Unitary or United: A note on this false dichotomy by Malinda Seneviratne

I realized, rather late I know, that there is a sleight of hand in this whole unitary vs. united business. These two terms are posited as somehow being two disparate entities that are also mutually exclusive.
Thus we have Mahinda Rajapakse, whether pushed to do so by the JVP and JHU or not, saying he represents the will of the majority demanding that the unitary character of the state be kept intact. Then there is Ranil Wickremesinghe, pushed perhaps by the international community, the LTTE and other minority groups, vowing to work towards the dismantling of the unitary state by way of federalism and calling the entire solution a recipe for a united Sri Lanka.
Is a unitary state necessarily disunited? Is a federal set-up necessarily uniting? The answer to both questions is no. Notwithstanding this, what is pertinent to understand here is that unitary refers to the character of a well-defined political structure. United does not refer to the form of a given state. Instead, it describes or envisages a relationship between two or more entities, entities that are not necessarily political. For example, the entire nation was united in the shock and grief when the country’s coastline was devastated by the tsunami, but those who were shocked and aggrieved did not relate to each other in a federal kind of way.
Since we are on the subject, it is worthwhile putting federalism in the context of this unitary-united divide and thereby deriving their underlying meanings in the lexicon of the realpolitik.
A federal set up presupposes the existence of political entities that are distinct from one another and that they can reference well-defined geographies that are amenable to labelling as traditional/historical homelands. Self-determination or the right of self-determination must necessarily follow. Thus, such an entity is not granted federalism as such, but rather agrees to be party to a union on federal lines. And, just as a man and a woman have the right to marry one another without conceding the right that each has to separation and/or divorce, either of the two entities that come together in a federal model can choose to separate. It is as simple as that.
Federalism is therefore not a uniting mechanism but one in which is couched the right to separate and secede. Furthermore, when such a solution is proffered to a terrorist who is a chauvinist and who moreover is also an ethnic-cleanser, only the very naive or the worst coward can convince himself or herself that it will result in peace.
Unity under such a situation is utopian and is but an indulgence of the privileged those whose identities are wrought in monetary transactions and not parentage, culture, history, heritage and soil. The correct descriptive for the outcome of a federal solution is unadulterated disunity for decades to come. If you have any doubts, just look at what partition did to India and Pakistan. And in that case the Muslims had a legitimate claim. In ours, as Anandasangaree put it, even the P-TOMS would be legitimizing terrorism.
Just imagine what federalism would do.
In essence, then, federalism does not obtain unity and a federal "solution" therefore is a misnomer. We can only speak of a federal dissolution, if at all.
Who are the federalists in our midst? As Ranil Wickremesinghe told the JHU, it was Chandrika who introduced the idea. Wickremesinghe himself says the Oslo Agreement (i.e. federalism) should be the basis for a settlement. And G.L. Peiris, as though to ratify all this, says CBK and Ranil share the same view on federalism. The European Union wants the LTTE to accept federalism. Manmohan Singh is only opposed to a dictatorship in the North and East of Sri Lanka. He does not say no to a federal dissolution. In short, is he not saying, “We don’t want Helgesen or Balasingham or Prabhakaran, but our puppet?”
The difference between India and Norway is simply that India would prefer a Hindu puppet while Norway would love a Christian one. This is what the tug-of-war between Norway and India regarding their respective roles in Sri Lanka is all about, really. They sugar coat dissolution of the Sri Lankan state with terms such as a solution acceptable to all or a just solution, taking care to write the Sinhalese Buddhists out of the equation, not just of the solution but the entire process of negotiations. They really don’t care whether it is Chandrika or Ranil at the helm because they know that both individuals would happily embrace such dissolution, albeit for different reasons.
We all know that the EU, Britain, the USA, Norway and other foreigners are not in this for the love of peace or due to their extraordinary humanity.
Their histories, collective and separate, prove otherwise. Let us limit ourselves to the CBKs and Ranils here.
These two individuals, more than anyone else, represent the elite class of this country. They are the main representatives of the ‘prabhu pelenthiya’, the relics of the British Raj. This is the key to understanding why they are getting hot under their respective collars about Mahinda’s pacts with the
JVP and the JHU. In Chandrika’s case, she probably sees her legacy of betrayal being torn right down to its foundations. In Ranil’s, it is his political future that is at stake. That is at the surface, I believe. At the core, they have failed or are facing the very real threat of failing their colonial masters. They haven’t delivered or are facing the likelihood of failing to deliver. No wonder they are upset.
One can read this political in the rhetoric of the ball-boys as well.
Consider Rajitha Senaratne. He was, apart from GL, the most vocal proponent of the peace process between 2001 and 2004. At that time he urged the people not to get imprisoned in the terminology; ekeeya-sandeeya vage vachanavalata hira venna epa. Today ekeeya is like poison to Rajitha, as it is to Ranil and Chandrika.
In 1994, Chandrika rode to power in a wave of anti-UNP sentiment.
She redefined the mandate she was given as a mandate for division.
Ranil is merely attempting (once again) to run the second lap of that race.
In 1994, she called it a mandate for peace. In 2001, Ranil called his victory a mandate for peace. Today the cat, uncontainable, has popped out of the bag. It is pay-back time and both Chandrika (even in her reduced circumstance) and Ranil (in his last-gasp attempt) are giving it all they’ve got. The sheer vitriol in their utterances against the JHU and the JVP indicate this and little else.
All this was expected and this is why no one is really paying attention to Chandrika’s not-so-veiled threats against Mahinda Rajapakse. As a senior UNPer recently confessed, if Chandrika tries to subvert Mahinda’s Presidential bid, it would only help him emerge as the quintessential champion of the anti-feudal. She could cause a lot of political instability but it would also mean that Mahinda can very well make a revolution. The man can ride to power on two very simple and eminently campaignable slogans: ‘walau deshapalanayata thitha’ and ‘wedavasam yugayen obbatai.’ A full stop to manorial politics and proceed beyond the feudal era.
There maybe some in the UNP who would read Chandrika’s current anti-Mahinda theatrics as a blessing. The truth is that Mahinda did not inherit Chandrika’s party. He has given that party the signature of a polity that has been largely sidelined in post-independence politics. Chandrika is not a trump card for the UNP. She will prove to be its greatest liability.
Let us remember that the JHU secured almost 20% of the urban vote in Colombo, Kandy, Gampaha, Kalutara and Kurunegala. These were UNP votes.
Something has happened in society and the conditions have not changed since April 2004, except to further entrench the disillusionment of the voter with respect to the UNP's policy of appeasing terrorism, mollycoddling Christian zealots and pampering the robber barons (local and foreign).
Let us remember that village boys from the JVP secured more preferential votes than UNP candidates in many districts, especially Colombo, Gampaha and Kalutara. The electorate, when it rejected the UNP, was also rejecting Norway and everything that Helgesen stands for. Today the battle lines are sharper, and sharper shall be the voice of the voter.
Of course, this is not to say that Mahinda Rajapakse is not a friend of Norway. However, even at worst, he is not a slave of Helgesen or Solheim or whoever it is that is Balasingham’s current master. In any event, subsequent to the pacts with the JHU and the JVP, he cannot be someone else’s mouthpiece.
The difference between Mahinda and Ranil, if we were to really pin it down, is that the latter, even if he has a strategy to unite the minorities, does not have any strategy or a desire to unite the Sinhala Buddhists.
We have gone down that path for decades now and failed miserably. No strategy that ignores the unification of the Sinhala Buddhists can hope to obtain a unified multi-ethnic or a unified multi-religious, and certainly not a
united Sri Lanka. Indeed, both Ranil and Chandrika had a policy of dividing the Sinhala Buddhists, with the able support of the International Alerts, Jehan Pereras, Sunanda Deshapriyas and their funding masters of course. Mahinda, on the other hand, has united the Sinhala Buddhists or, more accurately, has had the Sinhala Buddhists united for him. He can proceed now to unite the country within a unitary state with devolution of power and decentralization of administration, as well as other safeguards.
It is still not too late for the UNP to put forward a candidate who is not perceived to be representing the feudal order, who too has decided to put an end to the illicit affair with Norway. Such a candidate might still make what is a foregone conclusion into a race too close to call.
It is imperative that the UNP consider this option, for the question that is being asked is not unitary or united? But unitary or divided? Put another way; are you for Norway or for Sri Lanka? These are the questions that the voters will consider and the UNP would do well to take note.