The pangs of British Union and the

predicaments of Uva Provincial Election

Rajan Philips-September 20, 2014

Once again I am trying to hit two birds with one stone writing about the
Scottish vote and the Uva vote in the same article. he Scottish
re!erendum has come and gone and the "ritish Union has survived the
challenge but only at the cost o! public promises !rom #estminster about
signi!icant constitutional changes in the immediate !uture. he Uva vote is
underway even as I write this article to meet my generous deadline$ and
the election results will be %nown by the time it reaches those who are
glad to su!!er reading it. I will not pretend that Uva and Scotland are
comparable$ but I can say that as Sri &an%ans$ given our colonial heritage
and current international image$ we cannot avoid having our commentaries
on local political developments in!ormed by developments abroad. here
are lessons that we can draw !rom the Scottish e'perience even as there
are plenty o! areas in the Sri &an%an state and government where such
lessons can be applied. I can also say that much o! the Uva Provincial
election demonstrates that our political leaders are learning nothing and
!orgetting everything about democratic and participatory politics.
(emocracy and participatory politics were the ultimate victors in the
Scottish re!erendum on independence$ while the ultimate losers in the Uva
election have already been identi!ied as the hapless voters in the Saturday
Island editorial. (espite the heightened anticipation and the momentous
conse)uences o! the re!erendum$ no one in power either at #estminster or
*olyrood could throw their weight around during the campaign and in the
conduct o! the vote. +veryone including state and government leaders$
political campaigners and the media scrupulously obeyed the rules o! the
re!erendum. he Scottish grass root administration wor%ed li%e cloc%wor%
in conducting the re!erendum$ with Scotland,s -. local councils ta%ing
responsibility !or the operation o! /$/01 polling stations in .$234 poling
areas including the counting and announcing o! results 5ouncil by 5ouncil$
with the 5hie! 5ounting O!!icer le!t to announce Scotland-wide tallies at
brea%!ast time !or the whole o! "ritain.
In Uva$ the people lost the election even be!ore they cast their votes.
here have been more news stories about everything that was going
wrong with the election than about the issues that e'ercised the people$
and about the plat!orms that contesting parties were o!!ering !or
consideration. 6iolence and abuse at all levels became the rule and when a
journalist as%ed whether Uva in .378 is bad as what #ayamba was in
7111$ the beleaguered +lection 5ommissioner bemoaned that in #ayamba
matters started getting out o! hand only on election day. "ut great
preparations must have been made to stage what is now %nown as the
9poll plunder9 in #ayamba$ and we will soon !ind out whether Uva has
been spared o! or victimi:ed by a similar plunder.
I! the ;es vote won$ Scotland would have gone on to become independent
on <arch 72$ .372. "ut the meaning o! the re!erendum is that it is the
ultimate e'ercise in sel!-determination$ and that either vote =;es or >o? is
an e'pression o! that sel!-determination. @nd no one can appreciate that
nuance better than the people o! Scotland$ !or as *ugh <ac(iarmid wrote
in 71.0 that 9the absence o! nationalism is$ parado'ically$ a !orm o!
Scottish sel!-determination.9 here was no absence o! nationalism in this
re!erendum$ but there was a greater acceptance o! the process and the
willingness to abide by the results and move on. I! the ;es side won$ the
"ritish government would not have stood in the way. he process o!
separation would not have been easy at all$ but we can sa!ely say that !or
all its complications it would not have become a blood bath li%e the
partition o! "ritish India. @s I mentioned last wee%$ "ritain %eeps living up
to its old reputation in doing things much better at home than it used to in
the colonies.
here is another aspect to this re!erendum. he re!erendum was made
possible because Scottish nationalism had no truc% with violence at any
time. he repeated Auebec re!erendums in 5anada would not have been
possible i! Prime <inister rudeau had not ta%en the strong measures he
did to )uell the rise o! political violence among the Brench 5anadian
separatists$ while allowing the separatists to ma%e their case
democratically and without violence. he problem with political violence is
that it unleashes unintended conse)uences !ar more than it achieves
intended goals. he ultimate cost o! political violence in the cause o!
national sel!-determination$ is the permanent !oreclosure o! the
re!erendum option. he chic%en or the egg argument can go both ways in
the case o! Sri &an%a whether the unli%elihood o! a re!erendum
precipitated the violence$ or the abortive violence has !oreclosed the
re!erendum optionC but inso!ar as the search !or the truth is a practical
)uestion$ postwar Sri &an%a can learn )uite a !ew lessons !rom the Scottish
e'perience$ not only !rom the re!erendum but also its a!termath.
he lesson to learn !rom the role o! the "ritish government and
parliamentarians is not that they were being hypocritical in opposing
Scottish separation while supposedly supporting separatism in other lands$
but that they were honest in canvassing !or the 9"etter ogether9 =>o?
option while being open to the possibility o! Scotland separating !rom
"ritain by voting ;es in the re!erendum. In !act$ the campaign !or unity
stood !or more than the monosyllable - >o. It projected a more positive
9"etter ogether9 option$ promising changes$ and at times crossing the line
in pointing out the dangers o! separation. <ore importantly$ the "ritish
government did not try to co-opt or charter Scottish salesmen to sell
"ritain in Scotland. hat would have been a disaster. Instead$ the "ritish
establishment stood aside and let the people o! Scotland organically
debate and determine their !uture.
@nd the people o! Scotland included everyone who is a "ritish citi:en living
in Scotland regardless o! race$ religion or ethnicity. he premise was to be
territorially inclusive and not tribally e'clusive. he re!erendum ethos gave
!ree rein to the two contending sides to ma%e their case as best as they
could. hose who were campaigning !or the >o side were not ostraci:ed or
condemned as traitors$ and they were able to ma%e their case !or a united
"ritain while a!!irming their pride in the uni)ueness o! Scotland. @s I wrote
last wee%$ the intervention o! Dordon "rown in the !inal stretch o! the
campaign$ a!ter the >o side had blown away its .3 point lead$ stopped the
bleeding o! &abour supporters !rom the >o side to the ;es side. It was a
success!ul Scottish comebac% !or a highly substantial and articulate
politician a!ter his rather unsuccess!ul stint as "ritish Prime <inister.
Underlying the surge in the ;es support was the Scottish disa!!ection with
ory +ngland. he legacy o! <argaret hatcher is as much reviled in
Scotland as it might still be loved in parts o! +ngland$ and poor (avid
5ameron came close to pic%ing up the pieces !rom the !ollies o! the Iron
&ady who insisted that she did not %now how to turn. he re!erendum and
the prospect o! a brea%-up !orced 5ameron$ not to send the "ritish @rmy
to Dlasgow =that voted ;es?$ but to ma%e vows o! !ar reaching
constitutional changes. he changes will go !ar beyond addressing the
Scottish )uestion$ to address the #elsh )uestion$ the >orthern-Irish
)uestion$ but most importantly the )uestion o! +ngland itsel!. o use the
old clichE$ "ritain is living in interesting times. #hile constitutional changes
will ta%e their course$ the immediate lesson is that no one in "ritain is
swearing by its unwritten unitary constitution. >or is anyone stretching the
argument o! proportionality to the limits o! absurdity. he utterances o! the
UF Independence Party have so !ar contributed to political hilarity without
any diminishing o! political civility. #e can blame "ritain endlessly !or its
colonial evils$ but that need not prevent us !rom learning how "ritain
minds its own internal business.
It was in Uva that the "ritish le!t the bloodiest scars o! colonial rule in Sri
&an%a$ two hundred years ago. here is enough history about the Uva
rebellion o! 7474 and its brutal suppression. "ut the political )uestion
today is whether our political leaders can still claim rhetorical mileage !rom
the 7474 rebellion$ or whether they should be held accountable !or what
they have done$ and not done$ to ma%e positive changes to the lives o! the
people living in the Uva Province. +)ually$ will it not be hypocritical to
condemn "ritish action in 71th century Uva$ while turning a blind eye to
what the military is accused to be doing in the .7st century >orthern
Province. In Uva$ as well as in the >orth$ political and electoral calculations
are supervening humanitarian considerations.
Birst !amily bandyism is in !ull !low in Uva$ while there is no !low o! water
!or the drought-stric%en population. #ater bowsers rolled in to give water
and buy votes$ and money was doled out as additional compensation even
as the +lection 5ommissioner,s objections were predictably overruled.
Political leaders and observers are paying boo%ma%ers, attention to Uva
elections as a precursor to the Presidential election apparently divined !or
Ganuary$ .37/. "ut there has hardly been any discussion about the
controversial Uma Oya project underta%en with Iranian !unding and
engineering support$ despite serious technical$ social and environmental
concerns raised by !ormer Irrigation (epartment o!!icials and current
activists. @ whole general election was !ought in 7103 on the then =(udley
Senanaya%e? government,s plans !or <ahaweli diversion and development.
>ow a provincial election has come and gone$ but no one o! conse)uence
said anything about the Uma Oya scheme. It is tragic$ more than it is
strange.
Posted by Thavam