Much has been said and written about the UNP’s supposed abandonment of federalism during the past week. Much of it completely misses the point. Whatever are the politics and motivations behind the UNP’s statement, in terms of the substantive contours of a possible constitutional settlement it delineates, there is nothing to suggest that the party has abandoned the federal idea as a method of power-sharing in a negotiated peace.

The statement sets out the objectives of conflict resolution and constitutional reform as addressing the grievances of the Tamils, meeting the concerns of the Muslims of the North East, and assuaging the fears among some sections of the Sinhalese that devolution would lead to separation. The fundamental principles of such a negotiated political solution are respect for human rights, democracy, and the recognition of the plural character of Sri Lankan society, in which democratic support for peace must secure both majoritarian support as well as the inclusive support of all groups constituting the Sri Lankan polity. The non-negotiable basis of a settlement is the territorial integrity and unity of Sri Lanka and the sovereignty of its people.

On this normative basis, the statement envisages a three-tier structure of government, which reflects the national, regional and local levels in a credible system of power-sharing. It leaves open the question of the precise territorial unit at the regional level, presumably to be dealt with as an aspect of future negotiations in which regional aspirations and needs can properly be addressed. This ambiguity on the territorial unit of devolution is not a weakness of the UNP’s position, but a strength; in that it leaves open the question of asymmetric treatment of the North East to be decided not prescriptively from the South but through appropriate negotiations with that region in the future. Indeed, the consistent use of ‘North East’ suggests that the UNP remains open to the re-merger of the Northern and Eastern Provinces or other special arrangement so as to meet (subject to competing interests such as those of the Muslims) one of the fundamental principles of the Tamil nationalist position. The statement further argues that devolution of power so as to ensure regional and local self-government must be countervailed by national-level shared-rule and power-sharing at the centre. Finally on the substance of ‘credible power-sharing’ between the national, regional and local levels, the UNP statement goes to great lengths to establish that the power-sharing settlement must be assured through a ‘system to safeguard the devolved powers.’

Thus the statement contemplates both regional and local self-rule coupled with national shared-rule, along a division and sharing of powers between multiple orders of government, which is enshrined in a negotiated settlement that contains safeguards for the agreed spheres of authority of all three orders of government. This structure of government is founded on a democratic and rights-based political foundation as noted above. If this does not look and sound like a federal constitutional order, this columnist at least, has difficulty in seeing what would.

Naturally there is space, as other commentators have done, to question the UNP’s reasons and motivations for coming out with a statement on the parameters of a constitutional settlement to Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict at this particular juncture, which conspicuously omits express reference to the word ‘federalism’ in what seems to be an opportunistic abandonment of a constitutional concept that has become a political burden. However, there is limited use in speculation that fundamentally misapprehends what the party is stating in substantive terms. Perhaps more importantly, it also fundamentally misunderstands the UNP’s modus operandi, which is and has always been a pragmatist and conservative approach to politics that seeks to build broad electoral support and which is wholly uncomfortable with reformism and ideas purely for reform’s sake, and for that matter, nationalism of the Rajapakse-Weerawansa-Ranawaka variety unless there is a clear electoral advantage. From Oslo through Tokyo to the present statement, the UNP’s attitude to federal-type options for a settlement of the conflict has to be seen in proper context, which is that rapidly negotiating some form of settlement would enable it to pursue policy issues that really animate it such as economic growth and development. Thus, the UNP has not in any substantial way shifted its policy perspectives on the substantive parameters of an acceptable constitutional settlement or the role and relevance of the federal idea therein.

1,360 have read this this article so far. You may also find these articles interesting:

• On the UNP’s “Repositioning” The announcement by the United National Party (UNP) that it is “repositioning” itself on the issue of a political settlement of the ethnic conflict has been received with praise for pragmatism in certain quarters but mostly consternation, disappointment and confusion in others. The UNP which in government was party to the Oslo Declaration of 2002 and... Dr. P. Saravanamuttu, October 3, 2007
• Responding to Sumanasri Liyanage: On Mahinda bowing down to the ‘differing majority’ and On changing the terminology from ‘federal’ to ‘power sharing’ I started off this piece as a comment to Mr. Liyanage’s post which appeared on Groundviews yesterday (13 Septmber 2007) titled ‘Are we going to make the same mistake after 35 years’ but decided to post it in separate given its lengthiness. Regarding Mr. Liyanage’s wishful thinking that Mahinda is not stead fast on maintaining the... Aachcharya, September 14, 2007