.

The UNP initiative and constitutional reform

by K Godage
The government seems once again to be seriously seized with the matter of giving us the people another Constitution. For almost four years the people had before them draft Constitutional proposals essentially directed at first, achieving accountability in governance by re-instituting Cabinet government and secondly at ending the continuing conflict in the North and East through devolution of power. The proposals did not find favour with the 73% majority ethnic group, or the principal opposition Party, the UNP, (it was a foreseeable mistake that the UNP was not bought into the Constitution drafting exercise — at the very beginning of the process. I recall that when this was suggested to a Minister of this government, he stated that the political climate at the time was not conducive to such consultations), neither did the LTTE accept the proposals. It was generally thought that the proposals were dead in the water after September 1997, when the PA ‘organizers’, Provincial Council members and Parliamentarians rejected it. But quite suddenly we find that the whole debate is being resurrected.

Mr. Ranil Wickremasinghe may have lost the Presidential election but it seems that he has understandably not lost his thirst for power. The late Mr. J. R. Jayewardene would have been proud of him. His most recent initiative could easily have come from the legendary ‘old fox’ himself.

Mr. Wickremasinghe has, in his letter to the President, stated:

"It is our position that your course of action is not the solution. But since you do not have another solution we will not stand in the way of the course of action you intend to adopt. Therefore in order to ensure that it is successfully introduced we will extend to you our support in Parliament". My reading of the ‘offer’ is that the UNP has offered only to support the government to pass the Constitutional proposals that the government ‘presented’ to Parliament and was referred to a Select Committee.

What does this ‘offer’ in effect mean? Is Mr. W not stating that they will assist the President to commit Hara-Kiri? It would mean the end of the Executive Presidency and the nullification of the recent victory of the President-and an end to another six year term as President. And that is not all, as elections to Parliament are due in August, the UNP would therefore stand another chance of coming to power!

This move by the UNP leader has indeed placed the President in an unenviable situation. She had, during the recent Presidential campaign accused the UNP of not having supported her efforts to end the war and to amend the Constitution. The UNP, it would be recalled, had wanted the Constitutional proposals, seeking to abolish the Executive Presidency to be de-linked from the devolution proposals. Now the UNP has changed its position and is prepared to support both proposals together. The proposals had been considered at 68 meetings of the Parliamentary Select Committee. The UNP had reservations on the unit of devolution and also on the concept of the Union of Regions, which to them would mean the end of the Unitary State.

The new position of the UNP, appears to mean that they are agreeable to reverting to Cabinet Government, with its inherent instability. Cabinet government, it would be recalled, was abandoned by the government of Mr. J. R. Jayewardene, in which Mr. Wickremasinghe was a Minister. It is a well known fact that Mr. Wickremasinghe had, with good reason, consistently supported an Executive Presidency. It is an undeniable fact that that the Executive Presidency has given the country a hitherto unknown level of political stability. The Executive Presidency was created by President Jayewardene for two principal reasons, first to ensure political stability and secondly to ensure a faster pace of economic development through the concentration of executive authority in one person. He believed that an Executive Presidency would mean strong government and result in a strong economy. Over the past twenty years there has been unprecedented political stability along with economic growth, considering the fact that we have been fighting an insurgency, the like of which no country has known in recent years. This is no mean achievement.

On the basis of our experience in the years between 1948 and 1978 and considering the recent experience of India, which has had no less than five elections between 1989 and 1999, we have, after 1978, indeed enjoyed a level of stability that would not have been ours had we Cabinet government.

The reverse side of the coin minted by President Jayewardene was that there was no democratic accountability. The total immunity enjoyed by the President was also unprecedented and not democratic. The checks and balances present in other Constitutions, which have an executive President, are absent in ours. We have enthroned the President. President Jayewardene boasted that the only thing he could not do was to make a man a woman and a woman a man. I would very much like to be charitable by him, and say that he perhaps envisaged a benevolent President, but his own record spoke otherwise. Instances of abuse of power by the President was not unknown. In subsequent years, during the Premadasa era we saw the transformation of the Presidency into a Constitutional dictatorship.

However that may have been, let us pause to reflect on what may have been our situation had we Cabinet government from 1994. The PR system had resulted in a one vote majority for the government. The government was hostage to minor parties-and members who had come into Parliament after having obtained less than 5% of the vote, persons who would not have been elected had proper elections been held in the North and the East. Despite the attraction of a pension, (had members remained in Parliament for five years), the government would not have survived. We would have had election after election, because the PR system would not have given any Party a working majority. The PR system is synonymous with coalition governments and all coalitions are by their very nature unstable. In post war years, Italy with its PR system of election and a multiplicity of political parties, was the classic example of chronic political instability, they had a powerful private sector and was hence able to survive. In our situation with a ruthless war on our hands we would have had total chaos and Eelam would have become a reality a long time ago.

Our people live in the hope that the electoral system too would be changed to the German system and that the absurd system of preference votes, which makes a mockery of the electoral process will be dumped for all time.

As for the reintroduction of Cabinet government, the only good that would accrue from it would be that we would once again have fair and free elections. As an ex-government official, who has had the privilege of doing ‘election duty’ many times over, my experience has been that the officials who conducted the election and the Police, - not knowing as to which party would emerge victorious on the day following, were scrupulously careful — they took no sides. This was how we changed governments through the ballot box no less than six times, before the introduction of the Presidential form of government. We could still have free and fair elections along with a presidential form of government, if Presidential and Parliamentary elections are held on the same day. That is, if the two seats of power, have concurrent terms, and why not? An independent Election Commission by itself can never ensure free and fair elections.

Meanwhile the government, it is reported, has appointed a special Committee to draft a new Constitution. This Committee is expected to complete its consultations with all political parties and table the new Constitution in Parliament in three months. A stupendous effort that would indeed be, for any Constitution must address the fundamental concerns of all the citizens of this country. It surely cannot be a constitution that caters to a particular situation or the aspirations of a particular group of people. And most important of all as Prof. Julius O Ihonvbere of the University of Texas, stated at the recently concluded Seminar to commemorate the work and life of Neelan Tiruchelvam — the people in whose name the Constitution is being promulgated must feel a sense of ownership of it.

The people are seeking strong government, effective governance, the creation of strong institutions, the establishment of true Democracy which would recognize the fact that we are a multi ethnic, multi cultural, multi religious society. We seek to establish a real democracy, which would forge unity and create the space that would enable us to face the enormous challenges facing us in the first decade of the 21st Century, such as globalization or the integration of markets (a situation to which we can only react) and poverty alleviation. The people are tired of our politicians playing games with us and the country.

The reservations regarding the Presidential form of government came out of our experience with Mr. Premadasa. The principal issues were, that the office had unbridled power with absolute immunity; there were no checks and balances. We have identified the problem. We need accountability - and no one, not even a President in office should be above the law. It is an undeniable fact that the Presidential form of government has given this country political stability - so vital for foreign investment and growth, that would not have been our valued privilege, had we Cabinet government. The UNP has till recently supported the concept of Presidential government and with good reason. I believe Professor Peiris has also supported the system in his writings during the Premadasa era. I cannot recall his ever having written against the system in those years. So let us not throw the baby out with the bath water. Let us refine the system and keep it. I hope the UNP would not join other constituencies who are seeking to cut the nose to spite the face.

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM
An appeal to the president, leader of the opposition and leaders of civil society

by Amrit Muttukumaru
Our country has begun the process of virtually spiralling out of control into an abyss that is frightening even to contemplate. This is not an exaggeration, it is a fact. The signs are that we are steadily heading towards general anarchy. The reasons for this are mainly due to the implications of the ethnic crisis exacerbated by an appallingly undemocratic constitution and the apparent indifference of civil society. There is broad consensus that certain structural changes in the manner in which we are governed are needed, This has to be manifested in terms of constitutional changes. The changes required fall into two categories:

* measures to promote democracy and liberal values

* measures to resolve the ethnic crisis

However, there is wide divergence in the views of society particularly in respect of the measures to be taken to resolve the ethnic crisis. The resolve of the two major political parties - the PA and the UNP is also somewhat ambivalent in spite of pronouncements to the contrary at different times. This is nothing short of tragic. On one hand the ruling PA has been stridently vociferous about the abolition of the executive presidential system end its ‘package’ to resolve the ethnic crisis while complaining that the refusal of the UNP to grant a two-third parliamentary majority is the only stumbling block. On the other hand, the UNP which to its credit although belatedly, has now offered to grant the required majority has strangely stated that it will do so although not agreeing with the government’s proposals. To make the issue more complicated, the PA’s response so far appears lukewarm! This attitude by our national leaders even at this late stage when the country is crying out for resuscitation smacks of political expediency. Nevertheless, although very difficult, we will assume that the PA and the UNP are sincere and wish to forge a bi-partisan consensus to solve these problems. Given below are some of the features which must be included in the proposed constitutional changes under the following two categories:

MEASURES TO PROMOTE DEMOCRACY AND LIBERAL VALUES :

1) The constitution must be supreme and not any branch of government.

2) The strict separation of powers between the executive, legislature and the judiciary so as to ensure the necessary checks and balances to avoid any abuse of power. The mechanism must also be put in place to make each branch of government truly accountable to the people.

3) Consistent with (2) there is no place for the debilitating executive presidential system we have at present with its totally unacceptable immunity from judicial action. In the event of the presidential system being retained (we hope not), it must be modified on the basis of every citizen being equal before the law and the president being accountable to parliament.

4) The fundamental rights of the citizen must be inviolable devoid of the present distortion where it is taken away arbitrarily.

5) An independent judicial, elections, and public service system. This has been rightly stressed by Mr. Wickremesinghe. If this is to be a reality, the corresponding appointment, transfer, promotion and dismissal of the persons manning these institutions must be by an appropriate collective body with the leader of the opposition too being a member.

6) The independence of the media must be guaranteed by the constitution.

7) A constitutionally guaranteed independent commission with the required resources and power to inquire into bribery and corruption at all levels.

8) An electoral system which strengthens the voter representative link is a necessity which also promotes accountability.

MEASURES TO RESOLVE THE ETHNIC CRISIS:

1) The acceptance of the equality of all citizens in its truest sense with no discrimination under any circumstances.

2) The acceptance of merit as the only criterion for advancement. Any affirmative action must be by consensus for a specific time period.

3) Sri Lanka must be a secular state with no role for the state in matters of race, religion and other similar divisive issues. Hence, it is inconsistent to give "foremost place" for any community and have government departments for religions. The practice of having religious representatives on political platforms must be stopped.

4) National symbols such as our flag and anthem must be secular so as not to place any community in a perceived inferior situation.

5) The abrogation of all discriminatory legislation such as the prevention of terrorism act.

6) Sinhala, Tamil and English will be the official languages of the country both in theory and PRACTICE. The excuse of no translators/typewriters will not be trotted out to negate this.

7) The services of an appropriate mediator having the necessary clout with an initial facilitated roll will be utilised.

8) In the event there is a stalling/dilution of 1-7 above, the bona fides for a genuine solution will be suspect and negotiations are doomed to fail. These must be the foundation for confidence building and for the construction of a durable solution.

9) The maximum possible genuine devolution within the Sri Lankan state will be on offer for an appropriately demarcated unified north-east after addressing the concerns of the other communities. In the 21st. century and in the context of the reality where the country is steadily bleeding to death due to this conflict, it is foolish to stubbornly cling onto concepts such as a unitary state.

10)The asymmetric devolution being proposed by Mr.Wickremesinghe is sensible. Outside the north-east, the local government structure must be strengthened. Realistically, can this country afford 8 provincial councils with all the attendant infrastructure/paraphernalia? Apart from this are we not already scraping the bottom of the barrel to get personnel for the central government administration?

Prior to any of the above understating it is imperative that immediate steps are taken by the government to meaningfully alleviate the pathetic plight of all displaced persons, particularly those in the immediate conflict zone in the Wanni with little or no food, clothing, shelter and medicine not to mention the sheer mental trauma. Other areas of concern which need to be urgently addressed include:

* the arbitrary arrest and subsequent plight of thousands of innocent persons mainly from urban areas which include Colombo/Greater Colombo just because they are Tamils!

* the unacceptable requirement for Tamils even temporarily their normal place of residence to obtain police reports.

* the latest proposed humiliation is for Tamils leaving the Batticaloa area for other parts of the country even temporarily, to obtain permission in writing from the police authorities.

Ensconced in our relative comfort, how can we even consider peace under these demeaning circumstances for our fellow citizens. Have we no conscience? It is shocking that we still have persons in our country who still insensitively rhetorically pose the question as to what grievances the Tamils have in Sri Lanka?

OTHER NECESSARY INGREDIENTS - THE ROLE OF CIVIL SOCIETY

The issues concerned and the required solutions are clearly very sensitive and most complex. The easiest route is to ignore it as we have done in the past. There are so many powerful forces with a vested interest to stymie a solution. The insensitive manner by which the Equal Opportunity Bill was jettisoned recently with the use of even presumably primary school girls without even a whimper of protest from at least the more influential sections of society is a pointer in this direction. Hence, it is necessary that all segments of civil society play a dynamic roll to strengthen the process of change by being a strong influence on our decision makers. It is particularly the responsibility of our professional groups and the business community together with the NGO community to give the leadership to such a venture. Pure self- alone should dictate such a commitment. Regrettably, the track record of these groups, particularly the former two, has by and large not been enlightening with at best only an unconvincing response from some sections. The role of the media in this task is vital particularly in creating the required awareness. The making of a constitution which fundamentally effects all our lives is a serious business which cannot be left exclusively to the politicians. The views of the people must be sought prior to finalisation. Civil society can only ignore this at its own peril. The political decision makers must encourage such a role for civil society. Can we rise to the challenge in possibly this final hour of need of our beleaguered yet beautiful country?

LEGAL WATCH
Selective application of the Establishments Code

by Nayana
It has been announced that the Cabinet has decided to strictly enforce the provisions of the Establishments Code regarding the disclosure of official information.

One could say that it is the duty of Government to strictly adhere to all provisions of the Establishments Code, which covers the gamut of public service from recruitment to retirement, while at the same time an enlightened government should also be open to ideas for changing and developing the Code in keeping with changing social conditions and values.

However it is important that the public should know exactly what the Code says on the subject of official information, as the Government press release making the announcement was selective in the sections it quoted.

The first quote was from Chapter 31, highlighting Section 3.2 of that Chapter which states that a public officer "should not use the medium of newspapers, by writing an article or granting an interview to a reporter, in order to criticize the Government or a Government Department, or to publicize his grievances whether or not of an official nature."

However, what the press release apparently did not disclose was that this section applies only to public officers who do not have "political rights". Officers not having political rights are defined in Chapter 32 and comprise members of the judiciary, members of the armed forces and police; others such as grama seva niladharis who are designated as peace officers under the Code of Criminal Procedure; staff officers or supervisory officers in the public service, and officers serving in the Department of Elections.

Such officers are prohibited from taking part in any form of political activity except voting at an election and are also bound by the prohibition on speaking to the press quoted above. They are required to see that their spouses also adhere to these same restrictions.

However all other public officers, i.e. those having political rights, are, amongst other provisions, entitled to be members of and participate in the activities of political parties, and are also entitled, under Section 2.2.2. of Chapter 32, "to express their opinion on a matter of a political nature e.g., by writing a letter to the press or by addressing a meeting at which such a matter is discussed".

It should be noted that this same Chapter of the Code, while setting out the political rights of officers, is also strict on the non-use of Government property for political purposes. Section 2.4 states that no political meeting should be held in any Government building or other Government work place.

Section 2.5 states that "no canvassing for any political party is permitted in any Government office or other Government institution. No political literature should be distributed in any Government office or institution and no poster or other symbol of a political nature should be exhibited in any Government office or other Government institution,"

Members of the public who have witnessed recent election campaigns might ask how closely the Government which is threatening action against public officers under the Establishments Code adheres to the provisions of the same Code governing its own conduct.

The Government press release also quoted Chapter 47 of the Code. It should be noted that the opening section of that Chapter (Section 6.1) gives a discretion to a Secretary or Head of Department to release information to the press or the public which "may be of interest and value to the public". Thus such an official who accurately releases such information in good faith should not be penalized. However the tone of the Government’s news release, taken together with the general verbal bashing of the non-State media and the reported harassment of public servants suspected of having worked for the Opposition during the recent presidential election, is calculated to create a climate of fear amongst officials and discourage them from releasing any information without clearance from political authority.

Section 6.2 of the same Chapter is clear that any information given to the press should "always" be given for publication as emanating officially from the Secretary or Head of Department. This means there should be not reports attributed to unnamed "sources".

It is amusing to note that on the very same day (2nd February) that the Government controlled "Daily News" gave headline treatment to the Cabinet decision on the Establishments Code, it carried another item on its front page that violated those very provisions of the Code at least four times. The item was titled "Government launches war against saboteurs".

In its second paragraph it said: "Official sources told the Daily News that the Government had already interdicted or sacked several hundreds in the public sector who were found to have engaged in acts of sabotage...." (my italics). It went on to quote unnamed official sources at three more places in the news item, ending with these words: "Official sources stressed the Government action was being taken in the national interest and not through vindictiveness."

Readers may consider how this last statement fits in with Section 6.1.2 which requires that the information disclosed "should in all cases be confined to facts, statistics etc. and on no account should any expression of opinion be preferred."

One wonders whether the Code is going to be applied selectively, depending on whether the item of information is one that the government of the day wants "leaked" or concealed, and also perhaps on whether the item appears in the State media or privately owned media.

The Establishments Code deals with the manner in which official information is to be disclosed to the press and to the public. It does not spell out the types of information that should as a general rule be disclosed or concealed. It leaves the matter to the discretion of senior officials who, as pointed out above, are very likely to opt for non-disclosure when the Government of the day sets out to create a climate of fear within the public service.

It is therefore increasingly important that Sri Lanka should follow the lead of many democratic societies and enact a law defining a person’s right to information.

Such a law was in fact drafted and submitted to Government by the Law Commission in 1996 in the form of an "Access to Official Information Act". However nothing has been heard of it since then, despite the fact that the preparation of such a law formed part of the official programme of work of the Law Commission for 1995/96 which was laid before Parliament by the Justice Minister.

The purpose of this proposed legislation was, in the words of its preamble: "To provide a right of access to information in records under the control of a government institution in accordance with the principle that government information should be available to the public, that necessary exceptions to the right of access should be limited and specific, and that disclosure of government information should be reviewed independently of government."

The Act was to apply to all govemment departments, corporations, statutory boards, provincial councils, provincial agencies and local authorities. The underlying principle of the Act was that "information shall be made available unless there is a good reason for withholding it".

Nevertheless the Act was far from radical by global standards. The right of access was given only to citizens to secure the disclosure of information affecting themselves. The Government was entitled to deny access on several grounds. Some of these grounds were to protect the public interest, such as non-disclosure if the information impacted on national defence, foreign policy or international relations or would prejudice the purposes of law enforcement. Other grounds were designed to protect the privacy of other persons, such as information relating to trade secrets, personal privacy and information gathered in the process of regulating financial institutions.

Protection was also given to inter-departmental communications, except where the person requesting disclosure was engaged in litigation with the relevant department or agency.

A person aggrieved by a refusal to disclose information was given a right of appeal to the Supreme Court or the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, depending on the nature of the information in question.

The Law Commission was aware of the limitations of its draft as far as a general right to information was concerned. In its report accompanying the draft it acknowledged that its recommendations "may be seen by the media and proponents of the freedom of information as restrictive. However, the Commission believes that gradual and cumulative reform of this area of the law would be a better approach, more likely to succeed."

The Commission was being optimistic. It would seem that even this "restrictive" Access to Information Act has proved too much for a Government preoccupied with controlling the flow of information.

Meanwhile, this columnist was amused to hear Colombo’s academic elite which gathered to commemorate the late Dr Neelan Tiruchelvam, calling for greater transparency in the Government’s ongoing constitutional deliberations. One does not recall much transparency when members of this very same academic elite produced the original "package" which they and the Government sought to foist on the country by labelling all oponents of the package as war-mongers or traitors. It is only now, when the politicians seem to have wrested the package away from the academics, that the latter have suddenly seen the value of transparency.

However, better late than never. This column has always advocated a broad-based and open discussion of constitutional options and has tried to acquaint the public with some of the alternatives available as well as pointing out pitfalls in the package. Above all we have stressed that in the present climate of political violence, corruption and lack of public accountability, devolution will not be beneficial unless care is taken regarding the quality and nature of the power that is to be devolved.

US Presidential Election 2000 - the primaries begin

By Dr. Stanley Kalpage
From February to June of a presidential election year, the major political parties of every State conduct either caucuses or primary elections ("primaries"). By tradition, the rural, mid-western state of Iowa has the first set of caucuses in the nation, even before the first primary in New Hampshire. This has a big effect on the race, even though Iowa is a small state with so few delegates.

Neither Iowa nor New Hampshire is particularly representative of the national electorate. Both are rural areas with only small minority populations and neither is at the centre of the political mainstream.

Although the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary are not always make or break contests, they play a key though disproportionate role in building momentum, attracting funds and promoting media attention on those seeking their party’s nomination. Serious presidential aspirants focus much attention on Iowa and Hampshire as the primary season begin early in the presidential election year.

Primary elections are often held on Tuesdays. In 1988, the southern states, feeling that northern states like New Hampshire and Iowa had disproportionate influence in the choice of the Democratic nominee, created Super Tuesday by moving all their primaries to the same day in early March. In 1992, the Clinton campaign was given a large boost by big wins on Super Tuesday. Super Tuesdays are seen as big events on the election calendar and often have a large impact on the perception of where candidates stand in the race.

Principal candidates

The democratic party front-runners in the presidential election 2000 are vice-president Al Gore and former New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley.

The front-runners among the Republicans in the primaries are: Texan Governor George W. Bush and Senator John McCain of Arizona. Other contenders are wealthy publisher Steve Forbes, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, former State Department official, Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer. Elisabeth Dole, Dan Quayle and Lamar Alexander have already Dropped out of the race.

Among Reform party candidates are Patrick Buchanan and Donald Trump. There are also some independents and third party candidates.

The presidential election which takes place in November will be between the Democratic and Republican nominees, who will be chosen by their respective party conventions in July/August depending on the number of delegates that each aspirant can muster, based on the results of the caucuses and primaries which are now taking place.

Iowa State caucuses

The Iowa presidential caucuses were held on 24 January in churches, schools and homes throughout the State’s 2000 odd precincts. Only about 200,000 of the State’s 1.8 million registered voters actually participated.

In the Iowa caucuses, Governor George W. Bush of Texas and Vice President Al Gore were the clear victors. They are currently the front-runners for their parties’ nominations. Sen John McCain of Arizona, Bush’s main rival for the Republican nomination, had decided not to campaign in Iowa and instead to focus his efforts on New Hampshire, and then South Carolina.

In the Republican contest, Steve Forbes, the wealthy publisher who had pumped millions into the race, finished second, tripling the 10 percent he drew in Iowa four years ago. In 1996, Frobes entered the state primary late, had little organisation and came in a distant fourth. This time, learning from that episode, he mounted a lavish campaign, organised a formidable grass-roots organisation and positioned himself as the champion of the conservative wing of the Republican party.

Alan Keyes who, like Forbes, had courted the religious right, was third, outpacing another religious conservative, Gary L. Bauer. Senator John McCain, not on the slate in Iowa, won a handful of votes, and Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah came in last.

Al Gore wins in Iowa

Four months after he acknowledged that his campaign was in serious trouble, Al Gore claimed his first success of the 2000 presidential campaign, a resounding 2-to-1 victory over Bill Bradley. Gore’s victory was due to his support for farmers and his knowledge of agricultural issues.

Gore’s victory was a comeback of sorts. For months he had been worried about Brdley’s surging campaign. The Bradley campaign had spent more than $2 million with massive television campaigns and intensive personal efforts. But Gore benefited from the support of labour and much of the state’s Democratic establishment. For Bradley the Iowa result was a setback.

McCain wins landslide over Bush in New Hampshire

New Hampshire accounts for 17 of the 1,034 delegates it takes to win the Republican nomination. For months, George W. Bush has been widely viewed as the Republican front-runner because of his towering financial advantage and his vast endorsements from elected Republicans.

The momentum of a startling landslide over George W. Bush in New Hampshire boosted John McCain’s battle for the Republican presidential nomination. "I know it’s going to get more intense now," McCain said. "We’ve interfered with the coronation." Bush admitted he was taken by surprise. "I think everybody was," he said on his plane bound for the next primary in South Carolina. "I am mentally prepared for the long haul."

Exit polls also found that McCain won not only among New Hampshire’s many independents but also among registered Republicans. His military experience and call for campaign finance reform-resonated among voters. Bush called the outcome a bump in the road in a state known for placing such obstacles in the path of front-runners.

Despite his defeat in New Hampshire, Bush still has advantages over McCain. Money is one, with more than $31 million in Bush’s campaign treasury to begin the election year, four times the amount that McCain had.

Al Gore edges out Bill Bradley in New Hampshire

Al Gore held off a strong challenge by Bill Bradley in the New Hampshire primary, but both candidates vowed a long, tough fight for the Democratic presidential nomination. Al Gore had 52 percent of the vote to Bradley’s 47 percent.

Gore claimed to have dealt "a devastating blow" to his challenger in New Hampshire. But Bradley called their close finish "a real victory for a new kind of politics" and declared himself primed for the national battle.

The close New Hampshire result, despite a solid victory for Gore in the Iowa caucuses, means that Gore has to face the critical month of March, when more than half the party’s delegates to the Democratic National Convention will be elected on the first two Super Tuesdays, with a dead serious fight ahead.

In the end, in New Hampshire, neither candidate achieved all he could logically have hoped for. Bradley expected to do better than he had in Iowa, where he lost to Gore. He did do better, but this was a State where in the Fall, at least, Bradley’s earnest, low-key style, honed and exhibited in more than 60 town-hall meetings, had been expected to propel him to victory.

On the other hand, a victory by five percentage points is something less than a triumph. Before the polls closed, an upbeat Bradley challenged Gore to debate him once a week between then and the March primaries. Previously he had spurned Gore’s suggestion of twice-weekly debates, coupled with a mutual agreement not to use 30-second advertisements.

Those voters most concerned about the nation’s schools preferred Gore; those troubled about health care went for Bradley. But Bradley, who retired from the Senate after three terms in which he represented New Jersey, had insisted all along that he would stay through what he called the "national primary" next month, when 1,625 delegates will be chosen on March 7 and another 673 on March 14.

Bill Clinton’s influence on the election

The State of the Union address is the US president’s most cherished public ritual. On Thursday 27 January, for more than an hour, Bill Clinton commanded a national television audience and dominated the House chamber, literally and figuratively, looking down upon the assemblage of lawmakers, judges, generals and diplomats.

Opinion polls show that the American nation embraces Clinton’s view of government. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll taken early in January found that 50 percent of voters wanted to continue Clinton’s policies. Only 10 percent wanted a more liberal approach to government. And 33 percent wanted more conservative policies. This is a remarkable rating for a president entering his eighth year, eclipsing even Ronald Reagan in his final year.

For no matter how much he disgraced himself, Clinton seems to have made good on his second-term pledge to find the "vital American centre". Political strategists differ sharply over which side of Clinton will dominate the coming election - his personality or his programs.

After his State of the Union address it was clear that Clinton’s influence pervades the presidential race. He has forced the main candidates into a delicate balancing act running against the president’s scandalous persons while sticking closely to the centre that Clinton defined through seven turbulent years in office.

52 Years of Independence
Peace-a national need

by B.V. Sugathapala
-Justice of the Peace

"Where is the mind unbowed? Where is the head held high? Where is the light of wisdom free? Where is the earth not divided into bits and pieces by narrow walls? Where do words issue forth from the depths of truth? Where is the hand raised towards perfection? Where is the serene water of justice not stifled by the devastating sands of dead ritual? Where is the great untrammelled thought that leads to broad concepts and noble deeds? To that paradise of Freedom, My Father, let my country awake".

This is quoted from a lyric in Gitanjali by great Poet Rabindranath Tagore, who was inspired by Buddhism to create exceptionally noble concepts. In this lyric, thoughts of freedom and liberty are enshrined. A given concept becomes great when perennial values are embedded in it. Great Poet Tagore composed his ‘Gitanjali’, before India achieved its Independence.

Aesthetically pleasing thoughts regarding freedom could stir in one’s mind. But, he would have perhaps been convinced that the paradise he dreamt of could never occur in reality anywhere on this earth. He would never have expected such a transcendental status from the common earthlings scattered all over the globe. He may have very well realized that words issue from the depth of truth, the pure waters of justice flow freely, and that havens of wisdom’s light appear, only in those times when there are perfect great beings. The lyrical concepts of Great Rabindranath Tagore reflect a world of freedom where there are at least men and women who lead a life beneficial to one’s own-self and others, who do not harm anyone, who recognize good and bad, right and wrong and who are peaceful and virtuous, even though they may not be perfect.

It is 52 years, since the land in which we were born, and where we grew up, achieved Independence. We are passing the twentieth century and are on the threshold of the 21st century.

On one side we have a destructive war, that has become a cancer on the nation’s body, destroying national wealth and lives of great value. This war has now raged on for more than a decade. On the other hand we have the masses of our land, who suffer privation and poverty due to social and economic deprivations. They are oppressed by poverty, the burden of living and the lack of employment. Those whose responsibility should be to save our land from these burning crises, are cribbed and confined by the system of party politics, endowed upon us by alien imperialists. Instead of rescuing the country from this dangerous impasse, they engage in futile controversies and debates, pursuing a policy of mutual fault-finding. Given this scenario, what is going to be our country’s future?

Isn’t it, with a background synthesizing the past and the present that a given country’s future gets built? Isn’t it, that we should recall our past not to repent or become ecstatic but to learn lessons for the future from those events and incidents of the past?

Under foreign imperial rule, the traditional agro-economy of this country was suppressed and was degraded into an export-import oriented economy

Besides, it is no secret that the races in this country were divided and ruled leading to disharmony within the nation. Whatever that may be, all groups - Sinhala, Tamil, Muslim etc. - joined hands to win our Independence on the 4th of February 1948. This is a highly esteemed event. We must recall with a deep sense of gratitude, such great leaders and patriots as D. S. Senanayake, F. R. Senanayake, Sir D. B. Jayatilaka, S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike, Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan, Ponnambalam Arunachchalam, Sir James Pieris, Anagarika Dharmapala who pioneered the movement to win and safeguard Independence.

In the post-independence era, leaders of the nation deployed their statesmanship, in terms of contemporary exigencies. If one were to observe that, the good-will and amity that existed among those who united to win independence, became marred due to certain short-sighted political processes, it is a view based authentic experiences. It is quite evident on most occasions, that some politicians, who are restricted by party politics, make an attempt to win political advantages by mix-interpreting not only events and incidents of today, but even those of the past. This kind of behaviour is determined by their craving for power.

After independence, the administration of this land alternated between those political parties who came to power alternately. Although the development effort of the country went ahead under those circumstances, the search for solutions to the burning issues of the country, tended to slow down.

Many individuals, distinguished by their intellect and skills, came under the sway of political parties. Some politicians, set them aside, because of this. In consequence, the country could not derive benefits from their exceptional talents. It became impossible for some highly talented and educated young men and women, even to obtain employment, if they did not follow some politicians and pursue certain political views. The freedom of young men and women, born and bred in this country, to obtain employment in terms of their skills and talents, whatever may be their views on racialism, language or religion was thwarted. This was a major factor that determined the youth unrest. Besides it was this that led to the youth insurgencies of 1971 and 1989 against such social discrepancies.

It is no secret that, rulers of those times, made an attempt both in 1971 and 1989 to reform and rehabilitate those young people associated with the insurgencies. When all those attempts became futile, the suppression of the insurgencies had to be put in charge of the armed forces. Through this action, a greater terrorism became essential to suppress the terrorism. This led to certain injustices as well. But, it has to be accepted unequivocally, that, the timely action that the rulers of those days were forced to take, enabled the independence won in 1948, to be further preserved. The lessons we were forced to learn from these bitter experiences of the past, will be of tremendous value, in the management of the present and the future of our land.

It is well-nigh impossible to fulfil the aspirations of the masses of this country, without a long-term solution to the Ethnic Problem, that has brought about untold political, economic and social disasters. Meantime, it is unfortunate, that the electioneering conducted by party politics has deteriorated into a terrorism that destroys valuable lives of this country and brings about a futile wastage of the country’s wealth.

In the post-independence era the country is reduced today to the unfortunate status of universal politicisation. In consequence, the task of strengthening the economy on the basis of planning and good management, has slowed down.

It is quite essential to protect the leader ruling the country. There may be faults and shortcomings in anyone. Leaders are not immune from this. But, whatever that may be, leadership cannot be attained wholly through ability, without mass credibility and fortune. Isn’t it quite rarely that great, talented, wise, active and honest leaders appear in a country?

How many leaders have we untimely lost because of this harsh war? It is through sheer good fortune that the life of the present President was saved. Wasn’t a great disaster averted that way?

Should not the gesture of the President, who extended a hand to all opposition parties for a peace effort, in her inaugural address to the nation, receive the praise of all of us?

The loss of the leader of a nation is like the loss of a ship’s captain. Couldn’t it be the strategy of the leader of the Terrorist of the North to destabilize the country by destroying the leaders of the land.

This is the birth place of all of us. Isn’t it on the actions of all, that the progress or the decline of the land depends? We must refrain from finding fault with each other. We must avoid getting divided into coteries. We must learn our lesson from the errors and faults of the past. Time is now for us to join hands and get united. For our country that has spent half a century after independence, the most essential need is Peace. Immediate steps should be taken to stop the war in the North and the East which is a great obstacle to the progress in the fields of economy and social development. This is the most problematic obstacle we have had to face as a nation after we won independence. If we are to go ahead as a nation, we have to get rid of this formidable obstacle.

Can we achieve peace by war, by murder, by destroying our valuable possessions and by the assassination of our leaders? Tranquillity and harmony can be achieved only on peace and unity. Peace and harmony can be won only by the unified effort of all political parties, discarding narrow bickerings and by jointly searching for a solution through peaceful means.

Presently we have reached 52 years after independence. We are on the threshold of a new millennium. At this crucial juncture, we should turn to the Path of Peace, to save our land from this horrendous war. We must set aside narrow political thinking and must consider peace to be a national need. We must start treading the Path of Peace at least at this stage to save the whole nation from this tragedy.

Continued...

  | NEWS | EDITORIAL | DEFENCE | FEATURES | LEISURE | BUSINESS | SPORTS | ADS |