Divisive politics and the elusive peace
December 29th, 2007
By Dr. S. Narapalasingam
The narrow political aims of the parties competing for power and the divisive ways it is sought and exercised are responsible for the intractable problems confronting Sri Lanka. Not only the armed struggle of the LTTE for a separate Tamil state in the plural society but also the power struggle within the Sinhala polity is depriving peace and normality to the vast majority of the people who are not involved in either struggle. Both are connected and the divisions and unrest in the country that continue to thwart the much needed progress and prosperity must be seen in concert. The stark truth is politics in Sri Lanka has throughout been divisive focused on either capturing or consolidating power by whatever means regardless of the long-term consequences to the country. Since independence no effort was made to promote unity in diversity and build a common identity as Sri Lankan. On the contrary, the ethnic majority-minority division that grew following the conscious acts of commission and omission of the State became useful in national politics, especially to the chauvinists. The confrontational politics of the two main political parties too hindered joint effort towards resolving the national problems and balanced development of the entire country.
The ethnic factor influences major decisions as governments elected under the unitary system are conscious of the political significance of differentiating between majority and minority ethnic groups. This has also been the case in the development of the regions. Those regions inhabited mostly by the ethnic minorities were neglected for political reasons and not due to the lack of natural resource endowment. Instead of taking the non-violent protests of the Tamils seriously and deal with their grievances, the violence unleashed against them with the intent to quell the dissent forced the victimized Tamil youth to rise up violently against the Sinhala majority rule. The arrogance of the power wielders also grew with the increasing marginalization of ethnic minorities. The LTTE had an exclusive agenda that was nationally, regionally and internationally unrealistic. The matching arrogance of power gained in their case through the barrel of the gun and the intransigence of the leadership have cost the Tamil community dearly in many ways.
Politics of war
The ‘Eelam’ war was resumed hastily by the LTTE in early 2006. The leadership was confident this round would be the final decisive assault. The war is now pursued vigorously by the government as necessary to crush terrorism. The JVP, a strong supporter of the war against the Tamil Tigers is accusing the government of politicizing it for its own advantage, while they too hope to win popular support from their pro war stance. The LTTE leader’s disappointment with the international community in “being unhelpful in their involvement to resolve our problem” conveyed in his 2007 Heroes’ Day Address reveals what he expected from the losses and sufferings endured by the Tamil civilians since the resumption of the war in 2006.
There is some similarity in the tactics of the JVP to achieve their political aim. They also want to exploit the failures of both the SLFP and UNP governments and the hardships of the people for gaining power, According to December 24 LeN report, JVP is against any kind of political solution to the ethnic problem and will organize mass protest when the devolution proposals are announced. From the national standpoint, JVP’s condemnation of the widespread corruption in government, misuse of public funds at the expense of depriving welfare to the poor when the cost of living is terribly high (the country-wide inflation in October was 24.1 per cent) and the poor fiscal management are laudable. However, some doubts have arisen as to whether this is motivated by a genuine desire to improve the administration or a mere ruse to win the support of the masses. Their belief in militaristic approach to settle a political problem is worrying because the same could be tried again to achieve their political goal.
At present the war is being used as a means to consolidate political power. If not for the ongoing war, the Rajapaksa regime would have collapsed by now. Paradoxically, the LTTE has played a useful role not only by indirectly helping President Mahinda Rajapaksa to win the November 2005 Presidential election but also starting this war that has now turned out to be to his political advantage. According to a report in Sri Lanka Guardian December 27, “government has let loose a campaign of celebrations on its anticipated victory against the LTTE”. The pro-government campaigners have provocatively erected a small Buddha statue at the top of Lawrence road, Bampalapitiya adjoining the Wellawatte Pillayar temple. Some consider this act along with the banner campaign underway as a move to transform the war into Sinhala-Buddhist crusade to bolster further the Government’s hold on power.
Pseudo patriotism and pretense
Under the cover of patriotism and the pretense of their concern for public well-being, the powerful and power seeking politicians make hasty decisions ignoring the adverse consequences to the country in the near and longer terms. They also call themselves democrats, while undermining democratic institutions and principles. The manifestation of such inherent features of the country’s political culture is now more apparent than before from the near anarchic situation and the confusing statements of the political leaders and their spokespersons to shake off responsibility for some sensitive unlawful acts. The tainted meaning of ‘Patriotism’ was clearly evident from the naming of those who voted against the 2008 Budget as traitors because of the substantial funds allocated for the war against the terrorists, who are said to be threatening the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country. Government expected the parliamentarians to judge the budget solely on the allocation for defence.
It is increasingly clear that leaders with conflicting narrow aims and preoccupied with their own political interests cannot do much to end the destructive internal conflict and bring lasting peace to the island nation. Those who are unwilling to give up their political ambitions think peace can be imposed after weakening the armed and unarmed opponents. The ongoing military operations are aimed at achieving this immediate aim. This is in contrast to the thinking of enlightened leaders with no egoistic political ambitions. The suggestions of the ex-service commanders to the main party leaders to settle the protracted ethnic conflict and also the proposals for realizing real peace put forward by the religious leaders, who met in Jaffna recently are altruistic and devoid of narrow short-term interests. Peace achieved through such an approach will be just and durable.
Extraneous factors in 2008 Budget vote
The JVP voted against the budget at the second reading on 19 November but abstained during the vote at the third reading on14 December. The tactical move of this radical party saved the Rajapaksa government from defeat as some government MPs who had planned to cross over to the opposition changed their mind when they knew the 37 members who voted against the budget at the second reading were not going to oppose it this time. By voting against and then abstaining at the third reading, the JVP has claimed it defeated the SLFP and the UNP, the latter was hoping to bring down the SLFP-led government. Abduction and intimidation during the budget debate to save the government from defeat reflect the hideous way important decisions are made. The country’s political culture is such the political parties find it difficult to leave behind their narrow political interests and aims even during the budget debate.
The Daily Mirror editorial on December 15, the day after the vote on the third reading was taken commented on the sordid pattern of politics in Sri Lanka. It observed: “The conduct of our politicians today is inscrutable, to say the least. The ridiculous turn politics in this country has taken is clearly evident from the way the political parties and politicians take decisions regarding the budget. A budget, which is essentially a matter of the country’s finances, has completely been transformed into a political issue. The possible impact of the budget proposals on the people and the country’s economy was largely ignored. It was converted into an anvil on which the strengths of political parties are tested”. The editorial stated further, “..it is with amusement that people see the mockery of politicians fervently advocating the policies of a particular party and denouncing the policies of another, suddenly joining the condemned party and singing the praises of policies that were anathema to them earlier”. It is clear from the conduct of politicians and indeed their associates that narrow interests of parties take precedence over the interest of the populace and the country. This has been the case since national politics became a struggle for power between the two main parties, the UNP and the SLFP.
‘Liberation’ and ‘lasting peace’
The word ‘liberation’ has many political meanings in troubled Sri Lanka. The Tamil Tigers say their struggle is for liberating the oppressed Tamils from Sinhala hegemony. President Mahinda Rajapaksa says the war against the Tamil terrorists will liberate the trapped Tamils from their clutches. The JVP has embodied the words ‘Janatha’ (People) and ‘Vimukthi’ (Liberation) to stress it is a party of the people committed to liberating them from their deprivations and sufferings. The party has not explicitly stated whether the suffering Tamils and Muslims deprived of their legitimate rights and means of fulfilling their reasonable aspirations are also included in their ‘Janatha’ (People). Anyway, right now the suffering people want liberation from the menace of the war.
On Sir Arthur C. Clarke’s 90th Birthday felicitation function 16 December held at the Central Bank Auditorium in Colombo, President Mahinda Rajapaksa gave the assurance to the world-renowned Futurist and Science Visionary, “his Government will leave no stone unturned to realize one of his three birthday wishes, namely, his desire to see ‘lasting peace in Sri Lanka as soon as possible’. He only knows the ‘lasting peace’ he has in mind. There is no positive sign on the political front to eliminate the causes of the conflict that led to the emergence of the concept of two nations. The view, there is space in the Sinhala majority country for other ethnic minority groups to co-exist under democratic rule, meaning Sinhala majority rule, and that peace will prevail when some powers are devolved or rather decentralized after the LTTE is defeated militarily does not go far enough. It is the same basic structure with some external changes yet to be disclosed. The lack of progress in finalizing the promised devolution plan, there is considerable doubt about the real intention of the government.
Moreover, as stated at the beginning there are Sinhala nationalists, who will oppose any proposal for settling the Tamil question. This is the reason given by the separatists for refusing to consider any arrangement short of full autonomy. Anyway, without significant changes in the attitude of present political leaders in both government and opposition needed to install a new system suitable for meeting the needs and aspirations of all ethnic communities within one nation and not merely those of the political leaders as has been the case in the present constitution, which was designed to meet the political needs of the governing party and the ambitions of its founder, the peace of the graveyard is the one that is certain now
Opposition leader’s proposals
Opposition leader Ranil Wickremesinghe presented his proposals for constitutional reforms to a group of academics and members of the Maha Sangha on December 20. He told them decisions are being made by the Executive bypassing the Parliament and this undemocratic and nationally damaging practice must stop. His proposals are intended to “block” the Executive from taking “unilateral decisions and distributing portfolios and appointing advisors at will” He said: “Ensuring the sovereignty of the people, guaranteeing human rights and a committee system to oversee different aspects of governance as well as the executive acts of the President were needed for a more democratic form of government”.
At present there are no checks and balances to restrain the executive power of the President. There should not be room for the Executive to cripple the work of the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) and Public Accounts Committee (PAC) set up by the Parliament. He also emphasized the need to limit the number of ministers in the Cabinet and create parliamentary committees to work with the ministers so that a more democratic decision making process is ensured. According to him, it is not necessary to change the entire Constitution as it “had a number of salutary provisions such as a President elected by the people”. Many ambitious leaders have also resisted their own conviction that the powerful office of the Executive should be abolished for personal reasons. It is clear his approach is primarily to deprive the incumbent President of his unconditional powers than to seek lasting peace, which requires a new political system suitable for ensuring unity in diversity. The present system helps to sustain divisive politics and social tension.
High Commissioner Dominick Chilcott’s speech
British High Commissioner Dominick Chilcott delivered the Dudley Senanayake memorial lecture in Colombo on 10 December 2007. Whether he, as a foreign diplomat, should have commented on the internal affairs of Sri Lanka is not the issue here. Indeed, he has in his lecture titled “the new diplomacy for the new century”, explained the reasons for speaking on matters concerning humanity. He said that “the practice or method of diplomacy is not set in stone. On the contrary, it is changing, and changing quickly”. He did not lecture in the way the Excellencies moving around in big cars with flags expecting VIP treatment in all places and at all times behaved in the past but as a concerned envoy of a concerned country who has witnessed the disturbing trends in the former British colony. He said there are several reasons for Britain’s direct interest in the end of the conflict in Sri Lanka and the establishment of a fair and lasting peace. An important fact overlooked by those still living in the past is in his statement: “But how Sri Lanka’s conflict affects Britain is only one example of how humanity is becoming more inter-related and more inter-dependent”.
The other reasons for his concern are evident from the following statement: “I don’t want to live in a world where fragile states or oppressive governments abuse human rights and get away with it. This is partly because I feel a natural empathy for my fellow human beings, wherever they may be. And partly because the world will be a safer place for me and those I love, if the rule of law obtains throughout and if criminals do not enjoy impunity. Those who argue for the inviolability of the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of a country are swimming against the tide of history. In the last 50 years, states have voluntarily bound themselves together in a net of international treaties and conventions covering even the most sensitive internal issues, such as human rights”. The ‘human rights’ subject is not simply an internal matter. He explained: “it is the sense of human rights being a common interest in a global society is underpinned by international law. And if it is a mistake to view something as sensitive as human rights as a purely internal matter, there can be few subjects that from now on should be regarded as beyond the general interest and purview of our global society”.
He said candidly the truth and truth often hurts. The widely contested statement -”I am not saying that the political aspiration for Eelam is illegitimate…the LTTE’s methods are simply unacceptable” could have been worded differently considering the negative developments that led to the aspiration for Eelam. The High Commission in Colombo in a statement issued after the controversial matter was raised in the Sri Lankan Parliament and the High Commissioner was summoned to the Foreign Ministry said, “what he (Mr. Chilcott) meant was that political aspirations could be expressed through legitimate methods, just as much as the aspiration for independence for Yorkshire”. Be that as it may, the following comments and suggestions in his lecture are noteworthy and should be taken seriously by all wishing for a united prosperous Sri Lanka.
-In Sri Lanka, the contemporary picture of liberalism is pretty confused.
-Making predictions about the future is a mug’s game. There is always a surprise around the corner. Each week seems to be absolutely critical to the future of the country. And yet issues that seemed so important last week are quickly forgotten as people and politicians get caught up in this week’s crisis. But paradoxically, despite all the political fireworks and scandals and controversy and crises, little seems to change.
-The 17th amendment by Parliament in September 2001 aimed at depoliticising key public institutions by creating independent commissions to administer the Police, Judiciary, Public Service and Elections. Despite its limitations, the law was widely hailed at the time as a move towards a corrupt-free, merit-based system of public administration. But the fact that the 17th amendment has been inoperative, for some time now is a matter of regret and concern.
-Though the existence of a parliamentary committee to investigate corruption is satisfying, the fact that 22 of its 30 members are government ministers is worrying…the conflict of interest involved must undermine the credibility of such a committee. Nothing makes corruption spread faster than a sense of impunity. That’s why bodies like Parliament’s anti-corruption committee matter so much.
-Good governance matters. A relatively low-income country can increase significantly its per capita income in the long term, if it improves its rule of law, controls corruption and increases government effectiveness.
-Resurgence of the internal conflict polarizes the society. The earlier it is resolved for good, the better. The conflict causes too much direct suffering-to the combatants and to the civilians. And over time, it erodes the quality and standards of public life and undermines good governance, as well as holding back development and economic growth.
-There should be no further equating support for human rights and the rule of law with support for the LTTE. This is a particularly ironic position, in any case, as the LTTE show no understanding of human rights norms and they rule by fear and terror. Being critical of the government’s record on human rights does not mean you support the LTTE. The British government, which outlawed the LTTE in 2001, unreservedly condemns the LTTE’s terrorist activities.
-The government offer on devolution should be addressed to moderate Tamils. A future peace process should not be based on talks exclusively between the government and the LTTE. Obviously, such bilateral talks are probably necessary to arrange a cease-fire. But the political process needs to be more inclusive and also more demanding of the participants. There are serious doubts as to whether the LTTE leadership would be sincere about reaching a negotiated settlement that reinforces democratic values within a united Sri Lanka. They have never accepted that anyone else should be able to speak for the Tamil people, a fundamentally anti-democratic position.
-The international community’s focus will be on encouraging the government to come forward with an imaginative proposal on devolution that is capable of meeting the aspirations of moderate, democratic Tamils and Muslims. The government acknowledges that it cannot win by military means alone. The international community would like to see that acknowledgement backed up with a political vision of how Sri Lanka can be reunited and its different communities reconciled with each other.
-The government needs to think how to develop policy on the internal conflict in a bipartisan manner. It would not have been possible to bring peace to Northern Ireland had the government and opposition of the day, whichever parties they were, tried to score party political points on Northern Ireland. Unless there is a bipartisan approach in the south between the two main parties, peace efforts are very unlikely to succeed.
-Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland and plenty of other conflicts tell us that winning the peace is more difficult than winning the war. Without resolving the underlying issues, even if the LTTE are badly beaten in the Wanni, the conflict will continue in a different guise. The social and political issues, which caused the alienation of so many Tamils in the first place, cannot be left unresolved if there is to be a lasting peace.
In conclusion
According to J.B. Muller, “politics as practiced in Sri Lanka is an ongoing farce, an absolute charade, a travesty of governance with institutionalized plunder built in to make its practitioners wealthy”. The current system is so inconsistent with the real needs of the people and unsuitable for ensuring lasting peace it should be replaced by a new system.
A piecemeal or ad hoc approach to the resolution of the national problems is not going to bring an end to the suffering and a sense of hopelessness prevailing among all communities, particularly the ethnic minorities. Real peace that results from unity, mutual trust, respect for human rights, social justice, good governance with built in mechanisms to deter corruption at all levels, strict enforcement of the rule of law with no impunity for offenders including those who abuse their powers and equal rights for all citizens cannot be achieved by mere promises or some deceptive ways. Concerted effort by selfless leaders committed to unity, peace and welfare of all communities is needed. Exclusive political approach to constitutional change will fail again as in 1972 and 1978. Any different approach must take into consideration human rights, the diverse demographic and regional characteristics of the State, the aspirations of the ethnic minority communities and the checks and balances needed to deter the abuse of power, corruption and other practices that undermine good governance, the rule of law and democracy.
Muller has conveyed poignantly the true feelings of like-minded persons. To quote: “The party system of politics that we have inherited is totally unsuitable for this country. It has not brought us democracy in the truest sense-only a caricature of it. We, the People, are actually and effectively powerless to the extent that we cannot even select the persons we would want to represent us in the supreme legislature! Even that has been hijacked by the so-called political parties whose leaders proceed to foist candidates of their choosing upon us-blackguards, thugs, morons and oddballs-who we are compelled to elect because of this wholly inappropriate system. Democracy, in essence, is the expression of the Peoples’ Will from grass-roots level UPWARDS and not from party-level downwards!….every sensible, decent, and law-abiding person will see the logic of our country wanting change from the present set-up to a new one. That new system should enshrine human rights as the fundamental basis of the new polity. In doing this, it has to go beyond pious pronouncements and to the nitty-gritty of institutionalizing equity in the recognition of the rights and duties of all citizens without any bias whatsoever….This is fundamental for ensuring PEACE in our time. It can and will end the war in our midst because it would take away the rationale for confrontation. That would destroy the LTTE far more effectively than bullets and bombs because the so-called ‘minorities’ would have all their grievances erased under the new system that would recognize no majority or any minorities but a co-equal and common and overarching citizenship, where all would be ‘Sri Lankans’.”
Even the few political leaders who have the insight to know what need to be done to lay the solid foundation for rapid development and sustainable high growth vital for prosperity and lasting peace seem to lack the skills and the means to convince the masses of the dire need for fundamental changes to the present conflict-ridden system. Peace will remain elusive unless persons not involved in party politics who are concerned about the future of the country in the new world described lucidly by the British High Commissioner Dominick Chilcott in his illuminating lecture stand up and press for the changes needed to bring peace and normality to the war-torn country. The ex-service commanders who have come forward to perform this noble task deserve the full support of the civil society. They too should enlist other concerned persons not involved in active politics or are under the influence of political leaders who are interested mainly in the contest for power. There is an urgent need for an apolitical broad-based pressure group.
[The writer is Former Additional Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, Sri Lanka and UN Advisor, Development Economics/Planning]
Entry Filed under: transCurrents NewsFeatures
