This lack of purpose is evidenced by today’s political rhetoric. The governing collective will beseech the electorate to return them to power to finish off the war. While a political solution will remain a distant dream, issues such as good governance and development will take a back seat. It is well known that Sri Lanka’s divided polity votes on racial and religious lines, returning a divided parliament. The elected will jostle for position and perks disregarding the will of their electors. Various incentives will be dangled in front of potential cross over candidates. Without resorting to horse trading mainstream parties will not stand the remotest chance at regaining power. Trial balloons have already been floated to test the air. In the well of parliament both sides promote the need for an all encompassing grand alliance. The minority parties would capitulate eventually being forced to form alliances with the mainstream political parties, ostensibly to “serve the people”. Thus unfolds our shameless litany of political failure.

A new election is another occasion for the minorities to feel let down again, and rue their inability to contribute to a lasting solution to the problems afflicting our country. As a dream recedes, so does the dignity and the fight to live with equality and respect.

The minority electorate must reflect on the value of fringe parties as they become increasingly disillusioned with their inability to play a constructive role in policy making at the centre. Minority parties too realize that they are getting progressively marginalized; yet will remain captive within the present system. This is particularly true of those parties operating outside the northern theater of war. Today, an election is no contest at all for the minority parties as it is actually a battle for self preservation of the minority party politicians. The voter on the other hand is disinterested because the political system does not provide a window to present their viewpoint, leading to widening of the chasm between the voter and their party.

This is one challenge that the minority parties know well. That challenge encompasses finding meaningful ways to get electors engaged. Voter apathy is not the only challenge; the other is to keep their membership from falling prey to political deception. All minority parties have had to bear the ignominy of defection by elected members to the ruling coalition.

A strategy that minority parties have adopted is to align themselves to the major political parties. Thus they concede albeit indirectly, that they cannot garner enough voter interest on their own.

The minority parties face a common dilemma because they appeal to a narrow polity based on communal lines. Their core claim is that they are the voice of the aggrieved minority dedicated to upholding minority rights. They would argue that in a country where the majority votes on party lines aligned to race-based politics, the small minorities are not left with much choice but organize themselves along racial lines to combat ingrained mistrust and lack of equality. The argument is that asking the voter of one minority community to vote along racial lines could boost the chances of equity for the minorities. Strategically, is this the route the minority parties should follow?

While the intention of the writer is not to dwell too much into the history of the politics of this country, it is thought suffice to make one or two salient points. Firstly, unlike most democracies, Sri Lankan politics is based on ethno-racial lines. The birth of the precursor to the SLFP, the SMS and the Tamil Congress, the countervailing Tamil party were all clearly based on racial and religious lines. The UNP too has always had ultra-conservative racial underpinnings, colouring their ideology. Even to this day we do not have a truly secular party.

Secondly, our country’s lack of a sustainable economic policy framework, compounded by opposing economic policies of the two main political parties led to inconsistent economic development. The SLFP advocated social distribution as an ideology, while the UNP has clearly followed the capitalist path of free enterprise. The only common ground was that the two political parties fundamentally identified themselves with the majority Sinhala Buddhists on language and religion. The minorities were aligned to the UNP because the market economic policies of the UNP afforded opportunities for free enterprise. As long as there was no threat to their basic rights, the minorities were willing to go along with policies that were to the advantage of majority race. Thus minorities, who were under-represented in the government and other institutions, needed the UNP to further their livelihood through private enterprise and the informal sector.

Clearly the policies of both these parties sought to limit the mobility of the minorities, on lines of language. Separate Muslim and Tamil schools were created. Existing popular schools became Buddhist schools overnight. Politicization of the state led to employment opportunities being dished out on party lines and therefore by default on racial lines. While the minorities make nearly 25 per cent of the population, their representation in government is well below par. The minorities therefore were kept away from matters of the state by the unstated policy of majoritarian appeasement.

The enactment of the 1978 constitutional changes institutionalized some of the fears of the minorities. The new constitution however created a window of opportunity for the representation of the minority voice in parliament. This was a voice in the wilderness as over the years, the majority party leaders failed to take cognizance of the aspirations of the minorities. For the first time, those disillusioned with the centre had a choice. A significant number of minority voters flocked to these parties and embraced the new reality with boundless enthusiasm. However the inability of these parties to articulate minority concerns has resulted in further disenchantment, and in the case of Tamils, militancy.

The 1978 Constitution also paved the way for other fringe parties with extremist views. These parties saw their opportunity and aligned themselves with majoritarian politics.

The SLMC and TNA are ramifications of half a century of ethnocentric mainstream politics and seek to win their due rights (meaning the minorities) based on race. The CWC may perhaps be the exception. These three parties face the same challenges. One such challenge faced by the minorities is gaining acceptance as serious entities that protect the rights of minorities, instead of being perceived as racist, communal minded parties.

Internal squabbles apart; the SLMC is perhaps the most desecrated minority party because of its commitment to pursue the rights of the Muslim minority.

The Muslims, wherever they live, have over the years sought to integrate with the Sinhala and Tamil communities. The Tamils believe a common identity based on “language” binds the Muslims with them. While Tamil may be a shared language the Muslims remain a distinct ethno –religious minority. Despite a few cultural commonalities across the two communities, ideologically the Muslims have always looked to inclusion and accommodation within the mainstream political parties. They are also an economically active enterprising group and need unfettered access to opportunities for growth. That in essence is Muslim politics.

Just as much as the Muslim polity is dispersed so are their political realities. The Muslim people of the Eastern province have their own unique challenges. Their greatest tragedy is that they live in the midst of another community that has taken to arms and the inability of both sides to the conflict to see the Muslims as a neutral player, and the unwillingness to treat the Muslims as a community that has no truck with militancy, on either side of the political divide. Thus both the Tamils and Sinhalese mistrust the Muslims of the East. There is another section of elite urban Muslims, who share cosmopolitan values and have aspirations of a secular pluralistic Sri Lanka. They have always stayed with the mainstream political parties, and voted with the majority supporting either the SLFP or the UNP and their affiliated political parties. These are the Muslims who elect Mohammed, Fouzie and Bakir Markar to parliament. The vast majority of the voiceless rural Muslim poor. These are simple people, easily manipulated and most alienated both economically and politically.

As the minorities move away from the centre, due to limited avenues for participation in state craft, feelings of alienation from the state and isolation etc become paramount. The inability of the minority parties to fulfill their aspirations, allow informal institutions step into the vacuum thus created. Therefore while there is a clear role for minority parties, the question remains if they have been able to settle and occupy the vacuum created by the lack of political maturity among the mainstream parties.

Let me illustrate this point taking into context the needs of the urban and rural Muslims. There is a severe drop, in the number of Muslim students (nearly 10,000 according to Rauf Hakeem the SLMC leader) enrolling in government schools in Colombo. Parents apparently are unhappy with the quality of the education provided to the Muslim students in the racially segregated (or more politically correct) Muslim Schools, preferring to admit their children to private English medium schools. These Muslim parents are undergoing immense hardships and deprivation in order to provide their children the education that will give them an equal opportunity to compete in the global job market. The state unfortunately does not play a role and the Muslim people have found an alternative of their own.

Another facet that illustrates the frustrations and the alienated mindset of young rural Muslim youth is reflected in their aspiration to go to the Middle East to find employment. A large number of Muslim men and women work in the Middle East. Again numbers will be disproportionately high for the minorities. Often large sums of money are paid to unscrupulous agents to secure these jobs.

A final point that demonstrates the inability of the government to meet the needs of Muslims in general is in banking. Muslims abhor the concept of interest. Sharia decrees that Muslims play an active role in sharing the risks involved in financial transactions. Many western countries have recognized this need and have introduced Islamic Banking legislation including the UK. If Sri Lanka is to bring its Muslim minority into the mainstream it must help set up the required institutions speedily. If not the Muslims will use more and more informal channels for their banking needs.

If the government has failed the minorities, they have failed the majority even more, by failing to address the aspirations of the mainstream communities, and putting down two uprisings with unmitigated brutality. The findings of the Presidential Commission on Youth unrest address these issues.

The majority community suffers from as much insecurity as the minorities, some imagined and others real. While there is no point involving in polemics about imaginary insecurities, deficiencies in economic inequality among the rural populace is real. The perception that the Sinhalese are a Pan-Indian regional minority is real. The need to establish a Sinhala Buddhist identity is only a manifestation of this. Therefore, a majority that feels it is under siege will feel threatened when minorities assert their rightful place, and usurp what little the majority has gained politically. This particularly so given the wave of sympathy the Tamil minority has elicited in Tamil Nadu. The positional politics of the minorities, by virtue of the fact that it is assertive and affirmative, reinforces this fear and will not achieve anything substantive for the minority groups.

If rights based politics are untenable with entrenched ethnocentric majoritarianism, what other options are available that would meet the twin aspirations of pluralism and ethno-cultural identity of the minorities? Is the scenario of majoritarian exclusivity inevitable or is there a strategic role that minority parties can play so that a joint path to equality with self-respect and dignity can be forged ahead?

To understand the contextual political opportunities, it’s important to revisit the failed ideology of the mainstream political parties. The majority mainstream political parties would like to assimilate the minorities and make the minorities “one among us”. Others would like to throw in a bit here and a bit there and follow a policy of minority appeasement and accommodation, whereas the minorities seek to live with dignity, self-respect and equal opportunity. However the challenges the country faces stem from two fundamental issues of recognition and distribution. If we are to move on as a nation we must stop harking back to and re-enacting the inequalities of the past and instead embrace the progressive politics of the future. This future can be only built on the principle (according to the Canadian Philosopher Charles Taylor) of respect for the individual and recognition of the unique identify of that individual. “Equal recognition is not just the appropriate mode for a healthy democratic society. Its refusal can inflict damage on those who are denied it …. The projection of an inferior or demeaning image on another can actually distort and oppress, to the extent that the image is internalized (CT 1994).”

The question then is “Can a party such as SLMC rise above some of the intractable issues and focus on the larger issues that affect the total Sri Lankan polity?” If the SLMC does see such a role, it can bring the other minority political parties together on a common platform. Thus far we see the aspirations and the fears of the minorities as presented by the needs of the Muslim minority are justified. We also see that based on the current widening positions, and the fact that the politics of majoritarianism seeks to protect the majority community from the perceived inequities in sharing economic benefits of our country; political posturing on regaining rights may not be the solution.

If equity, social and distributive justice in a multicultural pluralistic society is the aim, the minority parties can fire the first salvo and thus be the harbingers of change. The TNA, CWC and the SLMC can be the drivers of sound policy, and good governance. These parties can work together to remove social inequality, and establish the required institutions with the right checks and balances needed to take this country forward. When the minority parties move away from the mindset of the victims, who seek to restore purported past injustices and take to activist politics the majority will take note, and change sure will come to our beleaguered nation.