by Raveen S. Nathan; November 15, 2003, originally published November 17, 2003
Sri Lanka throughout its postcolonial history has had the distinction of being a democracy that has maintained the rule of its (majority ethnic) people’s will albeit with two minor interruptions. But never in its modern history has it suffered any military or constitutional coup like its neighbors namely Bangladesh and Pakistan have throughout their checkered political history.
The current situation has come about because the President has taken power away from a duly elected Prime Minister and the Parliament by constitutional means only meant to be used in dire circumstances. She has also tried to proclaim a draconian emergency regulations that has the potential to throttle free speech and arrest and detain political dissidents as well as any Tamil civilian for years without due trial. Under previous emergency regulations Tamil civilians suffered grievously as they were targeted for mass arrests, torture and rape by the state security agencies. Further proclamation of the emergency requires that it needs to be verified by the parliament within 10 days but the parliament is prorogued for 2 weeks thus making this an unconstitutional proclamation of emergency if were to be gazetted.
But what are the circumstances that prompted the President to take this precipitous action. The choices facing the country were simple but stark. War or peace? Prosperity or economic ruin? International isolation or engagement? Given these choices, it is interesting that a leader would take a decision that could potentially turn the wheels of progress backwards.
What she has done in the short term is to panic the stock market, destabilize the tourism industry and foreign investments and has delayed potential windfall Sri Lanka was hoping in the form of International aid. She has also boosted the morale of the small but influential right wing and racist elements both in Sri Lanka and India who are opposed to any form of peaceful settlement with Tamils in Sri Lanka.
In the long run, it has the potential to strengthen the hands of hard-liners within the Tamil community that want nothing to do with a united Sri Lanka. It also has the potential to shore up international support for a de facto division of the country because Sri Lankan political leaders are unable to solve the long-standing grievances of the Tamil minority community. Many political observers believe that strategically this drastic decision has strengthened the LTTE’s position in any future negotiations.
The reason used by the President for this coup d’état is simply that the counter proposal for an interim Administration by the LTTE would lead to separation of the country. Such arguments are ludicrous because these were simply proposals not an agreement. LTTE leadership was careful in their assertions that they would negotiate on the basis of this document. It was comprehensive document detailing most of Tamil aspirations to counter the govt’s. previous proposal. This is a typical negotiating tactic that some in the Sri Lankan and Indian media as well as many local democratic deficit politicians might have misread as demands.
But the Sorbonne educated shrewd politician like President Chandrika Kumaratunga-Bandaranaike and her capable advisors cannot be expected to be lead by such misplaced fears. So one could safely conclude that this decision was not based in the best interest of the country nor was a reaction to the counter proposals by the LTTE.
It is important that we understand the events other than LTTE counter proposals that potentially could have lead to this precipitous decision. The Hindu, a prominent Indian newspaper also known for its hard-line position vis a vis the LTTE in a recent editorial that “since the beginning of their uneasy partnership in December 2001, the UNF (United National Front) Government has been trying to divest Ms. Kumaratunga of the executive role granted to her office by the 1978 Constitution and to turn her into a lame duck President. Ms. Kumaratunga’s position as commander-in-chief of the armed forces has been especially contentious as it has given her leeway to intervene in the Norway-assisted peace process with the LTTE much more than Mr. Wickremesinghe, Several times, the President has raised objections to the conduct of the LTTE during the ceasefire where the UNF Government has been prepared to overlook such conduct. On Tuesday, in response to two sensitive questions referred to it by the President under its consultative jurisdiction, the Supreme Court gave an opinion affirming the President’s “plenary executive power” in matters relating to defense. The UNF had planned to pre-empt this opinion by initiating a move to impeach the Chief Justice who was considered close to the President. By proroguing Parliament, President Kumaratunga has blocked that move, and by taking control of three Ministries, she has asserted the executive powers that are constitutionally hers.” It should be noted that the same paper’s editorials in the past had advised the President that she exercise her constitutional rights to reign in the Prime Minister. So there were other events that were brewing in the background too.
Further a new budget was to be submitted to the parliament on the 12th of November. This budget is to share the peace dividends with the ordinary people. If UNF government had done it, the chances for the SLFP (Sri Lanka Freedom Party), Presidents political power base to come to power in near future seem to be difficult.
It should also be noted that most of the statements critical about the LTTE’s counter proposals have come directly from the SLFP a constituent of the Presidents Peoples Alliance (PA) because all other alliance members including the Socialist LSSP (Lanka Sama Samaja Party) have rejected that line of thinking. The current president’s father founded SLFP solely based on majoritarian fears of minority Tamil domination in the economic and professional spheres in the late colonial period. Her mother, another previous Prime Minister, too, catered to these fears, thus fanning racial hatred bring about the 1983 anti Tamil pogroms and resultant civil war.
It is also reasonable to believe that the LTTE’s counter proposals and the way it was received by the International community may have also threatened the President. Thus, this sacking was a necessity to the local Sri Lankan party politics. It wasn’t necessary either for the national security or the country’s sovereignty. The sackings are surgical and meant only to defang the Prime Minister. It could be argued that a weakened Prime Minister would not be able to negotiate in good faith with the LTTE. It could also be seen as a way to frustrate the LTTE leadership and make them go back to war thus loosing international credibility and support that they have so painstakingly built so far.
Hence the absence of the Prime Minister gave an opportunity for the president to take some power back. The move surely did get some backing from certain foreign elements not amenable to a just peace in Sri Lanka. It has changed the mood of the country from guarded optimism to pessimism. It has soured world opinion as evidenced by editorials and communiqués from the US, EU, UN, Japan, India and China as well as prominent newspapers like the Boston Globe of the US, the BBC and the Globe and Mail of Canada. Sri Lankan polity has a lot of soul searching and damage control before it can bring the right condition to continue the peace talks. The LTTE reaction to this provocation will also affect the outcome. Now it is a question of wait and see.
from the Tamil Circle # 3266, November 15, 2003
http://www.tamilcircle.org