Only few visionaries protested about their ruthless methods. Tamil community has paid an enormous price for the indiscretion of the LTTE and the blind faith of many in their ideology and militancy. But the critical issue now for many Sri Lankans is the future of the island nation in the coming years and beyond in the light of the continuing nationally damaging developments even after vanquishing the LTTE May last year. Although the Tamil Tigers claimed steadfastly they were fighting for the liberation of the oppressed Tamil people, the militant group was widely considered as a terrorist organization. This helped the Sri Lankan government to mobilise foreign support in the domestic war against terrorism.

Pride, prejudice and deception

The foreign governments that backed the war in Sri Lanka made a clear distinction between ‘Tiger terrorism’ and the Tamil political problem. While the war was declared over with the total destruction of the fighting capabilities of Tamil Tigers including the rebel leadership, wartime aggressive actions have been considered necessary for safeguarding ‘national security’. But in fact, this catchphrase has been used conveniently to deny legitimate freedom and human rights of political opponents. The threat to media freedom also continued with the arrests and disappearances of journalists after the end of the war. Furthermore, the culture of impunity also remained intact. The deployment of thugs and underworld elements with the connivance of security forces to intimidate the resolute opponents in civil society (considered as traitors) is also a major feature of political intolerance.

The latest ploy in the scheme to dodge seeking a permanent political solution to the ethnic problem which really is a national problem is the official announcement that the ‘terrorist ideology’ must be defeated to free the country from the threat of terrorism. The fact that the root cause of the war is the unresolved political (ethnic) issue which the LTTE exploited for achieving their extremist goal by brutal means is conveniently ignored. The sensible way to assure lasting peace and ethnic harmony is to defeat the separatist ideology through devolution of powers so as to enable the ethnic minorities feel they too are the beneficiaries of the independence gained in 1948. Without devolution Great Britain, Sri Lanka’s last colonial ruler would not have been a united, stable and prosperous nation.

Delivering the inaugural address of the Global Tamil Forum conference held at the British parliamentary complex on February 24, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband called upon the Sri Lankan government to make constitutional changes aimed at power sharing to settle the ethnic problem that has been the cause of the unrest and division that escalated into a destructive war. He said: "If history is buried, reconciliation never happens. That is why we continue to call as a government for a process to investigate serious allegations of violation of international humanitarian law by both sides in the conflict. If credible and independent, such efforts could make an important contribution to reconciliation between Sri Lanka's communities."

The Sri Lankan government protested against Miliband 's address describing the Tamil Forum as a pro LTTE grouping that poses a ‘direct threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka'. The British Foreign Secretary in his address also criticised the LTTE for resorting to violence and recruiting children. But this had no effect on the protesters.

Under the pretext of ‘national security’, the rule of law has also been undermined and the shift from democracy to authoritarianism has been taking place steadfastly. Importantly, arrests of political opponents under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and Emergency Regulations continued. Normal civil laws did not apply to political opponents. Journalists highly critical of the administration particularly in regard to its unfair practices such as extrajudicial punishment and other human rights violations were also in this category of undesirables. Some who were abducted, assaulted and released had left the country fearing for their lives. Few had been murdered in broad daylight. The whereabouts of the missing journalists are not known. The culprits have not been brought to justice. They are not hard-to-find criminals.

Unfortunately some seem to think that the Sri Lankan leadership is smart enough to mislead the international community. Some foreign countries (in the West) are alleged to have channelled funds via the INGOs and NGOs operating in Sri Lanka to destabilise democracy. (The Hindu 20 February 2010). There are moves now to control them. The saying that the show of aggression is a fitting form of defence is relevant in the new Sri Lanka that emerged May last year.

Glaring credibility gap

The contradiction between the positive pronouncements of the Head of State and actions or inaction of the government has never been as striking as it is now in Sri Lanka. In the recent past, the minority ethnic Tamils were the victims of broken promises of the past Prime Ministers. The world outside was not directly affected. But with the launching of the successful military campaign to annihilate the ferocious Tamil Tigers this practice has spread out. It is arguable whether the tactics used in the resounding victory has given incentive to continue the same even after is over. The misleading promises given to foreign leaders including the UN Secretary General helped to proceed steadfastly with the military campaign which also had a hidden political agenda very different from that many believed based on official pronouncements and preliminary actions.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s article in the opinion column of the prestigious Wall Street Journal (WSJ) 3 February has given credibility to the credibility gap. His vision of future Sri Lanka as stated rightly in the WSJ article titled, ‘Sri Lanka looks to the future’, “relies on a lasting peace. The removal of terrorism was an important milestone in this process, but the nation needs to be bound by a common purpose. That purpose will be built around a full reconciliation program”. Unfortunately, truth and reconciliation are not in sight yet. Perhaps this needs a two-third majority in the April 8 parliamentary election! In his Independence Day speech delivered on February 4 in Kandy he said: “The freedom from colonial rule that we gained 62 years ago is now more meaningful”. But some including Sri Lankan lawyers in the light of subsequent events have opined, freedom is now under threat.

Consistent with his earlier statement made soon after winning the war May last year that there are no minorities in the liberated Sri Lanka, there is no mention in his article of the long-standing problem of the Tamil speaking people. The focus is on the grievances of all communities. To quote: “My new government will address the genuine grievances of all communities and bolster the enforcement of equal rights for all”. There is also no reference to the political and other distinct problems of the Tamil speaking people that made them powerless second class citizens

There is also no clear message on the ways and means of transforming the ‘no war’ situation into lasting peace. The inference from his earlier statements too is that this is to be achieved mainly via economic development without any major political reform. His frequent emphasis on the unitary structure in which the centralized authority rests with the Sinhalese is intended to please the Sinhala nationalists. The bulk of the votes in the North and East obtained by the principal opposition candidate Gen. (retd) Sarath Fonseka at the January 26 Presidential election were a show of protest against the incumbent’s reluctance to address their immediate problems and concerns about their future.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa is absolutely correct in saying that “lasting peace will unlock the true potential of Sri Lanka and provide a range of opportunities for all of our people”. But the important question is how he expects to secure the lasting peace? He has also said: “Already the International Monetary Fund has upgraded Sri Lanka to a ‘middle-income emerging market’, and our economy is now the second fastest growing in Asia. With our educated workforce and our strategic trading position, I intend to make good on predictions that Sri Lanka can become South Asia’s Singapore—or better”. In the light of the recent disturbing developments in south Sri Lanka, can one believe “a new beginning of peace and prosperity” has dawned in the conflict-ridden island for it to become prosperous like Singapore? While the old conflict remains unresolved, new ones have emerged now. If sacrificing democracy is the price for the sake of the envisaged peace similar to that prevailing in undemocratic countries, it is doubtful whether the majority of Sri Lankans would agree to this.

New post-war conflict

Instead of transforming the military victory into real peace sought desperately by the vast majority of citizens, who had endured unbearable hardships as a result of the brutal war, the victorious political leadership opted to exploit the military victory for political mileage. It is now apparent that the victor’s political agenda has been subtly linked to the military victory. In fact the post-war conflict between the incumbent Executive President, who according to the Constitution is also the Commander-in-chief of the armed forces and the battlefield ex-military Commander Sarath Fonseka, who took up politics with the view to defeat the incumbent President via the prematurely declared Presidential election is tied to the military victory. The degree of the animosity is fathomable from the allegation that the former Army Commander had been planning a coup d'état to capture political power and also eliminate the Rajapaksa family.

The post-war conflict between the two leaders has given rise to the possibility of the underneath dirt spurting out. The serious corruption charges, if and when proven will confirm the extent of the widely perceived corruption in the public sector. The malicious and humiliating way he was arrested by the military police while he was at a meeting in his private office in Royal Avenue, Colombo and taken forcibly to the Navy headquarters on February 8 night for incarceration there is now a contentious issue both within and outside Sri Lanka. The fact that there are two different systems of justice in Sri Lanka is evident from the contrasting ways political foes and friends are treated. In the case of the latter even their earlier criminal acts are forgiven.

Other setbacks

Truth and human rights have also been the major casualties in the war against the vicious Tamil Tigers. Although the government spokespersons have tried hard to refute the alleged war crimes, the UN, some concerned foreign governments and NGOs have raised the issue of war crimes and human rights violations by both sides during the final stages of the war. There is no doubt that the government benefitted greatly from the military victory as seen from the results of the several provincial council and the recent Presidential elections held after the war but this was at a great cost to the integrity of the island nation. It is very depressing to think what will happen, if this trend continues.

Various tactical methods tried to dissuade the EU from suspending the trade concessions under the GS P Plus (Generalised System of Preferences) have failed. Former Vice Chancellor and professor of law Minister G. L. Peiris even threatened to sue the European Commission if the GSP Plus trade concessions are withdrawn. These are given under certain conditions, which include good governance, sustainable development and the adherence to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. After some months delay, the EU decided on 15 February that the suspension would come into effect in 6 months time i.e. mid August 2010.

The EU press release said, “This decision follows an exhaustive investigation by the European Commission, which identified significant shortcomings in respect of Sri Lanka’s implementation of three UN human rights conventions relevant for benefits under the scheme”. EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht said, “I would like to emphasise that I hope Sri Lanka will sit with us over the next six months in order to agree upon a set of measures that will result in rapid, demonstrable and sustainable progress in relation to the human rights shortcomings we have identified.” The locally reported response of Sri Lankan President to the EU decision is: - he is not prepared to sacrifice the island’s sovereignty for the sake of 150 million US Dollars annual benefit. But the tens of thousands of jittery workers facing the threat of losing their incomes are not in the same defiant mood.

By the way, Colombo had no problem in agreeing to the conditions under which IMF and IBRD gave loans as these were not tied to the highly sensitive human rights issue. In July 2009 Sri Lanka obtained after some delay an IMF Stand-By loan amounting to 2.6 billion US Dollars. IMF releases in instalments of around US $ 330 million after a review to ensure that the government is on track to meet its targets. The set deficit targets for the three years starting from 2009 are 7, 6 and 5 percent of GDP. The IMF team that visited Colombo for the second review of the Stand-By loan agreement said on February 25 that the third tranche of the loan is being delayed because the government missed its 2009 deficit reduction targets. The IMF officials told a news conference in Colombo that Sri Lanka's domestic budget borrowing was excessive, inconsistent with a budget deficit target of 7 percent of GDP.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa who is also the Finance Minister, postponed this year’s budget with the tacit approval of the IMF. It is expected to be presented after the April 8 parliamentary election. The IMF’s fiscal deficit target of 6 percent of GDP for the current year is also unlikely to be met. This was apparent from the recent Reuters interview with Central Bank Governor Ajith Nivard Cabraal.

External factors are bound to influence decisions of the Sri Lankan government. The new Sri Lanka cannot expect to prosper on borrowed money and time, dodging the challenging tasks ahead. The sharp rise in annual debt service payments, high levels of waste and corruption have aggravated the fiscal problem. Both the war and the post-war conflict have overshadowed Sri Lanka’s fiscal and economic problems. It is amazing despite the fiscal problem, the main rival candidates in the January 26 Presidential election promised salary hikes for government servants.

Moving towards authoritarianism

The Report Part 11 in the series ‘diary of terror’ released by the Sri Lankan Human Rights Watch 15 February 2010 mentions the damage done to the political culture in recent years. To quote: “Making of death threats has become very much a part of the political culture in Sri Lanka. Many lawyers recently have received death threats for appearing for political opponents of the government. …The Sri Lankan Bar association passed resolutions condemning threats and attacks on lawyers several times and a called for effective investigations into such allegations. Despite such calls, no investigations have been conducted and no one has been prosecuted for such actions. In some instances, lawyers themselves have filed cases for violations of their rights before the Supreme Court and these cases are pending”.

Protest Demanding Release of Sarath Fonseka~ by VikalpaSL

“In the recent weeks, there were many instances in which opposition demonstrations were attacked by thugs who were accompanied by the police. On several occasions, media agencies published photographs of thugs attacking demonstrators and being protected by the police. On many occasions, the government politicians participated in leading attacks against demonstrations, calling for the release of Gen (Ret) Sarath Fonseka. The police often tried to arrest the opposition demonstrators rather than the criminals attacking demonstrators”.

A report issued recently by the ‘Lawyers for Democracy’ also expressed deep concern and condemned the violent methods used by the law enforcement authorities and supporters of government against those protesting against the arrest and detention of the defeated main challenger in the January 26 poll. The lawyers said the protestors were only exercising the right to non-violent protest and expression guaranteed in the Constitution. It noted that “the lawyers had witnessed personally the barbaric patterns in obstructing the peaceful protests in several places including Hulftsdorf, near the main courts complex”. They were shocked at witnessing protesters being “first attacked by hooligans and thugs who were provided protection by the police and that subsequently the same peaceful protestors were beaten by the police” (February 16 Sri Lanka Guardian). The February 24 statement of Sri Lanka’s Civil Rights Movement also indicated an ‘alarming slide’ towards curbs on democracy It warned that “attempts to stifle peaceful forms of dissent could result in violent reactions in the future as has happened in the past in the island which has been wracked by three insurgencies that retarded economic growth”.

The fact that both main rival candidates expected violent reaction to the outcome of the bitterly fought contest for the all-powerful Executive Presidency is evident from the dramatic events that occurred soon after the voting closed on January 26. Victor Ivan told the interviewer CR Chandraprema: “Some may have criticisms about the things that have taken place after the presidential election. My concern however, is what would have happened if things had gone the other way? There would have been a blood bath. One of the limitations of the joint opposition at the presidential election was that they did not have a vision that went beyond hate and revenge. This is one of the greatest tragedies in our post independence history” (Posted by transCurrents on 18 February 2010). During an interview at Temple Trees, President Rajapaksa himself told The Hindu editor-in-chief N. Ram: If Fonseka had won “there would have been a bloodbath. There would have been dead bodies everywhere. Burning houses and all that...”

‘The Island’ columnist Shanie has poignantly described the tragic conditions in the ‘Democratic Socialist’ Republic. “Sadly, not many of us seem concerned about the right to life and liberty of others. It is not only politicians who are selective in their opposition to injustice. As the politicians become defenders of human rights when in the opposition and perpetrators of violence and injustice whilst in power, many of us (including the media) are also selective in our opposition to injustice; ethnicity, party politics and class interests have defined our attitude to injustice. Even religious leaders, who should be taking the lead in promoting ethical and moral values in society, have, with a few notable exceptions, remained largely silent in the face of repression. It is good that leaders of all religions have now spoken out against the unjust treatment being meted out to Sarath Fonseka. But one hope that the same sense of outrage will be expressed when persons other than former Army Commanders are subject to similar repression”.

Asia Times Online reported 16 February 2010 that Sri Lankan leaders “have grown increasingly autocratic and under Rajapaksa the slide towards authoritarian rule has been rapid. This has evoked apprehension in the island and beyond. Several countries have expressed concern over Fonseka's arrest”. While India was not happy about “a general entering politics, it is (also) not happy with Rajapaksa's undemocratic style". Apparently India does not want another undemocratic country in the region. The astute President Rajapaksa knows how to appease India’s concerns. The title ‘India is my relation, the others are friends’ taken from his recent interview to The Hindu seen in the published report of its Chief Editor N. Ram (February 20, 2010) reveals the modus operandi.

Apparently, there is a growing feeling amongst a section of Sri Lankans that Sri Lanka’s political system is gliding towards the ones similar to those prevailing in countries like China, Russia, Iran and Pakistan.

Demands of shaken religious leaders

With the break-up of the partnership between the two victorious military and political leaders and the focus shifting towards nationally damaging power struggle within the Sinhala polity, the island’s influential Buddhist clergy arose saying it was very concerned about the disturbing developments that undermine democracy, good governance and the rule of law. This sudden awakening was caused mainly by the forcible arrest of the new political adversary, the retired Army Commander Gen. Sarath Fonseka admired as a war hero who defeated the LTTE militarily.

Other religious leaders too were shaken by the undignified way the four-star General was arrested on February 8. The Congress of Religions comprising Buddhist, Christian, Hindu and Muslim leaders met the chief prelates of the two main Buddhist chapters on February 16 in Kandy. Following the earlier meeting with some 20 religious leaders, the Congress issued a statement on February 15 stating: “We are not happy with the manner of the arrest of General Fonseka who gave leadership in defeating the rebels and it disturbs all Sri Lankans.” According to (February 16) UCA news - “They are very concerned about the uncertain situation in the country with regard to democracy and good governance.”

It is important to note that their resentment is entirely because the victim is the Army Commander who led the successful war against the LTTE. There have been many lesser mortals, who suffered inhuman treatment including torture and the ultimate fatal blow but the religious clerics remained unconcerned. Nevertheless, if this consciousness becomes pervasive and permanent, there is some hope of redemption from the clutches, recklessness and selfishness of powerful politicians. The Fonseka phenomenon is an eye opener and warning to all concerned not only about the status of the nation in the modern world but also the future of the islanders. Constructive actions are needed in many areas for getting on the right track for real national development. Economic development at the expense of political, social and cultural development all of which had remained neglected since independence is not the way forward. The main culprit is the divisive politics embraced by political leaders for short-term gains.

The present government has also been successful in dividing the influential Buddhist priests and force them to postpone indefinitely the scheduled February 18 Maha Sanga Convention at the traditional convention hall Maha Ma'luva in the Dalada Maligawa premises in Kandy. There are many reports on the pressure exerted by the government and the supporters within the clergy that led to the indefinite postponement of the Convention. The report of Sri Lankan Human Rights Watch Part 15 (February 24) states, “…now even Mahanayakes are not immune from threats, intimidation and blackmail by the government”. Nevertheless, what is important here is the belated emergence of a group in the civil society taking issue with the undesirable developments in the country. The contradiction between the recent happenings and fundamentals of Buddhism is also seen from the following:

“Buddhism differs from many other religious in its insistence of the priority of moral standards. Many other religions base their primary emphasis on the worship of gods and the maintenance of various kinds of pious traditions. However, the wheel representing the Buddhist dharma represents the basic moral norms of society”.

The challenges that lie ahead in assembling the real new Sri Lanka desired by the ordinary people of all races and religions can be discerned from the series of events that led to the current deadlock in the original move to raise a united Buddhist clerical force to halt the undesirable developments in the blessed island. According to Daily Mirror 10 February, the Mahanayake of the Malwatte Chapter, the moist Venerable Tibbotuwawe Sri Siddhartha Sumangala Thera had said on 9 February that “it was a grave crime to imprison a war hero who had done an immense service to Sri Lanka in its fight to eradicate terrorism”. The reverend Mahanayake Thera also said: “Even if such a person does something wrong he should be pardoned.”

His vivid depiction of politicians seeking or more aptly wanting to be seen as seeking the blessings and guidance of the Prelates is in the following statement: “Various political party leaders come to us dressed in white attire and seek our advice. They just listen to what we say and do something different”. On the unlawful arrests of journalists he said: The peoples’ right to know the truth has to be safeguarded. For the people to know the real situation of the country, the truth should be written. Everyone has the right to know the truth. The truth should not be hidden. Depriving that right is not democracy.” He asked: “Is it democracy to abduct journalists who reveal the truth? Even a media organization was sealed recently.”

In an unprecedented move, the four Mahanayake theras of the three main Buddhist sects invited Buddhist monks from all over Sri Lanka to convene in Kandy on 18 February to discuss the "uncertain situation" that has developed with regard to democracy and good governance. In a separate letter sent to President Mahinda Rajapaksa on 11 February, the four Mahanayake theras have urged him to release Gen Sarath Fonseka who is currently under military custody. It said: “Under no circumstances can we approve the arrest of the former army commander Gen Sarath Fonseka and a group of army officers who served the country risking their lives for making certain statements as a rival candidate at the presidential elections campaign and other reasons".

At a press conference held on behalf of the Sanga Convention, monks of the three main Buddhist sects explained the reasons for postponing the scheduled February 18 National Convention of Buddhist Monks in Kandy. The monks stated that they are holding the press conference with the consent of the Mahanayake Thero of Malwatte Nitakaya. The purpose of the conference was to explain the circumstances that led to the postponement of the National Convention of Buddhist monks called by the Mahanayake Theros of the three leading Buddhist chapters.

Ven. Prof. Atthangane Rathanapala explained that there was enormous pressure brought about by the government through many persons on the Malwatte Mahanayake Thero to cancel the meeting. He had explained that the meeting would not have been in favour of anyone but was held to discuss the problems that the monks thought were important to the nation in the light of the realisation that there was a serious crisis of democracy and good governance in the country. Apart from the persons who intervened directly for the government, there was also a group of Buddhist monks, led by a senior monk close to the government who also intervened on behalf of the government to stop the meeting. Apparently this meeting that lasted for about three hours created a sense of tension to the Mahanayake Thero when the group insisted that the meeting had to be cancelled. It was under the circumstances of enormous pressure brought about by the government that the Buddhist convention was postponed. He went on to emphasise that it was a postponement and not a cancellation of the meeting. The other monks who spoke explained that there had been a lot of misinformation spread by the government through the media.

The outlook

The sloppy way the current political system has been designed by politicians with vested political interest serves the selfish exploiters of the power of the people. The system also disconnects the people from the power grabbers once they hand over their power. The people remain helpless because there have been no influential leaders in the civil society to restrain the avariciousness of the power wielders. The reaction to the arrest and internment of former Army Commander Gen. (retd) Fonseka from various sections of the society, particularly the religious group is extraordinary. But it remains to be seen whether the new vigilant groups will continue to be a watchdog on nationally damaging acts of politicians. Democracy in Sri Lanka also eroded because of weak opposition in the Parliament. This deterioration has also been as rapid as the rise in the autocratic rule since 1977.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa has been remarkably successful in adopting the divide and rule policy. Now new divisions have emerged in the military and Buddhist clergy. How will these help in promoting national unity, if this is the desired goal? It is worth reminding here that the exacerbation of the ethnic division via deliberate acts of commission and omission led to the Eelam war.

Although many voters are aware of the national problems, they have not been able to elect suitable candidates for effecting the desired changes. It is the big talkers and swindlers who have been dominating politics in the recent past. All they are interested is power that is beneficial for achieving their narrow aims. Expediency is the motivation for minor parties to be with the main winning political party or perceived before the poll as the likely winner. The system that took root after the adoption of the1972 and 1978 Republican Constitutions made it beneficial for the parliamentarians to be with the government not only from the interests of their supporters but also from their own personal interest. The opposition members have become mere observers and critics without any important role in promoting democracy , rule of law, good governance and national development from a broad perspective. They could not even be the guardian of the freedom and rights of the people. Recent changes in the composition of parliamentary select committees have diminished their role further. The reluctance to implement the 17th Amendment reveals where the interest of the executive lies.

Furthermore, democracy is lacking even at the party level. This is evident from the ways candidates are chosen to contest the April 8 parliamentary election. It is not the local members of national parties but their top leaders who nominate candidates for elections. The leaders themselves are not chosen democratically. Among the new entrants to the April 8 general election are some young actors. In this regard, Helasingha Bandara’s comment is very fitting. “In Sri Lanka politics mean acting. In that sense, there is no difference between an actor and a politician”. This election is not going to make it easier to realize the dreams of noble citizens. Their voice is the only hope now for better time ahead. But this too depends on the basic freedom and rights that prevail after April 8. Only a miracle can extricate the inharmonious war-torn island from this dilemma.

[The writer is Former Additional Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, Sri Lanka and UN Advisor, Development Economics/Planning]