The LTTE-led by Prabhakaran has rejected the existing social contract and is waging an armed struggle for a new social contract and a new state for Tamils. Since the final outcome of this conflict can be the break up of Sri Lanka, the government tried to crush Prabhakaran’s rebellion by war. Realizing that winning the war by military means is a difficult task, the government has been compelled to express its willingness to amend the existing social contract in such a way as to make it acceptable to Prabhakaran.
Arriving at an understanding with Prabhakaran cannot be simple or easy. If such an understanding is ever going to be possible, it will only be on the basis of constitutional reforms, including a programme of devolution of power that will be trusted and accepted by the LTTE.
PA leaders think the programme of devolution of power as contained in the proposed new constitution amounts to the maximum that can be given and therefore Prabhakaran has a duty to agree to it. The government’s talk on devolution of power might be pleasing to the ears of those who advocate a political solution, but its actions in this direction fall far short of expectations. This difference between what is said and what is done has placed the government in an extremely tricky position. If a miserly rich man with a history of having never given a cent to the poor contest in an electorate where the poor are in the majority and states that he will spend all his wealth for the benefit of the poor, that statement will be ridiculed rather than be trusted by the poor. President’s programme of devolution of power will evoke the same reaction from Prabhakaran and the Tamil people.
In the words of social contract theorist Thomas Hobbes, only the state and the ruler had any acceptance. He did not consider the individual man as a unit of power at any level. However, we are living today in a modern world which recognizes sovereignty of the people to an even greater extent than French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau did. In this new concept, while the ruler of the state is a unit of power, not only society, but also the ordinary individual, is considered a unit of power.
In the state too, there is a division of functions and powers into the executive, the legislature and the judiciary and so on. In the cabinet too, which may be considered the main executive body, there is a division of power into ministries. While parliament is the supreme representative institution of the people, there are number of other representative institutions like provincial councils, urban councils, town councils and pradeshiya sabhas and they all have specific powers. In addition to all these, there […] political parties, religious organizations, trade unions, consumer organizations and a network of various non-government organizations functioning in various ways. Each of these organizations claims powers and rights subject to various limitations. Although some of these rights can be limited under special circumstances, there are some other powers and rights that cannot be denied or limited under any circumstance.
According to today’s version of the social contract, everybody from the head of state down to the individual, as well as all institutions, must respect the powers and rights of all individuals and all institutions. If the head of state disregards the powers and rights of individuals and institutions, and thinks that they all must be subservient to him or her, and follows a policy of curbing the powers and rights of all individuals and institutions which do not agree with him or her, then the social contract will inevitably break down. It is due to that fact that the Tamil people have been pushed to the point of rejecting the existing social contract. Even if the leaders who attempt to bring them into a new social contract, with which they – the Tamil people – also can agree, make extremely good and great promises to them, they are unlikely to trust those promises.
The President is ready to go for a maximum devolution of power in the interest of finding a solution to the ethnic problem. However, she is not ready to grant to a minister the right to appoint a ministerial secretary of his or her choice. It is alleged that the Executive is trying to manipulate the judiciary. The President is also not willing to give the commissioner of elections powers necessary to conduct the elections in a just and fair manner. Even the office of the Auditor-General has lost its independence, it is alleged.
It is also alleged that even at the contest to elect a Basnayake Nilame of the Kataragama Devale, the President’s liking had to be considered. When a group of persons not to her liking were elected, she allegedly had it dissolved and appointed a temporary board. The government is harassing the UNP-controlled councils. The government’s conflict with the Colombo Municipal Council is a classic example to substantiate this.
Arbitrary attempts to dissolve opposition controlled provincial councils have been thwarted only by the intervention of the judiciary. If Prabhakaran requests the President to prove her commitment to a programme of devolution of power by giving power to the citizens and the institutions which are already parties to the social contract, before seeking to implement a programme to give power to a person like him who is outside that contract, then the President will be placed in an extremely tricky position.