat accurate, tells us that the best one could expect from the UNP is either the 13th Amendment (sans land/police powers) or the reversion to a different model, perhaps district-level devolution. So there’s no meaningful difference between this UNP and the current regime.

Also, one of the contentious issues concerning the 13th Amendment is the fact that the Governor is appointed directly by the President, and has significant powers which negate the essence and relevance of devolution and autonomy at the periphery. One of the proposals of the UNP is to abolish the post of Governor and then give all those powers to the Head of State. So the UNP pretends to address the problem and then re-introduces it in a different form. And it’s unclear how the rest of the proposed provisions on devolution can be meaningful when all that has happened is simply a change of heads (from Governor to Head of State).

Given that the UNP’s policies on some of the most contentious issues affecting the country are similar to those of the present regime, it is questionable how useful the rest of the constitutional principles (on the judiciary, independent institutions, etc) would be. Also, promising people that they will have rights such as a “right to good administration” is practically questionable given the absence of ‘good administrators’.

In a sense, it does seem that the UNP is stuck between the Sinhala-Buddhist community (which it has to please) and the international community (which it attempts to please by referring to the ICCPR, the Latimer House Principles, the Rajapaksa-Moon communiqué, the LLRC report, the UNHRC resolutions, etc., in its proposals). Ultimately, it knows that the former will be the deciding force; hence the need to affirm the unitary character of the State, the need to give Buddhism its foremost place, the need to be extremely vague about devolution, the need to show that it’s confused about the Executive Presidency, etc. This is why the people will ultimately decide that rather than going with the confused and deceiving pseudo-Sinhala Buddhist nationalists, it’s better to go with the real thing: the Rajapaksa regime and the whole BBS/Sinhala Ravaya jingbang.

In short, the UNP claims that it’s promising a radical future. What it seems to be promising rather is a radical farce. The UNP shows no meaningful hope in terms of radically changing the current political and constitutional framework governing the country. In fact, it seems to be mimicking the Rajapaksa-regime. What is necessary, it seems, is not a new leader for the UNP. What is required is an entirely different political formation; one which treats the UNP, not as an alternative force but as part of the current regime – for that’s what the UNP actually is.

[Editors note: This is an expanded version of an article that first appeared elsewhere on the web.]