by Nagalingam Ethirveerasingam, Ph.D.; California, published April 15, 2004
The Voters have elected members of Parliament (MP) and parties who differ on the path and the form of the solution to resolve the Tamil National Question (TNQ). In this essay I will lay out what I think are possible pathways for moving forward toward resolving the TNQ given the results of the parliamentary election this month.
The main constituents of the United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA) are the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), the Janatha Vimukthi Perumuna (JVP), the National Unity Alliance (NUA), a Muslim party, and The Eelam Peoples Democratic Party (EPDP) with one Tamil MP who supports the SLFP on the TNQ. The Jathika Hela Urumiya (JHU) is a new party of Buddhist Monks whose policies on the TNQ are similar to that of the JVP, though they remain outside the coalition. In the opposition are the United National Party (UNP), the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC), the Ceylon Workers Congress (CWC), the Upcountry Peoples Front (UPF), and the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) – a supporter of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The manifesto of the UFPA and all other parties advocate lowering the cost of living, increasing employment, effecting economic development and ushering in peace. All the parties, however, differ with respect to the method and form of resolving the TNQ to achieve peace.
The TNA’s manifesto is for the GOSL to begin discussion with the LTTE to establish an Interim Self Government Authority (ISGA) with LTTE majority, and to explore a federal solution within the principles: Tamils are a nation, the NorthEast is their traditional place of habitation, and they have the right to internal self-determination.
The people from the three communities have expressed their choice of parties and their manifestos. There is no clear majority or mandate to a path to the solution or for any specific solution, though everyone wants peace on their own terms. Though the people want a lower cost of living, increased level of employment and economic development, their choice indicates the path to war with or without the realization that war will increase the cost of living, unemployment and economic and human catastrophe. The elected leaders are faced with the choice of negotiating a solution or returning to war. Will the elected leaders rise up to the challenge and begin negotiated peace with the LTTE or restart the war and destruction of the whole country? They do still have the choice find a mutually agreeable path to negotiate a solution.
Table 1 identifies some of the issues involved in solving the TNQ and attempts to predict how each of the parties would vote if the issues came to Parliament today. The prediction is based on what the leaders of the parties have said publicly and in their parties’ election manifestos. An even better method of finding out what each party’s position is would be for an independent researcher to ask the MPs or their leaders. Some parties are grouped together in the Table based on their position on the approach to resolving the TNQ. I have chosen short timeframes for the discussions based on the current political dynamics in the South.
Though the political will of the people is expressed in giving nearly 106, or two thirds of the Island’s 160 electorates, and 14, or two third of the Island’s 22 electoral districts, to the UPFA, there is no collective mandate given by the 160 electorates for negotiation with the LTTE for a federal solution or for an LTTE-majority ISGA. The collective mandate is to lower the cost of living in my opinion. On a solution to the TNQ the 160 electorates are as divided as the constituent parties of the UPFA.
Options where there are less than 113 votes majority will never be considered, as that would be a show of no confidence on the government in power. Options where the LTTE/TNA disagrees will end up in impasse and possible resumption of war. The only options that will have a chance of majority agreement are the options where the LTTE/TNA will agree and would get the support of more than 149 votes. The options 1 and 2 under Issues, and option 1 under Solutions are the ones that the UNP and SLFP may support and on which the LTTE and its supporters in Parliament may agree.
There is a possibility that:
1. The privately-held position of the UNP and the SLFP is that neither would do anything to let the other party stay in power or that will make the party in power to lose its power. Knowing the majority Sinhala voters’ will, as expressed in the last two elections, the UNP will probably not support any solution that the SLFP proposes and vice versa. Nor can they afford to support Issues Options 1 or 2.
2. The UNP will wait until internal dissension within the UPFA, which has already started, rips the party at its frayed seams.
3. If the SLFP and UNP chose Option 1 or 2, some members within the SLFP and UNP may abandon the parties to protest the choice of option 1 or 2, causing re-alliance and formation of a new government to oppose options 1 and 2. This may cause chaos that would lead to widespread demonstrations, riots and resumption of war.
4. The LTTE may not want to resume talks on the ISGA with the GOSL unless there is firm assurance that at least 149 members of Parliament would support such discussions. The agreement of 149 MPs, two thirds of Parliament, is required to change the constitution.
5. Current military and political events indicate to me that the status quo may not last more than three months before a new government is formed or the ceasefire breaks down.
The question before the MPs and their electors is “Are there 149 MPs, irrespective of their party affiliation, to support one of the two viable options above and put the resultant agreement to the people in a referendum?” If there is not enough support, then they and the people who elected them have chosen resumption of war to solve the Tamil National Question. The voters knew that when they voted for lowering of the cost of living, increase in employment and economic development while fighting a war to maintain a unitary government is not possible. Their vote indicates that they refuse to accept federalism as a solution to end the war and usher in peace even after 20 years of war.
Political maneuvering, military alliances, constitutional machinations, mental gymnastics and religious and ethnic myths will not make the Tamil Nation disintegrate or disappear. Are there other options that the LTTE and 149 of the MPs would agree on? This is the challenge to the voters and their representatives now. Changing governments, Presidents and Prime Ministers over the years has not brought us any nearer to a solution. They have only illustrated in tragically graphic terms that the two nations cannot live together under one parliament.
Is it time now for us to explore a way to peacefully separate and continue to explore to unite on equal terms for mutual benefit? The last two years have shown us that, under mutually acceptable initial conditions, constructing a path is feasible for a final peaceful outcome.
END