Call halt! Retrace steps to post independence constitutional arrangements
-YPR-1.jpg)
by Gnana Moonesinghe-October 8, 2016, 5:16 pm
When do we call halt to the disjointed and timid attempts at making ethnic peace? Resolutions, recriminations, institution building, discussions on truth and justice, on accountability, on right to self- determination, on integration, on unitary or federal system or devolved powers, fine tuning on how much or how little of power sharing should be on offer - all of this pursued without even an intelligent understanding of the concept of pluralism. For years and years the powers that be and the representatives of the ethnic minorities have been stumbling over these issues with no conclusive parameters acceptable to all the contenders. In this rather static situation the best choice may be to retrieve the status quo as it was before the issues facing the North and South became acrimonious, before the emergence and exploitation of the issues that lead to conflict and before armed violence seemed the only way out of the impasse.
At a time when a new constitution is in the making, it is crucial to focus on some of the features that will help to create a strong commitment to make pluralism work. However it is not necessary to look for innovative new structures while a wealth of experience can be sought in the model of the unitary state with a well structured local government system the country has lived since Independence and prior to the various innovations that have been installed. The structures of the post- independence era would be adequate to implement the President’s call for ethnic harmony as a precondition for national development and welfare of all Lankan people.
During the critical years of the ethnic war devolution to enable power sharing was introduced as a problem solver, a long time demand of the minorities. This institutional arrangement was hoped will enable the minorities to manage their own affairs. It is now over two decades since the Provincial Council system has been in operation; hence it is time to ask the question as to what extent the introduction of the PCs had helped in easing tensions amongst the ethnic communities?
A researched response is that in fact, it has created many additional areas of dispute and that the PCs are not any closer to reducing ethnic tensions and grievances, big or small.
Although the call for devolution was to satisfy ethnic power sharing needs, devolution through the Provincial Councils was introduced to all the other provinces in order to maintain a sense of uniformity. This innovation has made no difference to the well being of the minorities or to that of the majority community. In the North the PCs perhaps appeased the ego of the politicians while for most of the time the PCs in the other areas remain an echo of the Central Government with some impact observed when the PCs have a political complexion different to that of the government at the Centre. In the North it seems that the power struggle for leadership and political and emotive posturing takes precedence over the urgency to make effective utilization of the powers vested for the benefit of the people in the PCs.
The ethnic problem has been critiqued perhaps with some degree of legitimacy as the power struggle for leadership as much as of realpolitik. The LLRC too commented on the "collective failure of the political leadership on all sides" for the continuing ethnic and political turmoil. Instead of searching for positive initiatives that would help in forging unity for nation building, the culture of obstruction was used by both the leaders from the majority and the minority communities which had been and is counterproductive to the interests of the respective communities to move towards equity status for all. Most leaders have not understood that "farsighted policies pay huge dividends; short term patronage politics have immense costs." (Zakaria). This approach has put the nation in a conundrum.
A structure that merely replicates the Centre should have no place in the institutional arrangements of a country. Provincial Councils are an expensive arrangement the country can ill afford. Successive governments despite paying lip service to devolution, in their mental makeup remain with the unitary state operated mode. With this observation in mind observe the Central government’s reluctance to release some of the powers to the Provincial Councils and its exaggerated concerns over national security under a devolved scenario.
Time does not stand still. The youth who were in the forefront of the demand for devolution have become middle aged. Identity and culture, the two major issues since globalization have become less potent; the youth of today are increasingly becoming a part of the world cultural scene through social media, music TV etc. Cultural identity has become a "niche product for the elderly".(Zakaria) If this is understood the country can move on to find youthful leaders who will pressurize for national commitment to democratic principles, ethics in governance and the recognition of a plural society within the unitary state. Pluralism is not antithetical to a unitary state which has sometimes been claimed as the flip side of Sinahla nationalism. Most nations have a mix of people based on race, religion, language, caste etc. Very few countries can claim to be monogamous in its demographic composition. It is time we understood this as a matter of reality and moved on.
Leaders and intellectuals can help to bring the people together and put a stop to the prevailing environment of opportunistic policies and communal signals that continue to divide.
This is indeed an appropriate time to shed the top down approach and elicit from the people their views on their needs and their aspirations as there is bound to be changes in people’s perspective following the end of war. The fear syndrome of the Tigers is kept alive in the South mostly for electoral and personal advantage. No doubt in the South also the war would have had its impact and peoples’ perspective regarding the minorities may have changed and become more positive and friendly. The present point in time must make it possible to distinguish between the Tigers and violence and the average Tamil citizen.
Speaking directly with the people will help to assess the level and tempo of support given to the Tigers by the Tamils, as individuals. Was support given freely or under duress? Or, if over the years, enthusiasm for the Tigers took a downward slide, (obviously passively) in disapproval of the harsh tactics used by them. The influence of the diaspora on the minorities need to be investigated; is the excessive phobia around the diaspora merely a media creation, or if in reality they merely represent a migrant group seeking identity for themselves in their land of domicile and are no longer relevant emotionally to the ground situation amongst the minorities. On the contrary can they be used to contribute to the advancement of the people in the war affected places. These questions need answers if future strategies for reconciliation are to be successful.
It is time to understand that the difficulty to integrate the people is not because of shortcomings in structures or institutions but a direct consequence of the shortfall in policies and strategies adopted by successive governments.
People for their part have demonstrated their capacity to work together during times of crisis with their fellow citizens. In times of crisis the spirit of humanity and humaneness had been abundantly displayed. During the 1983 riots, during the tsunami, and during the recent floods people had reached out with assistance without discriminating over race or religion or language. If people can handle thus during times of crisis then with a little guidance from the leaders such attitudes can be replicated during other times as well. People need to be empowered with the sense of morality to make value based opinions and decisions.
If appropriate policies beneficial to the people are introduced resistance to cohabitation will be greatly reduced. During the 70’s the government restricted the imports of onions and chillies which benefitted the local producer to earn better prices. The Jaffna farmer benefited the most and remained grateful to the government for the windfall in income. At the Presidential election in 1982, Jaffna opted for the SLFP candidate Hector Kobbekaduwa over and above their candidate Ponnambalam and the UNP. The Tamils did not hark back to the negative phase of the SLFP government whose policies affected them adversely. They decided to move on. Why not others among them?
At the time of Independence and for many years after Sri Lankans lived in relative harmony under a unitary system of government with well planned local government structures in place. The Local government system that Sri Lanka had at the time of independence served the interests of the people at the micro level, in the village, in the towns and in the metropolis. The elected members performed their functions having taken office solely to provide voluntary service to the people. The culture of amassing wealth using elected office was unknown, so were the perks of office such as vehicles, allowances and security cover. In the VC elections contestants were elected for their standing in the estimation of the local people, their political affiliations remained irrelevant. The interests of the people were served without the expenses of duplicating the central government structures at the periphery.
People want to live in peace in an environment of trust and respect for each other. If democratic values of equality of status and opportunities and meritocracy, right to speech, association and freedom of movement, independent judiciary respect and adherence to human rights, free and fair elections and unwavering commitment to the constitutional provisions are made available, reconciliation for integration will be that much easier for having a fair playing field. Housing, education, health, jobs and opportunities for improved livelihoods are the main concerns of any community. Peace and security concerns must be kept in the realm of objective review while civil authority during times of peace remains supreme.
A call for national identity is not one that is meant to override other identities or make all to be assimilated as "mimics of the Singhalese". It must be understood that we the citizens owe allegiance first to the nation on whose soil we live and then to our race and religion giving all due respect for such identities. National pride must come first and thereafter individual and community based identities. The way forward would be for policies and strategies to be taken for the benefit of both the Sinhalese and the minorities to forge friendship. However, a fundamental decision has to be taken as to whether the communities in the country want to live as citizens of one nation or divide or forever hold the threat of self- determination as an option which would be like having Damocles’ sword hanging over peoples’ heads. Compromise and faith in humanity despite bad experiences in the past is the path to unity. This will be a good try to forge friendships keeping the past travails as an object lesson - a lesson to be well learnt by all.
