Mandate for good governance

There will be many interpretations given to UNP’s magnificent sweep of the local government polls on Wednesday, winning 217 governing bodies of the 222 that were contested. While this victory will be interpreted in many ways by persons concerned – naturally to their advantage – an incontestable fact is that it is a clear reiteration by voters of the December 5 results. It is a rejection of the policies pursued by President Chandrika Kumaratunga and her government for seven years and approval of Mr. Ranil Wickremasinghe and the UNF taking over the reins of power.

UNP spokesman Prof. G. L. Peiris, basking in the glow of the UNP victory at a press conference held yesterday morning, claimed that this victory was a mandate given by the people for the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between the UNF government and the LTTE. He is justified to a certain extent in making that claim. UNP spokesmen at the hustings called upon voters to give them a mandate for the implementation of the MOU.

However, the Sri Lankan voter chooses his representatives not necessarily on the platform rhetoric of the contestants. He may even disagree on what a contestant says but vote for him on quite different issues. For example President Chandrika Kumaratunga in 1994 contested on a ‘Mandate for Peace’ and when elected claimed that she was elected on that mandate. But there were so many other vital issues involved. Besides Mr. Gamini Dissanayake the UNP candidate was assassinated days before the election and the voter had little choice other than Ms Kumaratunga. More important was that after 18 years UNP rule the people wanted a change. Thus, to interpret Ms Kumaratunga’s victory purely on a mandate for peace was not correct, she realised later.

Is the claim that Wednesday’s verdict of the people is a mandate for the MOU correct? The following questions need elucidation. The MOU was first made public on February 22. Could the voters from all parts of the island have decided on it so soon? True the JVP and the Sihala Urumaya that opposed it was roundly defeated. But could these minor parties ever have carried the people with them on such a major issue. On the other hand, the PA while being critical of certain aspects of the MOU did not oppose it at the hustings and President Kumaratunga said she was supporting the peace process. Did this ambiguous attitude make the MOU an issue?

It was clear that before Wednesday’s election, the writing was on the wall for the PA and President Kumaratunga had seen it. After the December 5 election, she no longer strides the political firmament with power and authority as she did for eight years before the defeat. The powers of the executive presiudency have been clipped. She had been humbled in many respects. Even within her own party there is internal dissension and squabbling. The PA coalition is tottering with the LSSP sniping at her for having ignored them in allocating a national list seat in parliament. The JVP has already deserted her and so had stalwart ministers such as G. L. Peiris, S. B. Dissanayake and Mahinda Wijesekera. She had no political agenda to present to the people. Thus, the match was over before the toss of the coin was made.

Besides, the UNP victory was in keeping with the traditional pattern of politics. In 1994 President Kumaratunga won an overwhelming victory wining 61 per cent at the presidential election and at the next local government elections swept the polls as the UNP did on Wednesday.

The UNP victory places it on a much more stable footing than it has been since December. This clear cut victory removes the wand of dissolution from the hand of President Kumaratunga even though she is still vested with constitutional powers to do so. Such an overall confidence vested by the people prevents arbitrary use of constitutional powers. Thus, it provides political and economic stability and will generate investor confidence.

While the ceasefire will be time consuming, the government should not be obsessed with it. The LTTE are hard customers and news from the east say that the Tigers have not changed their stripes. A belief in a mandate granted by the people could lead them into the same plight that President Kumaratunga fell into. Mandate for peace or not, there will be public opinion to be countered once again on vital national issues.

What the people have conferred on Mr. Wickremasinghe is a mandate for good governance – governance that will be different to that was there for eight years.

Your comments to the Editor