Give voice to the voiceless for democratising
the society!
The lifting of the proscription of the LTTE has paved the way for the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE to resume peace talks towards achieving a just and fair solution to the national question, a question which has been in existence since the 1920s. There has been a worldwide response to the de-proscription, both positive and negative, though the de-proscription has been more symbolic in nature. Those who value progress and social justice have welcomed this step and the cease-fire agreement that has been implemented by both parties since last February. The next milestone will be the commencement of face-to-face negotiations on many aspects of the question.
With the peace process entering into the negotiation stage, the optimism of peace has bounced back. For the negotiations to succeed, all significant issues relating to all aspects of the conflict have to be placed on the table for discussion; may be not all at once, but at least in related quantums. If difficulties in the negotiation process could be controlled and kept within reasonable limits of trust retention, then the possibility of continuing the negotiations would still exist. At times, the process may slow down or suffer setbacks, but the process may recommence afterwards if a total breakdown of trust does not occur. This is nothing new to the nature of the game. Therefore, the determination and responsibility of the parties to the conflict should be to continue negotiating while working through affordable and workable compromises. Norway's indispensable involvement as a facilitator has provided an international mechanism of monitoring the process, and their impartiality has been tested and proven. Therefore, no one could or should allow this process to fail.
Factors leading to ceasefire
Many factors have been instrumental in declaring a mutual ceasefire. Nationally, the major factor is the realisation by both the government and the LTTE that they could not achieve their aims through war. The government could not defeat the LTTE militarily and the LTTE could not establish a formal separate state by resorting to armed struggle. This led to a military stalemate. The LTTE found its survival on the line and the economy of the country was in the red. All peoples affected by the war became war-weary. Internationally, the 1983 riots against Tamils resulted in a large Tamil exodus, bringing the national question to the attention of the international community. The government and the expatriate Sinhalese also made the national question an international issue. The international balance of forces has now become extremely favourable for a negotiated settlement. Among all nationalities, there have been many who worked against dominant chauvinist and opportunist trends that had engulfed their societal terrains. When the war and war mongering tested their tolerance levels, they consistently advocated against war and war mongering. Thanks to their efforts, many people rallied around the slogan “Do not wage war on our behalf”. Many political parties including the two major ones in the south willingly or unwillingly have accepted this reality. The only way out of this quagmire lay in moving towards a cease-fire and working towards a peacefully negotiated settlement.
Task of the negotiators
The task in front of the parties to the negotiations is formidable. Transforming a process of discrimination that has been in existence for more than half a century will be, by no means, an easy task. The major obstacle is still the mutual mistrust, suspicion and misunderstanding of the parties to the conflict. The parties have to achieve a final settlement that accommodates the aspirations of Tamil people without jeopardising the aspirations of other peoples, including Sinhalese and Muslims. And the time frame should be reasonable, as dragging along without coming to adjustments to their positions through compromises would strengthen the sabotaging attempts of the chauvinists and opportunists. If a reasonable non-threatening consensus could be achieved in this regard, I have no doubt that the vast majority of peoples of Sri Lanka will support such a decision as they have done in the past.
The government’s commitment towards this process so far seems whole-hearted. A peaceful settlement to the ethnic conflict will be advantageous for the capitalist system to survive and flourish. The Prime Minister’s speech at the Woodrow Wilson Centre in Washington made it amply clear. He outlined the causes of terror activities as ‘underlying grievances such as poverty, injustice including discrimination, insecurity and fear’. When the pressure from chauvinist quarters grows, as happened in regard to the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayagam Pact and Dudley-Chelvanayagam Pact, how the Prime Minister and the government would react remains to be seen. All who support fairness, justice and equality expect that the government would not succumb to such extremist pressure.
Non-core issues and core issues affecting Tamil people are inter-related. Non-core issues such as development and administration, though could be complex in the light of objections that could be raised by the security forces and the armed wing of the LTTE, the most complex would be the negotiations on core issues. The LTTE has presented a conceptual framework in the form of three fundamental principles, which were originally promoted by the Tamil delegation at the peace talks held in Thimpu in 1985. They are the recognition of Tamil homeland, Tamil nationality, and Tamil’s right to self-determination. These demands are not limited to the LTTE. Other Tamil groups also accept these principles. The LTTE has stated that when these principles are recognised by the government by a proposed political solution, then they would consider giving up the demand for a separate state. On the other hand, many extreme Sinhala groups have joined in demanding that no form of decentralisation should be discussed at all. The issues affecting the Muslim community such as security and administration could also make the negotiations much more complicated.
Constructive contribution necessary
It would be highly advantageous for the LTTE to play a constructive and helpful role at this stage. Rather than insisting on Thimpu principles per se, which are rather abstract, it would be appropriate to put forward concrete proposals in the context of these principles. It would be immensely productive for both parties to work out a consensual set of propositions, rather than putting the ball on each other's court. This set of propositions needs to address the needs and aspirations of the Tamil people based on the principle of internal self-determination and without jeopardising the aspirations of other peoples inhabiting the island. In addition, the LTTE should put forward its political program, go to the people in the northeast, and get their mandate for administering the north and east.
When the ceasefire agreement came into effect in February, there were many doomsday preachers who claimed that it would not last. I included myself in the camp that believed if ceasefire prevailed for some time that could change the mindsets of the peoples towards peace, which with time would gather momentum. However, such assumptions hold only for some time. If the process of negotiations would be long drawn out, then anxiety and fear of the unknown may prevent people from being optimistic. Such long drawn-out processes may reinforce the doubts and suspicions about the genuineness of negotiations itself. The phase we are passing through is a transition period which could lead to either more optimism or pessimism.
Activities at the negotiation table would be manyfold. Many believe that the human rights violations by both the state and non-state forces need to be taken up for discussion. However, in reality, the human rights violations in the south, again by both the state and non-state forces, have never been discussed. Such violations, for example, in the 1980s were used as a springboard by many politicians to come to power and then were completely forgotten. Those who have allegedly committed such violations are still in active duty in state, political and diplomatic circles. When this aspect is taken into consideration it is a fact that the whole of Sri Lanka is suffering from post-traumatic distress which needs to be addressed at the macro level.
Approach of the government
The present government seems to have moved away from stereotyping the 1977 UNP government. The government needs to be congratulated on this occasion for taking an entirely different approach from the one taken towards the JVP in the 1983-84 period. In that period all investigations by the Criminal Investigation Department and the intelligent services had conclusively absolved the JVP of any wrong doing. Many civil society organisations demanded the government to lift the proscription of the JVP. Despite these facts, the then President Jayawardena and his government kept on extending the proscription until the island was drowned in blood.
Disregarding this negative experience, current leaders of the JVP have turned 180 degrees and demanded that the proscription of the LTTE should continue. A quick comparison would show that in the south the bloodbath was due to political repression of the forces demanding justice and fairness for the people of the south. In the north the bloodbath was due to similar political repression of the forces demanding justice and fairness for the people of the north and east. The JVP should have been the leading political force that should have demanded deproscription and political negotiations for redressing the problems of the people in the north and east.
Extremist expatriate response
Several expatriate ‘peace organisations’ have denounced the lifting of the proscription of the LTTE, holding the Prime Minister 'personally responsible' for 'the massive and internecine blood bath' which they claim would ultimately result from the deproscription. They continue to charge that the government has kept the people in the dark by ‘imposing draconian controls of the press which were unheard of in the past'. Claiming that the UNP has deceived the electorate, they allege that ‘an interim administration would help the Tamil terrorists to dissolve the unitary state of Sri Lanka.’
About gagging the media by the government, this is an unprecedented statement from these organisations. I do not approve of gagging the press. Nevertheless, there were those who unconditionally supported the gagging of press under the PA government. In Australia and elsewhere it was the very same expatriate organisations that tried their level best to gag all organisations, radio programs and media that advocated negotiated settlement to the conflict. Moreover, in doing so, such organisations continued to receive Sri Lankan state assistance. This was and is the Sinhala side of the coin of Tamil extremism. Were such acts not treason and violating the constitutional rights of citizens of those countries? Were such acts not fascist?
I am not an ardent supporter of the UNF government policies. However, one feels obliged to expose the hypocrisy of the statements made by such expatriate organisations. Similar to what the then Prime Minister Chandrika Kumaratunga pledged in 1994, the current Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinha pledged a negotiated settlement with the LTTE in 2001. Even during the 2001 election campaign, Mrs Kumaratunga did not advocate a policy of outright war. In the Parliamentary and subsequent elections people voted the UNF for a negotiated solution for peace. The people did not lay conditions down that the LTTE should be kept proscribed, the LTTE should not be given an internal administration and so on. Even Mrs Kumaratunga was willing to de-proscribe the LTTE and handover the administration of the north and east to the LTTE for a certain number of years.
Those who campaigned at the elections of 2001 saying that the UNF’s intention to negotiate with the LTTE would lead to the establishment of a Tamil Eelam, were soundly rejected by the voters in 2001 and afterwards. Peoples have thrown their weight behind the government indicating that they approve the peace negotiations between the government and the LTTE. With regard to the national question the government is fulfilling what they pledged to the people of Sri Lanka. I praise that effort, though this exercise is solely aimed at saving the capitalist system now in crisis and to entrench the conditions of accelerating the fulfilment of the demands of the capitalist globalisation process.
The warmongers and people who benefit from lucrative arms deals wish to destabilise the peace process for their personal gains. Peace building cannot be done overnight. It is a tedious, complex, and time-consuming process, which is easier to de-rail but arduous to construct. At times it could tatter, slow down, and then regather pace. There is no straight-line path towards achieving peace and reconciliation. In the north and east, a de-facto separate state with their own administration has been in existence for a long time with changing boundaries. In reality, the country was divided. In order to move boundaries forwards and backwards acts of war and terror were committed.
Cause of the problem
Unequal and unfair treatment of the powerless, be they in the majority or the minority, by those who were in power, created the ground conditions for the current conflict. Disintegration of the unitary administration established by the British and balkanisation of the island started with this process of unequal and unfair treatment of ethnic minorities. The only way such disintegration could be halted further is to accommodate all peoples as equals, not as majority and minority. That is why decentralisation of power is crucial. When one talks about keeping unequal majority rights and minority rights then, in reality, they are the very people who push balkanisation of the country. Presently the world has many a decentralised state and none of those states exhibits systemic racism and/or apartheid, as alleged by the expatriate myth-makers.
The national question is a political question arising from socio-economic conditions affecting the society. The issues relating to the national question that spring up in our minds would be limited to those of language, religion, citizenship, discrimination, colonisation and so on. However, what is the root cause of the national question? I believe that not only the national question but even many questions relating to the people of the south and prevalent upon Sinhalese are underpinned by the human rights violations by the state, its security forces, the political organizations of all hues and colours due to their political and ideological perspectives.
The whole political process since Independence in February 1948 has been aimed at disempowering society, moving them further away from power centres and centralising the political power in the hands of a few. If we look at the recent history, I can cite many examples. The left parties like the LSSP and the CP, which spearheaded the campaign against British imperialism, were sidelined by employing terror tactics and physical intimidation. Instead of restoring the rights of all indigenous peoples whose rights were subjected to erosion, the ruling elite and their counterparts in the main opposition parties raised the spectre of nationalism. Elected Tamil parliamentarians who peacefully opposed the “Sinhala only” Act in 1956 were subjected to physical attacks employing thugs. Then the LSSP, the CP and the MEP joined the ranks of the government. Under their leadership the juvenile forces that demanded justice and fairness were subjected to state repression. This led to the insurrection of 1971. The JVP did not allow any dissent within their ranks. Continuous subjugation of the democratic rights of the Tamil people led to the growth of militant movements. Disappearances and summary executions occurred in the north and east starting from 1977. This is very much before such occurrences took place in the south in the 1980s. Like the JVP, the LTTE did not allow any dissent among the Tamil people, within or outside their ranks. In 1983, the then government created the riots against Tamils. The JVP and left parties excluding the LSSP were proscribed. This led to the 1987 insurrection. The security forces, para-military groups and vigilante groups, the militant organizations such as the JVP and the LTTE used civilians as their shields and committed atrocities and terror acts against civilians. Disempowerment of the individual and centralisation of power also occurred within the political organizations irrespective of their ideology and ethnic origin.
Parallel to these events, a process of gradual de-democratisation of the state structure was taking place. The left trade union base in the plantation sector was neutralised by means of the Citizenship Act of 1948 which effectively made Tamils in the plantation sector stateless, and the Parliamentary Elections Act of 1949 denied their citizenship and voting rights. The Criminal Justice Commissions (CJC) Act was enacted in 1971 to take away the basic precept of justice ‘assumed innocent until proven guilty’. The 1972 constitution entrenched special privileges to Sinhala language and Buddhism, and abolished section 29(2) of the 1947 Constitution that safeguarded limited rights to ethnic minorities. The 1978 constitution while reinforcing these discriminatory provisions, took away all decentralised structures and established the wholly centralised ‘dictatorship’ of the Executive President. In the name of enacting legislation to safeguard democracy, repressive Acts such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act, Immunity of Responsibility Act were enacted. Many an amendment to the 1978 Constitution made the state increasingly centralised and did not allow any form of dissent. This centralisation of executive and legislative power led to the deterioration of all mechanisms that were supposed to ensure democracy.
The security forces including the law enforcement agencies and other administrative mechanisms such as the judiciary and Bribery Commission were not held responsible for keeping the law but to keeping the politicians in power safely. Any human rights violations by the politicians and the security forces were hidden under the carpet. All forms of torture and disappearances became legitimate. If judicial persons of integrity were to deliver judgements against such human rights violations, either the government took steps to promote those who were convicted, to pay any fines imposed by the courts, and to provide them financial incentives and promotions in ranks. I can provide no better examples than Sunil and Sanjeewa. Accountability of the state structure was not to the people of Sri Lanka but to the politicians and their henchmen ruling the day. Peoples' sovereignty was usurped by politicians who came to power by hook or crook and law enforcement agencies were used to abuse the democratic human rights of individuals and organizations. Even to this day, this situation continues increasingly deteriorating the trust that people could place on such agencies. Even the high-ranking bureaucrats of such agencies have admitted to such situations and the continuing daily reportage of the abuse of democratic human rights of the individuals of civil society makes no other testimony needed to these sad events.
Immunity for crimes
This situation has been reinforced by a continuous non-accountability regime installed by the consecutive governments. Sections of the security forces, in particular some elements of the top brass, have been alleged to be responsible for war crimes including crimes against humanity. Against any individual or organisation that had a dissenting view to the views of those who held power, was unleashed ruthless violence. And this, by the State through its law enforcement agencies! That is what really happened in the north and in the south. Constant extrajudicial killings, mass scale involuntary and enforced disappearances and torture became a daily routine of the perpetrators of war crimes. The parties subject to such ruthless violence also took the path of attempting to overthrow the state by violence and terror. Acts of terror against civilians and their property became common and daily routine. The vicious cycle never ended.
Mass graves have been excavated in the north and the south. Surely the people of the country know of many more! Have the governments taken any genuine steps to deal with such war crimes within the framework of the rule of national and international law? Never! Rather consecutive governments have taken steps to provide immunity for such extra-judicial mass killings. While such steps have not been taken, is there any guarantee that such war crimes would never occur again?
One of the assurances the current government could provide to ensure such war crimes would not occur in future would be to bring the perpetrators of war crimes to justice within the framework of international laws relating to war situations. Repressive legislation that has being used to take away the democratic human rights of individuals and organisations could be repealed or drastically amended. Mechanisms that ensure responsibility for, transparency of and accountability for the actions of all political and state players should be introduced. And any future conflicts should be resolved within the rule of law in a peaceful manner. If there were genuine mechanisms to address such issues in a peaceful manner violent insurrections would have never occurred!
Democratisation of the state and society – the mega issue
This discussion brings us back to the mega-important issue of democratisation of the whole society and the state structure. The political negotiations with regard to the national question will not discuss many of these issues which affect the whole society encompassing all peoples. The long-term solution to the national question depends on the willingness and the capability of the players to democratise the state and the society and decentralise power.
What will be discussed in Thailand may touch on some aspects of democratisation such as space for the Tamil people to decide their political destiny, repealing of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and so on. Even if the negotiations lead to a breakthrough of the national question, the gains of the peace process could gradually disintegrate, whether we like it or not, unless proper mechanisms to safeguard the outcomes of the negotiations were implemented.
I would like the parties to the negotiation process to discuss a form of asymmetric decentralisation of power with sharing arrangements at the level of the centre and the periphery, allowing a merged north and east in the context of a pluralist representative democracy, facilitating the democratic and human rights of the Tamil, Muslim and Sinhala people in the North and the East.
The issue of democratisation of state structure and the society not only of the northeast but also of the whole country becomes an issue of mega-significance. Democratisation means that there should be room for dissent, right to express and discuss diverse and opposing views, right to organise without subject to political persecution and repression and freedom of movement. Democratisation cannot take place without means of accountability to the people of Sri Lanka, of all politicians, bureaucrats, and state institutions for their actions, without mechanisms ensuring fairness to all peoples irrespective of their background and so on. The idea of five independent commissions first proposed by the UNP, then followed by the JVP and now stagnating somewhere in a dustbin relates to this aspect. It is not only the state but also all political organizations should ensure such room for dissent. Human Rights Commission should not look for ways and means of justifying the illegal and undemocratic actions of the state but should expose such actions and recommend remedial measures. It should be able to investigate such incidents in all sectors including state, private and political. As a whole, civil society will have to become highly active in establishing such systems and in keeping the momentum going.
The whole issue that underpins the vast subject matter discussed above is protection of human rights both individual and collective. This is an ideal time to discuss and debate these issues openly, widely, and democratically because, at least for the time being, the people of Sri Lanka have a conducive environment for expressing such ideas. If this does not happen today, peace would not be sustainable tomorrow. This is important for the Sinhala people in the south of the island to the same extent that it is important for the Tamil and Muslim people living in the north and east. Both Sinhala and Tamil speaking people should be able to discuss the pros and cons of decentralisation and centralisation of political and economic power, federation and separation, war crimes, human rights violations, torture and so on. Now I wish to emphasise some aspects that are related to the democratisation process.
Human rights and peoples’ voice
The party in power and the parties aspiring to acquire that power have engaged in a process of using linguistic, religious, cultural, and other differences in the society for their petty political advantages. As a result, the society has become increasingly fragmented. Instead of nation building, which is a characteristic feature of capitalism, what we have witnessed is the generation of national factions developing and aspiring towards independent nations. Unless such petty political bickering for the sole purpose of consolidating their own petty political ends is put to a halt such tendencies cannot be stopped. Democratisation of the state structure by means of decentralisation will provide a transitionary phase for nation building. If mechanisms were developed to put a stop to such petty politics all segments of the society irrespective of their social backgrounds would provide a synergistic force in the long-term objective of building a Sri Lankan nation.
Issues of human and democratic rights are of paramount importance not only to the national question but also to the whole society including state and non-state sectors. The state structure has to develop human rights mechanisms that would monitor the activities of the key players and their constituents in the aftermath of the negotiation process. Immaterial of the outcome of the process whether positive or not, organisations such as the Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Civil Rights Movement should be allowed to monitor all sides implicated in the conflict. Such a process will ensure that individuals and organizations are accountable for their actions and that the situation will not be pushed back to pre 2001 levels. This is a very big but a reasonable ask. The last fifty or more years have witnessed many individuals being made to disappear, subjected to torture and threats; many organizations being subjected to proscription and annihilation and freedom of democratic association, movement and freedom of media being curtailed. Any individual irrespective of his/her social, political, and ideological background and any organization irrespective of their ideological or religious background should have freedom of expression.
If negotiations fail, it would be totally disastrous and there should be mechanisms to cope with such a situation. Arbitrary detention, torture, disappearances, and summary executions by all parties have to stop. In war, it is not an easy task to keep human rights violations by all parties to the conflict in check. However, if genuine monitoring mechanisms do exist such violations could be minimised. If the civil society takes part in the monitoring process, such an exercise could become more fruitful. Such monitoring should not be limited to the north and east. It should be a countrywide exercise. Peace building has become prominent today because the capitalist economy of the country is in crisis. When the economy is sound there is no guarantee that the state would not resort to war again. Therefore, it is the people of the country in both the south and the north who should decide and work for peace. When peace becomes the agenda of the people at the grass roots level peace will come to prevail in Sri Lanka!
Democratisation of state structure
Irrespective of the outcome of the process of negotiations democratisation of the state structure should commence. The state structure should be accountable for their actions. Our multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-linguistic society is a complex living being with conflicting and changing aspirations and compositions. In the past, certain segments of the society based on their linguistic, cultural, religious, and political background, have been subjected to repression and such segments will continue to feel that insecurity for a long time. Even if the outcome of the negotiation process is not positive, such democratisation process will make those segments of the society with negative experiences feel secure and inclusive.
What happens in the south will have political repercussions in the north and east. The cry of the Sinhala people for empowerment, protection of human rights, decentralisation of power and so on will have its vibration felt in the north and east. That may generate awareness and the need to protect in the long term what they gain from the political negotiations of today. The success of the outcome of negotiations will not depend on just the outcome but the ability of the people in the north and east to transform that outcome into reality in their areas by their demand to empower themselves, to protect human rights and to decentralise power to the grass root level.
The path of democratisation of the state and the society is an uphill battle. Resorting to violence as the form of political negotiations, usually initiated by the state through its law enforcement agencies and then taken up by the militant organizations has devastated the country, its people, and resources. People who had to flee their native land to escape violence are contributing to the development of other lands. Unless violence is abandoned as a means of political negotiation, the process of democratisation can never begin. For peace and reconciliation to become a reality the state and the society have to learn from the tragic past experiences. The peoples should decide their political destiny; not the state machinery or the militant organizations by means of employing violence as the means of political negotiation. There are no saviours of the people other than themselves!
All those who are concerned about obstacles to peace building and reconciliation, empowerment of people and democratisation of the society and the state, should make their political establishments accountable to the people.
For this to happen the voiceless should be given voice to express their will and to determine their destiny. It should be done now rather than tomorrow when it could be too late!
No comments:
Post a Comment