The decisive election victories achieved by the government have set
the stage for political stability. The most important question is
whether this will lead to problem solving as well. National elections
are not due for another six years. With the government having both
the Presidency and a near 2/3 majority in Parliament there is no
legitimate or likely means by which this stability can be threatened.
This would be good news to economic planners who have long term
horizons in which economic investments can bear fruit without being
placed in jeopardy by sudden policy changes or by violence. This
sentiment has already been reflected in the stock market, which has
boomed to its highest levels ever.
Similarly, with its super majority the government is well positioned
to address other difficult issues as well. These issues would include
the ethnic conflict, human rights and good governance and
relationships with the Western countries. These are inter-related
issues and their resolution could further strengthen the economic
impetus for national development that the government is looking
towards. The war that arose out of the long festering ethnic conflict
led to heavy economic costs, both in terms of destruction and lost
investments. It also led to human rights violations that are today
standing in the way of economically beneficial relations with the
Western countries.
The recommencement of BBC radio broadcasts in all three national
languages on state radio almost immediately after the General
Elections can be taken as a sign of confidence of the government to
permit even critical media reporting in the interests of freedom of
information. The permission granted to retired General Sarath Fonseka
to leave his place of detention and attend the inaugural session of
Parliament was another positive sign that the government was abiding
by the rule of law to permit the opposition to represent its voters in
the supreme law making body.
However, the stronger indication of the future political direction of
the government would come with the selection on ministries that took
place last week. The allocation of ministries amongst the government
members would not have been an easy task. The government has an
unprecedented number of MPs amounting to 144. In the last Parliament
almost all MPs were rewarded with ministerial positions. This was on
account of the government’s need to attract opposition MPs over to its
side to provide it with a majority in Parliament. The government
succeeded only too well, but with the result that the government had a
surfeit of ministers, which proved to be unpopular with the
electorate.
It is to the credit of President Rajapaksa that he has tried to keep
to his election promise that the number of ministries would be reduced
to 35. It gives reason to hope that the government will be serious in
its efforts to cut down on waste and inefficiency which has been a
drag on the economy. The government has only slightly overshot this
number with 38 ministers and 39 deputy ministers, although a few more
are likely to be appointed in the near future. Even though these
figures may still be large by international standards, they are
relatively modest by Sri Lankan standards.
NEGATIVE MESSAGE
In reducing the number of ministries the government has had to make
cuts somewhere. Some prominent ministries that have been eliminated
include the ministries of human rights, constitutional affairs and
national integration. There is no doubt that there will be government
departments that are tasked with handling those important subjects.
But there is a negative message that is implicit in the demotion of
these subjects. It either means that the government has once again
pandered to the nationalists within its ranks who hold to the position
that the end of the war is the solution to the country’s ethnic
conflict or that the government leadership itself is of that mind.
One of the prominent governmental politicians who failed to obtain a
ministerial position has been Prof. Tissa Vitarana who held a
ministerial position in the last Parliament. He was also appointed by
President Rajapaksa to chair the All Party Representatives Committee,
which was mandated by the President to find a political solution to
the ethnic conflict. His non-appointment would strengthen the
perception that the government does not believe that the ethnic
conflict requires a political solution based on inter-ethnic power
sharing mechanisms.
The final report of the APRC did not see the light of day. It was
handed over to the President, and is believed to contain most of the
inter-ethnic power sharing mechanisms that had been presented at
various times during the previous three years. The nationalists
within the government vehemently disagreed with its positions. Their
view is that there is no ethnic conflict although there is a social
problem. The government as a whole adopted the nationalist position
to fight the war against the LTTE and also the elections. This united
the Sinhalese majority to give the government its victories on the war
front and in elections.
During the election campaign the President spoke of an indigenous
solution and village-level devolution. This is far from the standard
prescriptions in other parts of the world of federal or semi-federal
arrangements. Such rhetoric may have been designed to mobilize the
forces of Sinhalese nationalism behind the government. But with the
end of the war and the end of elections, there is no more reason for
the government to wish to mobilize Sinhalese nationalism behind it.
This is the time for problem solving, which means arriving at
compromises with the nationalism of others through negotiations.
WHITHER GOVERNMENT
The question now arises whether the government leadership, including
President Rajapaksa himself, believes that the ethnic conflict
requires a political solution that devolves political power to areas
inhabited by the ethnic minorities. The choices made by the government
in terms of its ministries and ministers suggest that the nationalist
line has prevailed. The replacement of the Ministry of National
Integration with one that is designated as the Ministry of National
Languages and Social Integration suggests a focus on better
inter-ethnic mixing as the basis for a solution. There are many
amongst the majority community who view the living together of
Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims in Colombo and other places as evidence
that there is no real ethnic conflict.
There is a strong nationalist sentiment that has grown stronger with
the government’s military victory over the LTTE that whatever ethnic
conflict there may have been has been resolved with the elimination of
the LTTE and its associated terrorism. It is believed that rapid
economic development of the country, including the North and East,
would productively engage the energies of people and reduce the
impetus towards ethnic-based politics. However, such an analysis is
not in keeping with international experience. Ethnic-based grievances
and desire for self-determination exists in both rich and poor
countries which economic development by itself cannot dispel. Tibet in
China, Kashmir in India and Chechnya in Russia give ample testimony to
the resolve of aggrieved ethnic minorities to seek some form of
regional self-government above all other values.
Prof. Vitarana has been reported by the media as stating that
President Rajapaksa has assured him of a ministerial position on his
return next week from a South Asian Summit held in Bhutan. This opens
up the possibility that the government’s position on the ethnic
conflict is still open to change. There is also speculation that the
newly appointed government is essentially an interim one. It is
speculated that the President will reshuffle the ministerial positions
and appoint a new Prime Minister when he takes his Presidential oaths
for his second term in November. There are wishful hopes that the
best is yet to come. Unfortunately there is no special reason why the
time of the second oath taking will herald decisive change in the
polity.
The most likely scenario for the future is not change but continuity.
This suggests a mix of positive and negative aspects of decision
making as in the past. The appointment of ministers and the
allocation of subjects to them, including Mervyn Silva as the deputy
minister of media, are for real. The concentration of power that is
already seen in the allocation of portfolios to some, including the
President who has kept for himself the crucial ministries of defence,
finance and planning, ports and aviation and highways, is likely to be
further strengthened. In the context of this concentration of powers
within the government itself, the prospect of devolution of power to
the provinces appears to be unlikely. The opportunity for a new
beginning, if that was what the President and his government wanted,
was last week. It is the hope that springs eternal in the human
breast that says there will be another new beginning in November.