 |
 . |
|
| The week that
was Deliberations in high places - and at ground level too! The tenth SAARC conference came to an end last Friday leaving behind a few unresolved problems. Did it really achieve anything tangible, except perhaps strengthening the friendship among the SAARC countries? To face the problems of a changing world order, regional co-operation is a must. But it is very doubtful whether the SAARC organisation can achieve the objectives it has set for itself. For example, one of the objectives is to make the SAARC region a free trade zone by 2001. Opinions expressed by the leaders of Nepal, Bhutan and Pakistan in their speeches at the SAARC sessions clearly pinpoint their reservations on the subject. Even here in Sri Lanka, many a businessman shudders at the idea because they have a reasonable suspicion that under a regional free trade zone, India with its vast economic clout can swamp and destroy the markets for the manufacturers in small countries. Equally, it is rather doubtful whether consensus can be arrived on the proposal made by Pakistani Premier Nawaz Sharif that a ministerial committee should be appointed to examine and report on the areas of possible threats to regional security. The Indian Premier maintained that political problems cannot be resolved through collective deliberations. He preferred bilateral talks instead. If no agreement can be reached on the discussion of political problems, the effectiveness of the organisation itself will be questionable. Last minute hitch... as
usual President Chandrika Kumaratunga held her bilateral talks with state leaders at President's House. However, the last round of talks with the Prime Minister of Pakistan started two hours late at 8.00 p.m. In the meantime, The Leader of the Opposition, Ranil Wickremesinghe had visited Hotel Taj Samudra to meet the visiting leaders. He also met the Nepali Prime Minister first. By the time he met the Bangladesh Prime Minister it was about 8.00 p.m. He came back once again to the hotel and met Nawaz Sharif, at about 9.30 in the night. It is understood that no political matters were discussed at these meetings. Delayed invitations Although the cabinet members were among the invitees, some of them could not make it because they had received their invitation cards only a few hours before! He also entertained media men to a reception prior to the dinner for ministers. A little bit of
confusion Confusion confounded Apparently, there was no proper system of reserving seats. For example, the Speaker of the House had been given a front row seat whereas the Leader of the House, Mr. Rathnasiri Wickramanayake was placed in the third row. The Leader of the Opposition had been given a seat in the same row as deputy ministers. Even the chief government whip, Mr. Richard Pathirana was accommodated in a seat a little behind the front row. One of the ushers, obviously at sea with political faces, escorted a deputy minister to the seat meant for the Foreign Minister, Mr. Kadirgamar. Subsequently, when the error was pointed out, the deputy minister in question beat a silent retreat! The same thing happened with Deputy Minister Pavitra Wanniarachchi. The usher, mistaking her for Nirupama Rajapakse, attempted to take her to the front row. Pavitra recognised the mistake and walked to the deputy minister's row. Pouring oil on troubled
waters? Some of the top ranking officials had been given the privilege of being seated even in front of the ministers whereas some invited MPs were requested to go to the balcony. Several others were accommodated in the lower gallery. MPs who were ordered to the balcony refused to accept a different treatment and in defiance of the organisers, came down. They too had to be seated there. Stepmotherly treatment given to them seemed to have angered several ministers, among whom were Richard Pathirana, Jeyaraj Fernandopulle, A.H.M. Fowzie and D.M. Jayaratne. Richard Pathirana who seemed to be really annoyed even attempted to walk out of the conference hall. He was stopped by Jeyaraj. Pathirana refused an attempt made by Presidential Secretary Mr. K. Balapatabendi to place him in the front row. "Don't ask me go here and there. If I knew about this, I would not have come", he stormed. "Who organised this?" he asked Balapatabendi". "A school child could have done better". Balapatabendi assured the minister that he had no hand in organisation. Deputy Minister Janaka Tennakoon pointed out the place given to Ranil Wickremasinghe to Pathirana and Fernandopulle. "See the seat given to Ranil" Janaka remarked, "Now we can't face him. Our politics may be different, but this is a diplomatic occasion. Once must maintain proper protocol," Fernandopulle remarked. In the meantime, the President and the visiting leaders were having tea in a separate room, along with the Foreign Minister and wives of visiting leaders. No time had been given on the conference agenda. This was noticed by a government MP who told Dr. Kodituwakku, of the UNP "Today, of course, the thing will start on time". "Why do you say so? "Because since no time has been given, whatever time is the correct time!" The conference started. During the inaugural address by the president the faulty microphone compelled her to tap it thrice. The ministers were really angry at this and they were blaming the organisers for not being able to do even a thing like that properly. Then the traditional oil lamp lighted for the occasion had to be put out due to lack of oil. Then, it began to belch smoke irritating every one right round. Delays Some ministers and deputy ministers received copies and the others did not. When a high official of the Sri Lankan government was given a copy of the text, Mr. Warnapala summoned the lady and asked her whether he was a foreigner. Minister Fowzie attempted to organise the distribution. It did not help. Palinda Dassa-nayake and Viswa Warnapala who were seated close to Ranil also talked with some feeling about the allocation of seats. Deputy Minister Reggie Ranatunga was seated behind Ranil. They spoke only of cricket. Time for a side swap "The answer to that you can get from your leader on the stage", Anura replied. The same query was put to Anura by several ministers and deputy ministers, he only smiled. Even after the conference was over, the invitees had to remain behind because they were not allowed by security to get out until all the state leaders had left. And the president was engaged in a long conversation with high officials long after all the other heads had left the BMICH. The diplomatic corps members caught up in the traffic jam, were upset because they knew that their heads of states of government would be looking for them as soon as they had reached the hotels. Even the ministers did not escape the gam. Banquet for the chosen Among the 100 odd invitees were, the Leaders of the Opposition, Ranil Wickramasinghe and his wife, Colombo Mayor Karu Jayasuriya, R. Sampandan of the TULF, and V. Siddharthan of the PLOTE. Secretary to the Ministry of Finance, Dixon Nilaweera, A. S. Jayawardane, Lal Jayewardane, Professor, Senaka Bandara-nayake, the former U. N. Representative H. L. de Silva, Gamini Corea and the Chief Justice G. P. S. de Silva were also among the invitees. Blowing hot in the
Bribery Commission At the committee meeting, the U.N.P. members made a valiant attempt to get copies of the letter sent by members of the commission. Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Dharmasiri Senanayake objected. Finally it was agreed to read the letter aloud. After a heated argument, Ronnie de Mel proposed that G.L. and Jeyaraj should be allowed to take a decision according to their conscience. Family gathering Kataragama... a
favourite political venue? Where the elephant
roams Proceedings began with a dip in the reservoir and a media conference for media reps who had gone from Colombo. Everyone sat on mats spread on the floor. Prior to talking to pressmen, Ranil had discussions with the representatives of Sirasa and Swarnavahini. After the press conference, there began the ''party on the mat'. Came the stuff that cheers. More inputs led to more excitement. Some of the members opted to reverse the roles and came forward to entertain the orchestra. Lakhman Seneviratne began as a vocalist and in no time turned violinist. Saman Athaudahetti displayed his prowess with the tabla. Music led to a dance session. It was past 1 a.m. when it was all over. |
| Cambodian elections 'Fundamentally flawed'? by Dr. Stanley Kalpage In the 1993 election the UN spent $3 billion and deployed 20,000 peace-keepers. In the current election the European Union and Japan picked up the tab of $26 million for the cost of the election in which about 80-90 percent of the 5.4 million registered voters are said to have cast their votes. The United Nations co-ordinated a group of international observers from the United States, the European Union and ASEAN to monitor closely the campaign as well as the voting. US observers said the election was "fundamentally flawed". The others did not pronounce the election to have been "free, fair and credible" but then they did not condemn it fully either. It could, they said, be described as being "reasonably credible" and "broadly representative of the will of the Cambodian people". Violence and fraud were much in evidence throughout the month long election campaign but polling day was relatively quiet and incident-free except for an early morning attack on a military post in the northern jungles by a residual Khmer Rouge force which left 10 persons dead. The main contenders Hun Sen held all the trump cards. He had deposed co-prime minister Norodom Ranariddh in a military-backed coup an year ago and had strenghtened his grip on the crucial levers of power. He controlled the armed forces, the police and the judiciary and had a virtual monopoly of the state media. The newly formed Constitutional Council was two-thirds CPP controlled and the majority of the members of the National Election Commission were members of the CPP. Most important, the CPP's elelction machinery was without peer. Its organisation reached down to the remote rural areas and boasted of a membership of 3 million voters, more than half of those registered to vote. On the other hand, the alliance between the two opposition groups had virtually collapsed. With FUNCINPEC Ranariddh had to contend with a party structure effectively bankrupted after his violent overthrow. Election observers Another monitoring group, the Asia Network of Free Elections (ANFREL) said that violence and cheating had played a major role in the election process. ANFREL alleged that COMFREL had turned a blind eye to the intimidation of voters. Thousand of local observers, mostly government supporters, had infiltrated into the monitoring process and were intimidating and trying to influence voters. Eventually. COMFREL was compelled to eliminate thousands of these local observers mobilised by Hun Sen for his own purposes. Hun Sen Hun Sen is a ruthless operator who prepared assiduously for the election after ousting first co-prime minister Prince Norodom Ranariddh in July 1997. Since then he is said to have gunned down more than 100 people in Phnom Penh, some tortured, executed and consigned to shallow graves. But such incidents have to be seen in the light of Cambodian history replete with civil wars and "dictatorships", including the infamous Pol Pot "Killing fields" from 1975 to 1979, during which as many as 2 million people out of a population of 7 million were tortured and killed. In fact, the level of violence in 1998 was reported to be less than in the UN-backed elections of 1993. Hun Sen played a low-profile role in the campaign promising a poverty alleviation programme and by practising a low-level intimidation campaign against his opponents. Discontent with his regime followed the economic downturn which occurred after Ranariddh's ousted and the withdrawal of foreign assistance. The CPP is also viewed with suspicion because of its links with Vietnam, Cambodia's larger neighbour and traditional rival. Prince Norodom
Ranariddh From his base near the Thai border, Ranariddh joined forces with the Khmer Rouge and battled the pro-Vietnamese forces led by Hun Sen until the UN brokered Paris Accords of 1991 which sought to end Cambodia's decades of conflict. Ranariddh claims to have driven the Vietnamese from Cambodia and is popular with the voters in a country with anti Vietnamese feelings. Ranariddh won 58 seats in the UN sponsored election of 1993 but agreed to share power with his main rival Hun Sen who obtained 51 in the 122-member National Assembly. Sam Rainsy The Khmer Rouge More than 10,000 former Khmer Rouge guerrillas who had considered democratic voting a capital crime and who had fled to Thailand were voting for the first time in their lives. Their forces were disintegrating with mass defections over the past two years and their leader, the notorious Pol Pot, is said to have died a sick, hungry and disappointed man. Before he died, Pol Pot is reported to have heard over the Voice of America that his former colleagues were negotiating to hand him over to an international tribunal to face charges of genocide. The result From the outset it was clear that out of the 39 contesting parties only three would share the 122 Assembly seats. No single party was likely to get two-thirds of the seats in the Assembly to form a government on its own. The result would thus lead to a coalition of the Cambodian People's Party of Hun Sen, the royalist FUNCINPEC of Norodom Ranariddh, and the Rainsy Party led by Sam Rainsy. Given the bad blood between the leaders of the contending parties, it is doubtful whether such a coalition would be viable. In any case, a two-thirds majority is needed for a quorum for the National Assembly to meet. In the absence of such a quorum, Hun Sen may simply carry on regardless and Cambodia could once again be in turmoil. But such a situation would not be in Hun Sen's best interest either. He is desperately anxious for his rule to be legitimised so that he could gain international recognition and the economic assistance his country sorely needs. |
| L E G A L W A T C H Right to Equality in Commercial Dealings By Nayana The Court (Justice Fernando with Justices Dheeraratne and Ananda Coomaraswamy in agreement) said this: "The (Ceylon Petroleum Corporation) Act confers a monopoly on the 1st respondent (CPC) in respect of the right to import, export, sell and distribute petrol ..... No person can deal in such products except with the written authority of the Board of Directors ....... the provisions of petroleum products for the community ...... is now part of the service provided by the State for the people." The Court held that the granting and cancelling of dealership agreements by the Corporation could not be regarded as purely commercial transactions but were part and parcel of the statutory powers conferred on the Corporation and therefore came within the definition of "executive or administrative action" allowing for an application under Article 126. Accordingly, the Corporation was not entitled to summarily terminate the petitioners’ dealership agreement without valid reasons. Even though the terms of the contract did not require reasons to be given to the dealer at the time of termination, nevertheless when the decision was challenged before Court in a fundamental rights application, the Corporation had to be able to justify its decision with reasons. This case of Gunaratne vs Ceylon Petroleum Corporation saw the Corporation being ordered to pay Rs.75,000 in compensation and costs for unlawful termination, and to either restore the petitioners’ dealership or pay a further sum of Rs.500,000 for loss of profits for the three month notice period which they should have been given prior to termination in the normal course. As a matter of interest it may be mentioned that, impervious to this judgment, the CPC went on to unlawfully terminate another dealership agreement - that of C. Wickrematunga, Mrs Hema Premadasa’s brother, on political grounds - and were found to be in violation of the anti-discrimination provisions of Article 12(2), resulting in an order to pay compensation of Rs.125,000 at the end of last year. It is no longer seriously disputed that State-run commercial institutions are liable to observe fundamental rights. The question for the future concerns the position of private commercial entities to whom the State has of late divested the task of providing many key public utility services. For example, does a privatized Sri Lanka Telecom have to provide telephone connections on a rational basis or can it arbitrarily distinguish between applicants? Likewise, would Shell Gas be able to cancel distributorship agreements or enter into new ones in a way that is unfairly discriminatory? Or can the management of any such institution act with a communal bias in the recruitment of personnel, or restrict trade union membership among its workers? In other words, are the fundamental rights set out in the Constitution applicable only to "executive or administrative action" or are private persons, individual or corporate, also bound to observe these rights in their dealings with the public. Debate has arisen because applications to the Supreme Court under Article 126 are limited to those concerning "executive or administrative action". On the other hand, the chapter setting out the fundamental rights is framed in general terms. Thus, for instance, Articles 12(1) and (2) start with the words "All persons are equal before the law ......." and "No person shall be discriminated against ......." This is in contrast to the Indian Constitution which declares that "The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law ......." and "The State shall not discriminate ........" The wording of our Constitution has led many to argue that fundamental rights should be enforceable irrespective of where the infringement emanates from, and Article 126 merely provides a special expeditious procedure (direct application to the Supreme Court) where the infringement is alleged to be caused by executive or administrative action. This issue was expressly dealt with by a five-judge Bench (Justice Wanasundera, with Chief Justice Sharvananda and three other Justices in agreement) in the case of Gunaratne vs People’s Bank which was the first reported fundamental rights case to be filed in our courts. This case was instituted under the 1972 Constitution which, while containing a fundamental rights chapter similar to that found in the present (1978) Constitution, did not prescribe any particular procedure for the enforcement of those rights. An officer of the People’s Bank had been denied promotion from Grade IV to Grade III unless he resigned his membership of the Ceylon Bank Employees’ Union which was a registered trade union. The petitioner sought a declaration from the District Court of Colombo that this condition imposed by his employer was null and void as being a denial of his freedom of association enshrined in the Constitution. The District Court granted him the declaration prayed for but the Court of Appeal allowed the Bank’s appeal on the grounds that contractual relations between employer and employee were a matter of private law and did not attract the fundamental rights provisions of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, hearing the appeal in 1985 but judging it on the basis of the 1972 Constitution, held that the right of an employee to join a trade union of his choice was part of the right of freedom of association. Such a right could only be restricted by the State, by law, for the purposes allowed by the Constitution, and could not be curtailed by an employer through a term in the contract of employment. It is important to note that this aspect of the judgment was entirely separate from the question of whether the People’s Bank was an agency of the State. The prohibition on an employer from taking away the fundamental rights of employees by contract applied whether or not the employer was a State agency. The Court, which had the benefit of being able to compare the provisions of the 1972 and 1978 Constitutions, went on to state, with reference to Article 126: "Article 126 of the present Constitution enables a person aggrieved by executive or administrative action to come directly to this Court by way of petition ....... It is now generally understood that this is only a special summary mode of relief in a particular kind of situation, namely the violation of fundamental rights by executive or administrative action. Article 126 is therefore not exhaustive of the manner that courts could be approached for the violation of fundamental rights." Technically speaking, these words may be only "obiter dicta" since the interpretation of Article 126 was not in issue in the People’s Bank case. However the collective opinion of a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court would be of considerable persuasive value in any future litigation on the subject. |
| Trinco oil tanks and our independence By K. Godage The Agreement was "conditional to the Government of India taking the following actions…". Though the Sri Lanka side amended its constitution and changed the political map of Sri Lanka to abide by the terms of the Agreement, India was unfortunately unable to fulfill its obligations. This has lead to the question of its validity. Former Foreign Secretary Bernard Tilakaratna stated as early as in 1990 (whilst on a visit to India) that the Agreement was passe. But his saying so did not make it passe. The accepted position is that an international Agreement remains valid unless abrogated. The status of the Agreement remains the million-dollar question. Most unfortunately this Government has not been anxious to settle this issue for reasons of its own, despite many calls, suggesting to the Government, that it takes up with the Indian Government the matter of replacing the Agreement with a new Treaty. The extent to which our country has the ability to decide on its own destiny or, in other words, the extent to which our sovereignty is circumscribed, became evident as a result of the offer of Messrs. Glencore Ltd. of Singapore, for the lease of nine oil tanks in China Bay belonging to the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation. The Annexure to the Indo-Lanka Agreement states "the work on restoring the Trincomalee oil tank farm will be undertaken as a joint venture between India and Sri Lanka". Ten years have gone by since the Agreement was signed and India has done nothing in pursuance of her interest. The Agreement is in limbo, with India in particular, not having performed fully under it (we must of course never forget that over one thousand sons of India died, in a sense to ensure that Sri Lanka remained a single state). Even today the LTTE operates a daily logistics run between Kilali/Pooneryn and Rameshwaran. Indian territory is therefore yet being used in violation of the Agreement. Neither Delhi nor Madras has done anything to prevent such traffic. There is no doubt that this is an"activity prejudicial to the unity, integrity and security of Sri Lanka". The LTTE has been continuing to obtain logistical support from overseas. Is the Indian Navy mounting any surveillance? In terms of 2.16(b) of the Agreement, "The Indian Navy/Coast Guard will cooperate with the Sri Lanka Navy in preventing Tamil militant activities from affecting Sri Lanka". If this cooperation had been forthcoming, the LTTE would not be in a position to prosecute this war as they do at present. With the Indian side not performing under the Agreement, it would appear that the Agreement is not enforceable. Obviously therefore we should treat the Agreement as having lapsed. But what has been happening has been quite strange. This is where the bureaucracy of this country has exhibited a total lack of political sense. It has also shown up the politicians for their inability to give correct political direction. Here is an Agreement, which was forced down our throats. People took to the streets against it. This was one of the reasons for the last insurgency. It should, at all times, be the foremost objective of every Sri Lanka Government to get out of the clutches of the Rajiv-Jayewardene Agreement, which avoided all reference to our sovereignty and has transformed this country into a semi-vassal state of India. But what have we done? The authorities have given the Agreement artificial respiration and sought to revive it, by interpreting it in the narrowest legal sense. When Glencore Singapore LTD, a subsidiary of Glencore International AG Switzerland, applied to the CPC for the lease/rent of ten oil tanks for a limited period of five years, the CPC quite correctly referred the matter to the Foreign Ministry for its observations. The Foreign Ministry has immediately written to the Indian Government inquiring as to whether they had any objections. There is no doubt that the then Secretary of the Ministry could not have been ‘a sensitive diplomat’, for, had he been sensitive to the feelings of the people of this country on this issue, he would have advised the Government that this was an opportunity to test Indian thinking on the status of the Agreement. It would have been prudent for him to suggest that we proceed with the matter and see how the Indians react. The Indians, when consulted, expressed the continuing interest in terms of the Agreement, breathing life to an Agreement they are in violation of. Outside of the political issue, let us examine the Glencore offer on purely commercial terms. The Glencore proposal, dated April 20, 1995, was to rent up to ten petroleum storage tanks of deemed capacity upto 100,000 mt at China Bay in Trincomalee for a period of five years. The matter was referred to a Cabinet Appointed Tender Board. At this point I must state that I am beholden for my facts to the Leader Newspaper which had scooped a copy of the cabinet paper and published it in full. The proposal envisaged an income to the CPC of Rs. 16.9 million per annum to the CPC and it was to be for a limited period of five years. Ten years have already gone by since the Agreement was signed and, as stated earlier, the Indian Oil Corporation has not come up with any joint venture proposal. Had we marketed the tank farm aggressively, we may have already had the facility restored and we would have earned millions of valuable foreign exchange, The IOC and India has adopted a dog in the manger attitude. They are not using the tanks and they are not permitting others to use the tanks either. The Government, it is reported has decided to lay by this proposal from Glencore. Who may we ask would be accountable for the loss in earnings at the rate of Rs. 16.9 million per year for five years, which would be Rs. 84.5 million in direct earnings to the CPC? The people have a right to know why this Government which is scrapping the bottom for funds is deliberately forsaking public revenue. Will the finance minister or the deputy answer this question? Would the Indians compensate us for this loss? What is most galling, obnoxious and frankly insufferable about this whole exercise, is the content of the cabinet memorandum, which is most revealing. The cabinet paper states "the Cabinet Appointed Tender Board (CATB) took note in particular of letter dated 19/9/95 addressed to the Secretary Ministry of Foreign Affairs by the Indian High Commissioner, on the proposal, where he has, WHILST GIVING CLEARANCE TO THE PROPOSAL (my capitals) observed that simultaneously the continuing interest of the Indian Oil Corporation in the formation of a joint venture with the CPC for the restoration and operation of the Trincomalee Oil Tank Farm, should be kept in mind, when finalising the agreement with the foreign company". Elsewhere in the cabinet paper it is stated "in view of the STIPULATIONS (my capitals) made by the Indian High Commissioner….."! I presume those who ingratiate themselves understand the full meaning and effect of the word. People have sacrificed their lives for much less. Do we not have pride and dignity as a nation? The implications of the High Commissioner’s letter referred to above, is the reason for the plea that we ditch the unequal Treaty under which India has not performed but which she invokes, when she feels it to be to her advantage. The Indian position is understandable. Why should they not exploit all opportunities (served up on a platter to them as in this instance) to their advantage. We for our part should initiate negotiations for a new Agreement, which would be both fair and just and in the long term interest of both countries. As for the proposal from Glencore, (incidentally it is not a company which has considerable American connections, as stated by the Sunday Leader correspondent in an article titled "Indian concerns over oil tank lease" published on May 31, 1998), it is indeed a pity that the project has been unnecessarily shelved and the country is consequently losing much revenue. It was stated in the article that Glencore, is a major supplier of crude oil products to the Indian Oil Corporation. If this is correct, Glencore cannot be some dummy company set up for some sinister purpose. I therefore fail to understand why the Government should not grant its approval for the proposal for this country can ill afford to lose revenue by not developing this oil tank farm. Waiting for the IOC, which has not come up with a proposal for a joint venture for the past ten years and has in the process denied us millions of dollars in revenue is like waiting for Godot who never came. (The writer is a former diplomat who retired as Additional Secretary to the Foreign Ministry) |
| Elections to come with entrenched
Bandaranaikes by Kusal Perera This is thus an interesting focal point to judge the politics of our country. And there are many interesting facets too, that goes to prove how naive and short sighted our political leaderships are, whatever the colour. If one considers the JVP, the bastards of Left politics, the pioneers of the most brutal and savage political culture in post independent Sri Lanka, is now trying project themselves as "saviours' of democracy. The very JVP that went on a rampage in the 1987 to 1991 period, opposing the 13th Amendment that brought Provincial Councils, the JVP that killed those who supported the PCs, the very JVP who killed anyone and every one who wanted to contest the PC elections in 1988, is today picketing against any postponment of PC elections. Their claim is that, the right to vote which is a fundamental right, cannot be allowed to be suppressed. Yes and there is no argument or dissent on that. It was a fundamental right then in 1988, as it is today. Thus, is it not right to say that those who killed innocent voters in 1988, opposing the PC elections, have no moral right to be in politics, asking the people for their vote, unless, they openly and publicly beg forgiveness for all the atrocities committed against the people during the '88 to 91 period. Then comes the NSSP and their new left allies. The formation of recent origin, of course with much splintered left over "Marxist" scrap, started as a campaign against privatisation and against other issues like corruption of the PA government. The perspective put forward was for an alternate political force, a third force, as against the PA and the UNP, based on a socialist platform. Whatever its capacity to stand as an alternative to the two main stream political parties, they have not had the capacity to even stand together for the PC elections that is now declared to be held. The JVP has once again opted to be on their own. Another tiny fragment fastened to a Sinhala periodical, has to support, but not to hand over nominations collectively. Bandaranaikes The UNP too had similar features with Senanayakes holding forte. But JR structured and organised the UNP on a constitution that functions and that allows for change of political leadership on and off, with JR, Premadasa, Wijetunga and now Ranil in office. It is this change within the SLFP that Bandaranaikes keep opposing. Their right to decide the future leadership of their family party, is what stand against party democracy. This PC election is all about this. If the reflections in the political mirror are without distortions, then, the Bandaranaikes are getting their act together, in reinstalling Anura B. as the next leader of the SLFP after Chandrika B. Kumaratunga. And for this, in all probability, the PC elections would be postponed. This the JVP and the UNP put together, will not be able to stop. What relevance has the PC elections then, if it is to be postponed, for Anura to be reinstalled, one may wonder. The present PC elections are not of the PA making and the PA has to adhere to election laws, with no 2/3rd majority in Parliament. On the other hand, the Colombo based Tamil political parties too have no interest in this PC elections, as they cannot register any significant support among the Tamil polity in Colombo. But they would certainly say, the PC elections sans North-East does not answer their grievances. Hence the PC elections in the Sinhala dominated areas turns out to be a tussle among the Sinhala dominated polity, outside the Ethnic question, Tamil parties having little interest. Yet the most fascinating thing about the postponement is the question of the North East war. As it is, the argument put forward by the PA government is that the war has to be won for elections to be held. In other words, their argument is, victory against Tamil insurgency is more important than holding elections. This line of thinking is articulated strongly by the hierarchy of the Buddhist clergy backed by the Anuruddha Ratwatte clan and the military top notches. The Package now losing its glitter, President Chandrika B. Kumaratunga would thereafter justify herself on the war slogan. What for would be the next question. For two plain reasons. First, the PA or most importantly the SLFP voter base, articulating through their MPs, feet it is easier to match the UNP at a presidential election than at any other, with Chandrika's female charm still having an edge over Ranil's damp image. Secondly, with Chandrika re-elected as the President, the General elections that follow they feel, is easy meat. This line of argument supports the Bandaranaike family, who feel it is advisable to avoid a doubtful election at PC level that would decrease the chances of Chandrika coming as presrdent again. A second term of office for Chandrika as president, would on the other hand disqualify her from the SLFP leadership and thus would make the family vulnerable at the top. For the business community too comes the discomfort of having no accepted deputising leadership in the SLFP after Chandrika, for they always think in terms of replacements, if the UNP fail at elections. Thus there is consensus now between the business community and the Bandaranaike family in bringing Anura back in to the fold of the SLFP as the next leader, with Madam B. Gracefully wheeling herself out of the picture agaisnt Ratwatte and for her son. This explains the eccentric behaviour of Anura in the UNP, attracting punishment from his own followers there. He would expect the UNP to push him out or would prepare himself to leave it when the Presidential elections are announced. Chandrika would not consider him a challenge thereafter and her followers would not antogonise him, lest they fall out of her favour, who could as president of what she with no rigid bindings during the second term of office, either from the party or from the polity. In short, the PC elections or non election, would provide the Bandaranaike family with an opening to muster Sinhala Buddhist support through the war in way of postponing it and then to use it in reinstalling Chandrika as president for the second term, which provides for the re-entry of Anura as the heir to the throne in the SLFP, the only party in the whole world, that would nakedly manipulate to keep a feudalistic hold in a nation's fate through a family of never ending genarations. |
| NEWS | PROVINCIAL | EDITORIAL | DEFENCE | FEATURES | LEISURE | BUSINESS | SPORTS | ADS |