The background

The past blunders mainly because of parochial interests of narrow-minded political leaders and their excessive thirst for power to fulfil their own desires had denied peace, progress and prosperity to the country. Sadly, these still continue to influence politics with more intense vigour, disregarding the past negative developments in many fields.

The continuation of damaging party politics denied a joint approach to the resolution of the national problems created by self-seeking politicians. Opportunities for achieving their narrow aims were eagerly grabbed ignoring national interests. Basically, there was no shared concept of nation and the related national interest.
The noble task of building unity in diversity was completely ignored. Unity was either just a presumption or a wishful thinking. The diverse demographic and regional features of the island were deliberately ignored by the Sinhala chauvinists who considered the entire island solely native to the ethnic Sinhalese. The successive governments made no effort to change their perception which is unreal and obstructs the building of an integrated nation.

Politically advantageous decisions were made without considering the consequences to the unity and territorial integrity of the country. Even after causing deep divisions and destruction, there was no political will to rectify the past blunders. The seeds of separation were sown by the acts of commission and omission of governments anxious to secure and safeguard the support of the ethnic Sinhalese, the majority race in all provinces, except the North and East. This diversity was an irritant to the Sinhala patriots as it marred their notion of exclusive Sinhala nation in the island. It is these unreal beliefs and the countrywide system of Sinhala majority rule that gave rise to the demand for federalism and later to a separate Tamil state in the Tamil majority North-East.
Even after enduring many tribulations, the peace concept in the minds of some majoritarians is not grounded on justice and equality. Currently, the contradiction between official statements and deeds and the neglect of the promises given at opportune times is bothering the UN and some foreign governments. Earlier, the disappointed lot was only the Tamil speaking Sri Lankans.

Terrorism

No sensible person would want terrorism as a means to a political goal. State terror is equally abhorrent as the many repercussions damage all aspects of the life of the nation. The history of ‘Tiger terrorism’ is short but undoubtedly terrible. It violated religious principles, moral standards and humanitarian laws. No sensible person can justify it under any circumstance.

In Sri Lanka’s case the exact circumstances that induced disillusioned Tamil youth to engage in violent protests were the excessive violence directed against Tamil civilians. Instead of addressing the legitimate grievances and concerns of the Tamil speaking people, the past governments opted to ignore them. The Tamil people lost faith in the one-sided political system with no constitutional safeguards to prevent discrimination against the ethnic minorities.

The July 1983 anti-Tamil pogrom which reinforced the demand for a separate Tamil state in the island is the climax of the cycle of intimidating violence that started in 1958. The violent assailants and assassins had the support of Sinhalese politicians and in some cases government patronage. No effort was made to bring the culprits to justice. The all powerful first Executive President soon after the July 1983 anti-Tamil pogrom said that the spate of destruction of Tamil lives and their property was the response to the ambush of an army convoy by the Tamil Tigers in Jaffna on 23 July 1983. Earlier on 18 May 1983, following an ambush on an army convoy in Jaffna soldiers went on the rampage in key residential and commercial centres there. Had the cycle of violence been stopped via suitable constitutional reform, reactive violence or terrorism as it was widely considered would have vanished long time ago.

The point here is when both sides in an internal conflict use violence as the sole means to achieve their objectives the damage is extensive and enormous. It is not only the loss of lives and property but also the cultural damage is enormous. When one party to the conflict is the government, such damage blemishes strikingly the character of the State. Its future as a stable, serene, democratic and respectable nation also becomes unpromising. Sadly this is the prospect when the system, as many know, undermines democracy, norms of good governance and the rule of law.

An apt parallel is the typical family in our traditional society. If an elder, specially the head of the family (father or mother) habitually acts irresponsibly ignoring moral principles, how can one expect the children to become decent members of the society with noble character and humane feelings for others? No responsible father or mother will tell the children to copy or cheat and pass the exam. This is not the way to succeed. The society itself will sooner or later become weak, lacking the virtues of advanced honourable societies if the means of achieving personal or collective aims are reckless. The elected governments have a moral duty to promote and safeguard the character of the nation. The recent undesirable developments violating even moral principles let alone democratic rights and freedoms raise concern about the future of Sri Lanka.

The abduction and detention of media personnel considered to be politically harmful persons have not ceased completely after the war. The fact that the recent victims are Sinhala journalists shows the underlying reason is not the ethnic issue but political related to the consolidation of autocratic power. Obedience is sought by infusing the sense of fear among those challenging this system that has been politically useful to the powers that be in the past few years. In a recent interview (You Tube), the veteran journalist and Sunday Island editor Manik De Silva stressed the relevance of media freedom to democracy and good governance. If dissenting views are not permitted it is not difficult to surmise the consequences. Investigative journalism helps to expose corruption and waste in the public sector. This is indispensable in a functioning democracy.

In the light of continuing repressive measures, Kishali Pinto Jayawardene in her weekly column ‘Focus on Rights’ in The Sunday Times 7 March has questioned: “are we now unquestioningly accepted the 'normalisation' of state terror?” The columnist Kishali, who is also an attorney, has stated that there is a “severe rule of law contradictions” currently in Sri Lanka. Contradictions are not confined solely to ‘rule of law’. The pseudo democracy functioning in Sri Lanka has many contradictions. Paradoxically, it has become a convenient tool for consolidating power for undemocratic rule.

There was no justification for retaining the harsh war-time special laws, regulations and arrangements when the war had ended conclusively. Given the long-standing prejudices and apprehension among the Sinhala masses, it is not difficult to give imaginary reasons for retaining these rules. The possible resurrection of LTTE is being touted to convince the people of the need to be vigilant. The crafty view of some optimists is that the political problem has also vanished with the annihilation of the LTTE May last year. Furthermore, the demand for equal rights for the Tamil speaking people is construed by some as demanding more rights than held by the Sinhalese. It will not be difficult to give scary warnings as long as the ethnic problem remains unresolved. Perhaps there is the perception divide and rule is more convenient than ruling a truly democratic multi-ethnic nation!

The general feeling among realists is the government wanted these controls for its own political need. The keenness to achieve the undisclosed political aims of the victor, while the glory as the annihilator of Tiger terrorism lasts backs this view. The irony is that this grand opportunity is not being used to resolve the ethnic problem. The President’s standing in the rural areas as a redeemer also helps him to lead the political reconciliation process. It remains to be seen whether there will be a determined effort to settle this problem after April 8 parliamentary election. The means of seeking reconciliation is important if unity and peace are to last long.

Upsurge in corruption

Udara Soysa, a commentator on Comparative Politics, International Relations and Economics who currently resides in Atlanta, Georgia, United States has commented recently on the crisis of corruption in Sri Lanka. He has said: “Currently, corruption had infiltrated into every branch of Sri Lankan society and unfortunately, corruption and manipulation of the system had become a norm. If analyzed retrospectively, many of the present day ills can be linked back to corruption”. Apparently, the definition of corruption is not just confined to unacceptable methods of grabbing funds but encompasses all immoral or dishonest acts. Even the conduct of the police and some politicians during the dark days of 1983 is regarded as corrupt.

How the system itself promotes corruption is seen in the following comment: “The corruption in Sri Lanka is multi-layered. The institutionalized politicization of law enforcement agencies also contributed for the perpetuation of the corruption menace in Sri Lanka. The ruling executive regime has the clear control of the police force thus any independent investigations become unfeasible. With the non-existent law enforcement system of checks and balances of ruling regime, higher level corruption thrive perpetuating and nourishing a grand circle of corruption in the country”. Those keen on sustaining the corrupt practices would not want to change the system introduced mainly from a narrow political perspective. This can be pointedly stated as establishing a one-party rule within a multi-party democratic system, which appears contradictory but in Sri Lankan politics this is not so. Despite all the changes made in 1978, including the process of electing members to the Legislature and the establishment of the most powerful Executive Presidency similar to a ruling monarch, the system failed to produce the intended result of the schemers.

One may wonder whether the next constitution currently contemplated will be designed mainly to remove this weakness! In this confused setting, it is not surprising some scholars and editorialists have opined that no party should win too many seats in the forthcoming general election that gives two-thirds majority in the new parliament. There is now great awareness that the quality of the persons in the political arena is very low compared with those in the early years of independence.

Speaking at the opening of a maritime archaeological museum in Galle on March 4, President Mahinda Rajapaksa asked the public to ensure that only the good people entered politics. The editorial in ‘The Island’ March 6 opined - “the President has sought to lay the blame for the heavy presence of misfits in politics at Citizen Perera's doorstep”. This is a complex issue that requires separate analysis since there are many reasons for this shameful situation. The chief culprit is undoubtedly the thoughtless ways the country was governed mainly from a narrow and short-term political perspective. The system itself was designed to serve the selfish few who have the skill to deceive the masses. The people were kept ignorant of true facts and the value of equality, tolerance and unity in diversity. Education was not directed at all to impart knowledge on ethics and the ways history was taught promoted chauvinism, intolerance and mistrust. Religious studies too focused unduly on miracles. Principles of equality, justice, compassion and selflessness were ignored.

The following editorial comment (The Island March 6) is very fitting. “The scum of the earth cannot enter politics without the blessings of political leaders. They cannot contest elections unless they secure nominations from recognised political parties. Only a handful of them come forward as independent candidates but it is rarely that they succeed at elections. Therefore, political parties and their leaders including President Rajapaksa cannot absolve themselves of the blame for promoting undesirables in politics and nominating them for elections”. It is very true the honourable citizens truly committed to unity, peace, human rights, civil liberties and welfare of all citizens have no chance of becoming the main members of the profitable House that attracts those seeking power and wealth for themselves.

Downfall of honourable culture

Many analysts have focused on the transformed political culture, particularly after the power struggle intensified to the level where the contestants were not concerned about the means of winning the contest. It is quite clear from the recent past, particularly after the 1977 general election that the main governing political party has the advantage because of the availability of the means to exploit state resources and influence for denying ‘free and fair’ elections. Politicization of the public service also facilitated this unfair change. Recently there have been allegations that even education is politicised. Democracy lost its real meaning in many other ways too. Several attempts to establish independent commissions to oversee public service, judiciary, police and all elections at national, provincial and village levels failed for the simple reason that the government was not keen on losing its hold on them. The opposition parties want the proposed independent commissions because they are powerless now. The astonishing feature of the confrontational politics is the very party that clamours for change towards real democracy while in the opposition, opts to cling on to the flawed system, when it becomes the main ruling party!

A vigil for journalist Prageeth Eknaligoda, who disappeared on January 24, 2010, in Colombo-Reuters pic

Another crucial factor that led to the collapse of the rule of law and equal justice for all citizens is the culture of impunity that evolved along with the abuse of power. Even in 1983 no presidential inquiry was held into the mangling and murder of Tamil political prisoners at the maximum security gaol in Welikade prison in Colombo. Recent disclosures indicate the use of military personnel in abductions and assassinations of journalists. This practice too harms the traditional culture of the society. There are also many other acts that undermine moral and cultural values.

On March 8 the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed concerns about “the lack of progress on political reconciliation, the treatment of internally displaced persons and the setting up of an accountability process in Sri Lanka since the United Nations signed a joint statement with the Government last year in the wake of the end of the civil war with separatist Tamil rebels”. Earlier on March 4 in a telephone conversation with President Mahinda Rajapaksa he conveyed his intent “to move forward on a group of experts which will advise (him) on setting the broad parameters and standards on the way ahead on establishing accountability concerning Sri Lanka.” The proposed accountability “concerns possible breaches of international humanitarian law or abuses of human rights carried out during the conflict”. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Ms Navi ( Navaneetham) Pillay has also voiced concern about the situation in Sri Lanka.

The government has strongly objected to the above proposal of the UN Secretary-General to go ahead with an independent investigation into alleged war crimes during Sri Lanka’s successful war against the LTTE, saying it is “unwarranted and uncalled for”. Apparently, the Government thinks that there has been “unjustifiable pressure brought on the world body by pro-LTTE INGOs and the British government” to harass them in the run-up to the April 8 general election. In short, the Sri Lankan Government wants the UN and foreign governments to focus on the elimination of the ruthless Tamil terrorists and not on the means. At the risk of repeating again, the fact is there are political and moral issues here which the SL Government had promised to consider. Promises have been given to foreign leaders in the same way as during the times of electioneering in Sri Lanka.

Although the ferocious Tamil Tigers have gone, their pattern of behaviour has not. The following note from the editors of Sri Lanka Guardian (March 8, 2010) makes this clear. “Brutality had been a curse for Sri Lanka for the last many years. Despicable acts of revenge were common phenomena among Tamil Tiger groups against dissident Tamil groups for many years. Revenge, arrogance and fascist were definitely the names of Tiger game. Currently, Sri Lankan Government, taking the same arrogant fascist path of LTTE taking steps to get revenge from political dissenters. Journalists have been killed and abducted while opposition figures have been arrested”.

Surprisingly this game is revealing the hidden abhorrent practices and their likely sources. The recent side investigations following the forcible arrest of retired Army Chief Gen. Sarath Fonseka by the military police on February 8 have produced some preliminary results. Two Courts Martial have been appointed to try him separately on March 16 and 17 on two sets of charges, namely,

(1) participation in political work while in active service and

(2) contravention of laid down procedures, related to military procurement.

Concluding remarks

In any civilized society the means of gaining anything be it wealth or power by the members influence its character. When they, particularly the leaders behave selfishly in violation of recognised social rules which in a civilised society are based on moral values and religious principles besides obedience to the common law of the land, the entire community regresses to a chaotic state with uncertain future. By extension this applies to a collective nation of several communities.

Both actions and reactions in the political field since political and ethnic divisions deepened inflicted enormous damage to Sri Lanka’s repute as thrice blessed serene island. Buddhism did not influence politics. On the contrary it was exploited by many Sinhala politicians for their political advantage.

Article 9 in Chapter II of the present Constitution states, “the Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana …” In the preamble it is stated that the freely elected representatives of the people of Sri Lanka “remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain and preserve their rights and privileges so that the Dignity and Freedom of the Individual may be assured, Just, Social, Economic and Cultural Order attained, the Unity of the Country restored and Concord established with other Nations” have adopted and enacted the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. There is no need here to tell the readers the anomalies between the then stated intents and principles and the subsequent ways of governing.

In short Sri Lanka cannot be regarded as a moral state, despite the importance given to Buddhism in the Constitution. The very belief ‘end justifies the means’ is contrary to Buddhist philosophy. It is not just religion that determines the character of States. In this regard Prof. Ishtiaq Ahmed’s comments on the recent articles for and against making Pakistan a secular state published in the Daily Times are interesting and useful. He has said the modern secular state is a moral state because it upholds the rule of law while accepting limits to its power and authority by law. The rule of law recognizes the rights of individuals to certain inalienable freedoms, including the freedom to conscience and religion. In such a state equal treatment of men and women, protection of the rights of minorities to their culture and religion, and sincere commitment to promote the welfare of all citizens are assured.

The modern secular state prescribes a very advanced morality — that its citizens have the right to be liberated from want and hunger, illiteracy and disempowerment. Moreover, the modern secular-democratic state must ensure that all individuals as well as majorities and minorities enjoy the freedom of religion and conscience and the political right to choose their government. There are of course many other rights that are now part of the UN conventions and national constitutions. The whole purpose is that the government cannot arbitrarily repeal the human and civil rights of citizens. (Sri Lanka Guardian March 10, 2010)

Another relevant study on reforming the Sri Lankan State by Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka also reveals the important changes needed to make Sri Lanka a truly moral and harmonious state. On secularism he has said: “The relevance of secularism is that it is symbolic of the state’s/central government’s neutrality or non-alignment in relation to the constituent communities/collectivities of that society, irrespective of the sizes of those communities and ratios between them. Thus the state stands above the communities, able to reconcile them. The Soulbury Constitution would have put us closest to model 1 (i.e. that of Singapore). If the existing Sri Lankan Constitution inclusive of the results of the Indo-Lanka accord, i.e. 13th amendment were fully implemented, the Sri Lankan state would arguably be a variant of model 3 i.e. non-secular, not a level playing field, but with an offsetting provincial autonomy”. The patriots want only home-grown products. Soulbury Constitution and the 13th Amendment do not meet this requirement.

Acknowledging Sri Lankan society is heterogeneous, he has very fittingly stated: “In a homogenous society, devolution is not an imperative. In a heterogeneous society, strong centralism devoid of devolution is fine if accompanied by meritocratic multiculturalism and secularism, i.e. a neutral state. Conversely, a secular meritocracy – a neutral state — is not necessary, and the dice can be loaded in favour of the majority perceived as historically underprivileged, provided there is a compensatory counterweight at the periphery in the form of federalism or regional/provincial autonomy (Malaysia). Singapore fits well as a moral state because of meritocracy, multiculturalism, several official languages (English, Malay, Mandarin Chinese and Tamil), a level playing field and a managed market economy.

Singapore’s success is also due to the relatively high quality of the elected political leaders and legislators, which is lacking in Sri Lanka. As stated earlier, education is not structured to produce the right kind of persons useful for serving the people and the country and in general raise the moral standards of the society. The primary and secondary school curricula should include lessons in ethics. Media also has a vital role in promoting national unity, multiculturalism, trust between ethnic communities, social justice and respect for the legitimate rights and freedoms of others. From the above analysis it is clear a holistic approach is needed to rebuild the battered Sri Lanka with pleasant features that will give solace and hope to future generations.

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