 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Q. The SLMC has suffered set backs in the Kandy and Colombo districts at the provincial council elections. With regard to the Kandy district, the feeling was that you lost one of the two seats you had because your candidate could not get enough preference votes to get elected on the UNP list. So at the WPC polls, you contested separately in all three districts so that whatever votes you get will be for you and preference votes do not get ‘displaced’ as it would in a coalition with another party. But even with this strategy, you suffered a set back in the Colombo district as well, where you lost one of the two seats you had. This is a ‘damned if you do damned if you don’t situation’. So in terms of electoral strategy, where does this leave you?
A. While we contested Kandy together with the UNP, we also contested together in Kurunegala. In Kurunegala we fielded two candidates and both of them won with one of them coming second on the UNP list in terms of preferences. In Kandy, one of our candidates won and the other missed out. That was because the number of seats won by the UNP came down. Therefore, in contesting together with the UNP, we have not suffered any set back, even though we have lost one or two seats which we had won at the previous election. That is because the overall number of UNP seats came down, due to the abnormal popularity the government is enjoying because of their war victories. We contested in the West separately, not because we had any misgivings about the UNP. It was due to the historic fact that we had always been contesting the WPC on our own, from the very inception of the provincial councils system. We have had ups and downs. Last time, we had four seats in the WPC and two in Colombo. This time it has been reduced to one. We are on par with the JVP as far as the number of votes are concerned. We have got around 50,000 votes. That appears to be our base. In a situation where the people did not expect us to form an administration, our party stalwarts felt that in order to retain our number of seats, the best option is to go on our own in the WPC. Our only misgiving is that we lost the single seat we had in Kalutara. Now in the Kalutara district, there is no representation for Muslims in the provincial council or at the parliamentary level from any party. That’s a bigger loss for us than the number of votes and seats coming down in the Colombo district. There are some lessons that we have to learn from this election and we will certainly have to do something about the lost representation in the Kalutara district which affects the entire community.
Q. Mano Ganesan’s party also contested together with the SLMC in the Kalutara district, so that means Tamil and Muslim votes together failed to get a Muslim candidate elected.
A. Mr Mano Ganesan’s joining us was a last minute decision and unfortunately, he did not have enough time to come and do some campaigning. He hardly campaigned for Gampaha or Kalutara. He was concentrating on his three candidates in Colombo. In the Gampaha and Kalutara districts the Tamils were not at all interested in the election, because there was no campaign. But in any event, we must admit that there is a drop of about 10,000 votes for us in Kalutara, which was mainly because of three electorates, Bandaragama, Kalutara and Panadura, where we didn’t field good candidates. We knew of the shortcomings from the outset. I have been warning our party organizers. In Bandaragama we failed to field a candidate whereas last time, our Bandaragama candidate came third in the list.
Q. Outside the north and east and perhaps the Nuwara Eliya district, is there any point in any minority party contesting alone without an alliance with one of the two main parties?
A. In the area of identity politics, if you didn’t have the courage of your convictions to stand alone, it will be very difficult to command the respect of your major partner. That’s another issue that confronts us. You are taken for granted over a period of time. The Muslim leaders of major parties look at the SLMC as interlopers. So it’s always healthy to test your strength. The peculiar way in which the proportional representation system works, there being no cut off point at both the local government and provincial level, certainly has some advantages for minor parties and minority parties, to go it alone at those elections. I wouldn’t say the same about parliamentary elections.
Q. When you contest separately at local government and provincial level elections and fail to make a good showing, then you will be taken even more for granted by the major parties…
A. In a parliamentary election, with the bonus seat concept, every vote counts. Even a few thousand votes count. So you don’t really lose your leverage by an occasional drop in your vote bank. One reason why we are reluctant to go on a major party ticket when there is no cut off point, is because it is very difficult for us to score a high number of preference votes. When you don’t have a constituency and a captive vote bank which you can use to go and fish for more preferences from other areas, it is difficult to score the required number of preference votes.
Q. Would you feel that this whole thing about identity politics has been detrimental to everyone concerned? In the past, someone like M.H. Mohamed could get elected in a Sinhala majority electorate like Borella. Now people vote on ethnic lines. If a Muslim representative is to be elected in the Colombo district at all, they have to get the bulk of their votes from the Colombo Central electorate. Hasn’t identity politics, limited the opportunities available for Muslims?
A. Some of the major parties are clamouring to bring back the constituency model. They feel that thereby, this polarization can be reduced. But having parties with ethnic identities is in my opinion, good for a plural democratic set up, as long as you don’t espouse hatred or enmity. We try and play a role of a pressure group whereby, our brothers in the major parties will try and get their parties to do something for the community, at least for the fear of losing the vote bank to us. It is useful to have our own identity for the community to have a feeling of empowerment. This became possible only with the introduction of the PR system which we feel is a very positive feature which promotes participation and accommodation of minority groups.
Q. Don’t you feel that identity politics drives wedges into society and prevents a Muslim voter from voting for a Sinhalese candidate and a Sinhalese candidate from voting for a Muslim candidate and so on? Last week, the UNP leader announced that his party would favour electoral reform whereby 125 seats were filled according to the first past the post system and 100 seats on the proportional representation system. Are you for any kind of electoral reform?
A. We would prefer the present system to remain with slight modifications. It should be based on the German system where 50% of the seats are on the proportional representation system and 50% on the first past the post system and the overall PR must be applied to allocate the seats. Then small parties would be able to have their due share in a national election. Some of the negative features such as preference votes and bonus seats should be reconsidered.
Q. What about the executive presidential system, the UNP has come round to the position that the executive presidency should be abolished.
A. This issue is currently being debated within our party organs and in the coming months, we will formulate our own policy on this. Even though the presidential elections does give minor parties some leverage once in six years, once a man is elected, he acquires unfettered power. That needs to be curtailed. For example, his power to dissolve parliament at will after just one year, has to be limited.
Q. When Mr Ahsroff was running the SLMC, he at the latter stages, tried to broad base the party by forming the National Unity Alliance and brining in members of other communities. We see the same thing being done by Mano Ganesan with his Democratic Peoples’ Front. But under you, the SLMC went back to its original narrow focus.
A. When the National Unity Alliance was formed, I was made its general secretary. It was not through choice that we reverted back to the old form. In the rift with Mrs Ashroff, the NUA was virtually hijacked from us. What Mr Ashroff envisaged was for the same leader to be leading both the SLMC and NUA, and alternatively to use both parties depending on what the election was. In 1994, the SLMC brought in a non-Muslim into parliament through the national list. So even when it was an ethnic party, we did accommodate non-Muslims. In that sense, we have not been parochial.
Q. Do you see yourself as a permanent ally of the UNP?
A. If I see myself as a permanent ally of the UNP, the same fate that befell the Muslim League will befall the SLMC. Today, nobody speaks about the Muslim League. That kind of assimilation is certainly not something that our party cadres or stalwarts will welcome. In politics, there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies. To put it very crudely, there are only permanent interests. By interests I mean the interests of the electorate you represent. We had a lot of faith in the present UNP leadership. He did keep to his promises when it came to the electoral politics part of it. But we had some problems in the peace process. But still we stuck to him because we did not want to be seen to abandon ship when he faced some adversity. We have worked with president Chandrika Kumaratunga and for a short time with president Rajapakse as well. So we keep our options open. There is no question of permanent linkages.
Q. Do you see it as a mistake to have left the government at the budget debate in 2007?
A. Certainly not. It was for well considered reasons. We had some issues relating to land rights and so on, which brought a lot of pressure upon us from our constituency. So the choice we were faced with was whether we were going to remain and lose our credibility or to come out and face adversity, but retain our credibility. So we have no regrets about having left the government. But at the same time, we don’t criticize the government for the sake of being in the opposition. When certain good things happen, we are willing to support them. This is on an issue by issue basis. We have done that at the provincial level where we have even defied the UNP whip and voted with the government.
Q. You used the past tense in saying that you had faith in the UNP leader. Has your faith been shaken by the UNP’s decline which you can do nothing to stem?
A. The current predicament of the UNP is not purely because of the fault of the party leader alone. The triumphalistic mood in the country had eroded the UNP’s rural vote base, and that has spilled over into some urban areas too. But the UNP is a very resilient party. It could always bounce back if there is a paradigm shift in its policy and its approach. One fact is quite apparent even in the recent elections - the minorities have moved away from the government. So the victory of the government has been sullied to some extent. This has much to do with some irresponsible utterances that were made in a triumphalistic mood, by those in government and their radical allies. The president should make some effort to remedy this situation, because the minority vote bank which some of us command could be of important leverage, when it comes to an island-wide election, be it parliamentary or presidential.
