Q: How do you view the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between the SLFP and the UNP?
A: My personal belief is that this MoU is good for the country. It has also come at a very crucial time.
This should have happened a long time ago. This is also what the majority of the people have been advocating for a long time but the two parties failed to do it.
The ground reality is that we have some serious problems to resolve and this requires both main political parties to work together. If the UNP were in power, we still would have had to seek the SLFP’s support to bring in a constitutional amendment.
It is much better to do this now and prevent future regret. If we continue with our political battles, then this country would have no future. In fact there might not be a country for us to do politics in.
I completely endorse the party decision. We had to lend support to the government in the larger interests of the country. In doing so, the UNP has proved that it is a party committed to higher ideals than mere divisive politics.
Q: What type of implementation mechanism would be introduced to regularly monitor the progress achieved under the MoU?
A: A mechanism has not been worked out. What we have is an amicable agreement to work things out together. The modalities have to be worked out in the coming weeks.
What both parties have done is to place their trust in their respective leaders with the hope that when strengthened, they could resolve the burning issues together.
I would say, sky is the limit for the two national leaders backed by the two largest political forces in the country, if they put country before self. This is what they have done. Our role should be to strengthen them.
Q: A section of Buddhist monks have come out strongly against the MoU and criticised it as an opportunistic move steeped in political interest. But the majority of the clergy and the people have been supportive of such a move for a long time. Do you think that like all efforts to unite and work out a solution, this attempt would also get submerged in divisive politics?
A: There are prophets of doom as well as gloom. There would always be a section that would habitually oppose everything. This question has become a festering wound and both parties have lost credibility because leaders have been compelled to cave in under pressure. We are now trying to say enough is enough. We can try to win them over, failing which we should do what is right by the country.
Caving in would not solve the problem. It has only perpetuated it.
Q: What is the public reception you expect from the people to this new political initiative?
A: There is tremendous support. People are quite aware as to why there is no progress and the reasons for the perpetuation of war. It is they who have borne the brunt and suffered from the war to varying degrees.
They also know that this is the only available solution. Politicians may speak about many other avenues, but the public has the understating that unless and until these two parties learn to work together, there can never be a final solution to the national question.
On the other hand, until the south speaks in one voice, no government could also give legitimacy to their various undertakings at a negotiating table. To me, this is the perfect solution to begin working towards peace.
Q: How can this be a ‘southern consensus’ when there are certain sections of people who oppose peace talks and significant power sharing on principle? Where do they come in?
A: Yes there is such a section. But democracy is all about majority view, and that majority holds that this is the right way to solve the country’s national question. Also, the two leaders of the largest political parties, the only two that will capture power have decided to shed differences and work for the common good. These two parties also have significant backing of the people.
On the other hand, it must be understood that the resolution of conflict would be possible only if there is genuine power sharing. Opposers would once again push us towards war and away from prosperity.
Q: How do you foresee the chances of peace improving following the pact reached between the two main political parties?
A: This new agreement must become fully operational first. The TNA had stated that they would back both the parties to the hilt if they were genuine in their effort to combine forces to resolve the conflict.
This has happened in Sri Lanka’s history for the first time. The MoU has sent out a good signal to the country and to the world that we are ready to act as mature and responsible politicians.
Some 4.7 million people voted for Ranil Wickremesinghe and 4.8 million odd voted for Mahinda Rajapakse. Together, these two parties can face any political crisis. At the village level too, this will work as a truce of sorts because people will have less reason to feel divided about.
Q: If the government wishes to include the UNP in a national government, should there be equal sharing of power between the parties as some advocate?
A: My personal belief is that we should not accept portfolios. That will reduce the integrity of the exercise and portray us as opportunists. We are not. We have put the country before all else.
We can help the government on an issue-by-issue basis from the opposition benches. We also have no legitimate political right to govern. We were defeated, even though marginally and the assigned role is to form the main opposition.
There are other measures available to be of assistance to the government, such as the committee system.
If we assist the government, then we can get help to do away with irregularities, prevent penalisation of UNP workers, get them jobs etc. that will help our grass root supporters than a mere portfolio. Even if you accept a portfolio, there are no funds to initiate schemes so you will be back to square one.
Also, if we join, it will be a further burden on the government confers. They are already cash strapped. The government has no money to dole out for any such exercise.
President Mahinda Rajapakse has his own set of problems. He has a top-heavy cabinet and if he wishes to accommodate UNPers, he would have to make drastic adjustments that may work against him. There is no need to aggravate problems.
I also do not like the thought of the UNP being saddled with a credibility crisis having done the right thing. This will be the end of the UNP if we completely merge.
I believe the MoU is more than sufficient if we want to genuinely help the government to address crucial problems. Portfolios are not necessary.
Q: Do you as a UNP member anticipate some negative consequences at electoral level for the UNP? Is there likely to be an erosion of the party base if it accepts portfolios?
A: Absolutely. We may get a few portfolios but that from a government that lacks funds. Then the reason for accepting portfolios gets immediately defeated. So why go there in the first place?
Several eminent monks have openly expressed their views on this. They feel that the UNP must help the government in its dark hour but not merge the party with the government.
This is also the wish of our grass root party men. Overwhelming support has been expressed by the UNP bala mandala members for the MoU, but they all feel that support should be extended from the opposition benches.
This clamouring for the portfolios is therefore wrong. We should help the government.
I represent a great party, and for no reason should we sacrifice the larger interest of the party when there are others ways to do our national duty. There is a need and we can cater. We can do it without portfolios and without destroying the party base.
Q: How would the UNP play the role of being the main opposition party in parliament whilst not opposing government policy?
A: There may be some differences, but they could be worked out because the new role requires us to do so. We will have more responsibility towards nation building now than a traditional opposition.
It is going to be a new role only if we do accept portfolios. But if we don’t, we know the areas to extend co-operation and that is not difficult. All you have to remind yourself is that this is an exercise to help our country overcome its biggest problems.
As to how we may function in a new kind of opposition, MP Sajith Premadasa had a brilliant idea. He proposed that the decentralised allocation which is merely Rs.3.5 million now should be increased to Rs. 30 million. This way, through a committee system, we all can work like one at electoral level. This will help people in villages, industries can be set up, and infrastructure could be developed.
We really have options. Why should we go to an unholy end to become part of a government which we have no legitimate right to even be part of?
Q: However, won’t there be policy clashes even if you work from the opposition benches?
A: We have identified five areas to work together. We don’t have to be responsible for the entire exercise of governance if we remain in the opposition. We also need not accept blame for the mistakes the government would make.
We shall share responsibility in other areas and that’s enough. Knowing our differences will be good for the party. This is why I say it is best to remain in the opposition and extend support.
Q: Do you believe that the UNP should broaden the areas of co-operation to the government or simply adhere to the five points agreed upon?
A: No, the identified areas would be enough. We can cross the bridge when we get there, as far as other issues are concerned. This is more than enough and these are wide enough areas if we work together honestly. It is also pragmatic to do so.
Q: Does the agreement in anyway amount to the UNP accepting Mahinda Chintana or the government accepting the Janatha Nyaya Pathraya?
A: This could be debated till the cows come home. We are the opposition and we have a defined role. We have agreed to step out of that role in order to bail out this government that’s in the throes of self-destruction.
We can justly say that the UNP Leader lost having stated the truth, whereas President Mahinda Rajapakse made promises that were never kept and that’s why he has requested for UNP support.
But all these arguments are truly useless in front of one fact -- that we do have an unresolved conflict. We all know, until that remains unresolved, all our debates and politicking is going to be useless.
The UNP is a responsible political party and our desire to be of assistance is genuine. We have therefore extended our support through a MoU. There is no question of either party losing its identity. We both can have our programmes and policies and happily work together.
Q: Was the UNP under pressure to accept portfolios to prevent a mass exodus? Was it the only way out for the UNP?
A: This is the duty cast upon the political party that earned independence for this nation. We are steeped in tradition, and part of it is to be responsible. Instead of name calling and undermining the government, we have decided to work with the elected administration. That’s all there is to it. A true UNPer cannot ever switch allegiance and hence the question of being pressurised into this
situation does not arise.
Q: How would the de-merger of the north and east affect the peace talks and future peace deliberations?
A: What we have today is an incredible political force bringing the two main parties together. We have the power to change the constitution, we could pass bills without a problem and we could resolve, if genuinely pursued, the national question. This strength was not there before. This may not be everlasting, but at least there is hope.
If Velupillai Pirapaharan now chooses to oppose what we may jointly propose, the international community will marginalise him. He
won’t have any reason to give legitimacy to his grievances. We have the best chance offered in history to offer a solution together.
Here is genuine southern consensus. We have so far lacked political courage to do the right thing. The credit should go to the UNP Leader and his six-member team for putting country before party and self-interest and making this possible.
It is a unique political strength we never had before. We should now make maximum use of it.
My fervent wish is that the peace talks would be fruitful and create new openings for us to work on together. Now we have the opportunity to offer a solution acceptable to both the main political parties which are supported by the majority of the people.
Q: Now that the UNP has agreed to work with the government on six specific areas, how best can the UNP assist the government to build peace?
A: One should not forget that our Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe was the architect of the peace initiative. The government is happy to tread the path created by him. He of course did not have it easy like the present government. He made difficult decisions and told the truth and got defeated. Once again, he has done the right thing by offering assistance.
The government would be prudent if he is consulted on the peace negotiations hereafter. He has much knowledge and experience to offer and can enrich the entire peace building exercise through his expertise.
Q: It is well understood that the Peace Accord became possible due to Indian intervention. Do you think that India still has a role to play or Norwegian facilitation would suffice?
A: India is always important and always will be. We want India to be part of the solution. Some years ago India was part of the problem as the leaders then believed in training LTTE cadres.
But those days are over. India would get vastly affected if a separate state were carved out of territory very close to South India. They have their own domestic concerns to worry about.
India is a key player and could play a renewed role. We have to figure out how best to get Indian support in this exercise.
Q: There is growing dissention within the UNP that there should be more power sharing within the UNP structure. Your National Organiser, S.B. Dissanayake has made several proposals to prune the Party Leader’s powers by amending the party constitution?
A: S.B. Dissanayake is a good man and a good friend. But what he is doing is extremely wrong. It is very wrong of him to propose amendments to the party constitution at a time when the Party Leader has taken the biggest political gamble to be of assistance to the country.
Dissanayake was the general secretary of the SLFP. The SLFP has a constitution that concentrates power on the leadership. Having not changed that constitution, why is he attempting to do it now with the UNP?
We also must remember that the UNP has always had a structure that revolved around its leadership. This has been so since D.S. Senanayake’s time. There is no need to change it now. What is required of us is to strengthen the leader’s hands to end ethnic strife through the new union. It is not the time to pick holes in the constitution or to go on a confrontation course with the leader.
