By Dr. S. Narapalasingam
With the resumption of the war early 2006, the twists and turns in the political process with a military component have exposed the confusing and contradictory roles of the egoists, fanatics, terrorists and pseudo patriots in turbulent Sri Lanka. Their rhetoric and actions are damaging not only the prospects for securing lasting peace but also the future of Sri Lanka as a stable democratic socialist country. The people in all communities-Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims also face an uncertain future. This is largely due to inaction on several matters critical to good governance, rule of law, human rights, civil liberty, ethnic harmony and in general a peaceful environment for promoting socio-economic development. The basic sociopolitical problems that retarded economic growth and development of the entire country since independence continue unabatedly. The poor people are compelled to seek menial jobs outside the country to support their families. A sizeable proportion of the population still lives below the poverty line. The severity of the problems facing the entire nation is not realized by many citizens, while some in powerful positions have other urgent matters to attend.
The ongoing military operations are aimed at eliminating the LTTE now branded as terrorists by the Sri Lankan government. The rebel group remains banned in several countries including India. The fund raising activities of the front organizations are also banned now. There is now increasing realization among Tamils that both the aim and the violent methods of the Tamil Tigers used to gain control over the region claimed as the homeland of the Tamils are damaging to the future of Tamils in Sri Lanka. Although there is no fixed definition of terrorism, it certainly apples to acts of abduction, killing and threat directed at unarmed civilians by any armed group.
The targeting of unarmed Tamil civilians including politicians, professionals, aid workers, human rights defenders and journalists on the presumption they are potential terrorists or supporters of terrorism cannot be condoned as inevitable in the ‘war on terror.’ Following some civilian casualties inside rebel held territory the LTTE too accused the government forces of engaging in ‘terrorism’. The horrendous experience of former UNP Deputy Minister and Moneragala District Parliamentarian Jayasundara Wijeykoon who went missing for four days confirms the presence of different bands of terrorists. After his release from captivity he told the Daily Mirror from his Asiri Hospital bed on March 9 that the torture, death threats and other forms of intimidation he experienced was “yet another act of terrorism.” The intention of the gang was to force him admit connection with terrorists and having weapons. During the past two years, the majority of the victims of terrorism have been Tamil civilians. In most cases, the Tamil Tigers were not the culprits but others within and outside the defence establishment.
Inapt political system
In Sri Lanka, politics is largely a means to safeguard and serve the interests of the democratically elected government. Any one who has a liberal view becomes a traitor to the extremists. Jehan Perera, Executive Director of the National Peace Council in his weekly column in the Daily Mirror reported, while he was jogging in the park one early morning some one called him “traitor, traitor” His response in the same article was: “This was a person giving vent to a primeval passion.” He also observed: “The present period can be considered the worst ever in the post-independence history of Sri Lanka where it concerns a mutually acceptable solution to the ethnic conflict”. Those who make loud noises are ill informed bigoted persons with some grudge and/or seeking power by appealing to the people’s emotions. The shocking thing is the government is unconcerned about this development. Perhaps the leaders think this would help them in continuing speedily with their political agenda.
In the current context, patriotism means loyalty to the political cause of its advocates. It has no national significance, if the word ‘national’ means citizens of all ethnic communities in all parts of the country. It is not surprising there are many causes given that the Society is divided ethnically, regionally and politically. The divisions resulted from the inapt political system and the breed of leaders who came to the fore after independence mainly with short-term narrow interests. They did not have the conviction and the determination to act in the wide interest of all citizens and the long-term interest of the country. It is the reluctance to accept the concept of one democratic multi-ethnic society with equal rights for all citizens and the lack of political will and forward-thinking that has brought the country to the present tragic state.
The main weaknesses in the political system introduced by the narrow-minded leaders, who were concerned more about exercising political power for their benefit than for the well-being of the entire population, are now increasingly apparent following the present government’s tactical moves to consolidate and keep hold of governing power. The system is not suitable for observing good governance, the rule of law and nurturing an environment for peace and progress throughout the country. The system, as intended by the past leaders can be easily manipulated to protect or serve the current interests of the government.
Lack of political will and forward-thinking
The glaring contradictions between declared aims and subsequent actions or inaction have become intrinsic to the political process in Sri Lanka. In so far as the country and the disadvantaged people are concerned this is a vicious circle. The disappointments are not confined only to election promises. The non-implementation of many legislative Acts and official policies is also a part of the power-centered political process. Some were supposed to rectify the past mistakes but these remained uncorrected because of inaction. The damage to the unity, peace, stability and sustained development of the economy continued unabatedly. The amendment to the official language Act is a classic case of the indifference of political leadership. Tamil is also an official language only on paper.
After nearly 5 decades of teaching children exclusively in their mother tongue with Sinhala only as the official language, the importance of teaching in English not only science but also arts subjects has now been recognized. How soon and to want extent this will be implemented remains to be seen Children should definitely learn their own native languages but not at the cost of abandoning English widely accepted as an international language. It was blind nationalism that ignored the importance of learning a foreign language. Even the school curriculum was changed without foresight, ignoring the future of children in the new world. Changes in the local demand for different skills were also ignored. Vocational education did not get the importance it deserved. The tragedy was that the education system promoted divisions in the society. The importance of education in social advancement and national integration is well known. But this was overlooked by our political leaders. The country has a high literacy rate but this has not had much practical usefulness, especially in socio-economic development.
The Chief Justice Sarath N Silva, addressing the inaugural ceremony of the Law Students’ Union at the Law College auditorium on March 11 said that the Government, in 1956, made Sinhala the official Language within 24 hours. In the same manner, the English Language should once again be exalted to its earlier position. By making Sinhala the official language, hatred and enmity were spread among the Tamils and other ethnic groups, as they were not given their due place. There is increasing realization in some segments of the civil society that past policies have damaged the well-being of the people and the unity and advancement of the island nation but yet there is no political will to bring about the vitally needed changes.
The present muddled conditions in Sri Lanka with no sign of determined efforts to settle the Tamil problem permanently are apparent from the various groups operating outside the military establishment masquerading as patriots. The war itself has taken a different name as ‘war on terror’ and no one refers to it as Eelam war. This has dissuaded the international community from protesting against the war. The protest is against human rights violations. All sensible persons know there is no military solution to the ethnic problem and that a political settlement is necessary for lasting peace. Here too the lack of political will is delaying the process.
Almost every aspect of governance is politicized to further and protect the interests of those wielding power. The war has also helped to contain the discontent of the masses on the hardships they are experiencing as a result of rise in the prices of essential items. The current rate of inflation is over 20 per cent. The much touted 7.4 per cent growth rate is meaningless for the millions struggling to make ends meet. People also have difficulties with Grade I school admissions. Recently, school teachers went on strike and the Chief Justice expressed the view they deserve to be caned! School principals are reported to have taken bribes to admit children to their schools. Doctors and nurses too are protesting over their working conditions. In some purely administrative decisions that violated the fundamental rights of victims, redress was sought through the Supreme Court. Not all affected persons have the means to seek this remedy.
Another glaring weakness in decision-making at the Cabinet level is the failure to come up with balanced decisions on national issues taking into consideration the concerns and aspirations of all ethnic communities as well as the short-term and long-term gains and losses. The current scenario is different mainly because of the daring ways the damaging decisions are being made and the weak excuses given for changing the earlier positions or delaying the promised decisions. These were clearly evident in the work of the All Party Representative Committee (APRC) and the Expert Panel set up earlier to assist in preparing a set of proposals for constitutional reform aimed at settling permanently the protracted ethnic problem. While the APRC process was in progress, current needs of the President gained precedence over the political settlement of the national problem. The (majority) report of the Expert Panel was rejected and also that of the APRC Chairman that fused the recommendations in the majority and minority reports. It appears that the constitutional experts have no independent role in this process because of the altered decision to go for some political arrangement within the present divisive constitution.
Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne, who functioned as constitutional advisor in the Ministry of Constitutional Affairs and a member of the Expert Panel resigned from his government post earlier this month, saying the government has no intention of devolving power beyond what is possible under the present constitution-the 13th Amendment. He is reported (March 2) to have told the IANS correspondent P. K. Balachandran the 13th Amendment cannot be a solution to the ethnic question. This is also the view of the APRC chairman. Dr. Wickramaratne pointed out that only political will is required for its full implementation of 13th Amendment. The authority to implement came on the very day it became part of the Constitution. Although not stated specifically, what is possible now depends on the consent the Sinhala nationalists who are close to the President. This connection was evident from the anti-devolution stance of the Sinhala nationalist parties in the APRC and the subsequent decision of the President to stay within the 13th Amendment.
13th and 17th Amendments
Since 1972 when the first constitution of the Republic of Sri Lanka was adopted, democracy has been undermined mainly because of the absence of adequate checks and balances to ensure that the sovereign power of the people are used for their present and future well-being. These are also necessary for safeguarding human rights, minority rights, multi-ethnic and regional character of the nation and its unity. The effective functioning of democracy depends crucially on the restraints that prevent the abuse of the power of the people by their representatives in the government and their ill thought hasty decisions that would later harm any section of the society and/or the future of the country.
The democratic system of government differs fundamentally from dictatorship in that this system the supreme power of the people is exercised by their representatives chosen through the process of free and fair elections. Democratically elected government does not necessarily mean the government functions democratically. Democracy in government depends on ways decisions are made and implemented. Accountability is a basic requirement. The power of the people delegated to their representatives is for safeguarding their interests and striving towards meeting their needs and aspirations within a national frame. This is laid down by the country’s constitution. What happened in Sri Lanka after 1972 was the opposite. The 1972 and 1978 constitutions were drafted mainly from a partisan perspective to exercise power according to the political agendas of the then powerful leaders. Nevertheless any constitution after formal approval becomes the supreme law of the land. All persons elected or appointed to serve the country and the people as lawmakers, judicial officers or executives are legally obliged to act accordingly. The decision-makers have taken the oath of allegiance to the constitution which is a prerequisite for the assumption of power and responsibility. Power without responsibility exists only in the animal kingdom. One cannot take the oath excluding any amendment to the constitution. For example the sixth amendment was not supported by the Tamil political parties but it is accepted as part of the present constitution of Sri Lanka. The Tamil parliamentarians cannot claim they have taken the oath only for those provisions acceptable to them.
The JVP now says it does not accept the 13th Amendment as it was imposed under the 1987 Indo-Lanka Accord. The 38 JVP parliamentarians did not swear allegiance to the constitution sans the 13th Amendment. It is unclear whether the JVP’s opposition to devolution is intrinsic to their socialist ideology or a stratagem to win more votes. The President as head of the State, head of the government and head of the armed forces should be in the forefront leading the country according to the existing supreme law. If any part of the constitution is objectionable then suitable amendment should me made. Until such time this remains lawful and seeking the recommendation of a committee as well as soliciting the support of the main opposition party for implementing the 13th Amendment are unusual and unnecessary moves.
The interview with the APRC Chairman Prof. Tissa Vitharana (Sunday Observer 9 March 2008) gives an insight of the forces that have been hindering the task originally assigned to the Committee. Two remarks he made are relevant here.
(i) “The 1978 Constitution has led to a big gap between the people and the elected representatives. The situation what we are experiencing is a breakdown of proper governance because of the fault of the 1978 constitution”.
(ii) “As a socialist party they (JVP) should be for devolution. And it is only through devolution that we can give power to the people. If they are genuine they should support devolution. But look at what they are doing now. They are participating in the provincial councils and their members are enjoying the benefits of power that has been devolved to the provinces. If they are against this system they must withdraw from the provincial councils. So I cannot understand their logic of what they are doing and saying and also allegation that the whole process is done under the pressure of India”.
The JVP has taken a negative approach to achieve its political goal, similar to that of the LTTE except for the fact it abandoned violence after the tragic experiences of the early 70s and late 80s and joined the ongoing contest for power through the ballot. The electoral system is also flawed and does not serve democracy. There is no direct link between the parliamentarian and the people because of the district basis and the proportional system of selection. Responsibility to the electorate is also diffused.
Devolution of powers strengthens democracy especially in those cases where the power of the people is found to be not exercised uniformly for the benefit of the people in different regions according to their needs and aspirations. With devolved powers regional development will also be quicker and beneficial for the local residents. Regional development is generally a component of National development plans. The integration is done by the national commission in consultation with regional bodies. Thus both democracy and development processes are promoted by devolution. In the good old days, civics was taught in secondary schools as a separate subject. Students learned about the concept, principles and functioning of democracy. There is a case for including this subject in the school curriculum.
Dr. A. C. Visvalingam, President, Citizens’ Movement for Good Governance in his analysis–’Violating the Constitution’ (The Island 11 March 2008)-has described how the 17th Amendment originated and was unanimously approved. Successive Presidents unscrupulously exploited their powers under the 1978 Constitution to satisfy their highly personal agendas, creating serious apprehensions in the minds of concerned citizens. In the year 2000, a proactive group within the 35,000-strong Organisation of Professional Associations (OPA) decided that something should be done to curtail the misuse of political power bestowed to the Executive President. As a first step, the OPA drafted an amendment to the Constitution that would go some way to ensure only capable and honest persons would be appointed to all important State posts. This initiative was strongly resisted by many in Parliament but the JVP decided to back it and, to the surprise of all concerned. Parliament unanimously passed the 17th Amendment to the Constitution in 2001; it was a rather watered-down version of the OPA proposal but was, nevertheless, a giant step forward.
No problem was encountered in constituting the first ten-member Constitutional Council (CC) in 2002. The CC was able to recommend for appointment by the President many persons of good repute and distinction to the various national commissions such as the Public Service Commission and the Police Commission, but “President Kumaratunga thought nothing of violating the Constitution when she refused to appoint members to the Elections Commission because she objected to one of the names that were recommended, even though she did not have any right to do so.” Once the term of a majority of the members of the first CC came to an end, steps were initiated to appoint new members but no finality was achieved because the “minor” parties could not agree on who should be the tenth member. Despite much urging by worried citizens over the past two years and more for different reasons or rather lame excuses the CC has not been constituted. “President Rajapaksa has made full use of this unresolved impasse to pack the various Commissions which come under the aegis of the CC with persons whom he has personally selected, their main qualification being their expected willingness to do whatever the President wants them to do”.
Now, there is a move to modify the 17th Amendment to suit the present government’s interests. The same approach to constitution making taken in 1972 and 1978 continues even after the disastrous experience of the past many decades that deprived peace, progress and prosperity to the country and the vast majority of her citizens. Apparently, there is absolutely no sense of urgency for those whose main interest is political power; they are engrossed in playing their usual game while the nation is proverbially burning.
At least there has been some foresight in anticipating this kind of eventuality. This is evident from Article 35 (l) of the Constitution which Dr. Visvalingam has aptly cited. It states: “While any person holds office as President, no proceedings shall be instituted or continued against him in any court or tribunal in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by him either in his official or private capacity”. Does the word ‘anything’ in the Article include violation of the constitution? All patriotic persons meaning devotion to the country and not some chauvinistic cause know that the present constitution is a major obstacle to stability, unity, peace and national development. Only the daydreamers will hope the politicians on their own initiative will jointly decide to make fundamental changes to the present divisive constitution.
Agitation of civil society groups
Sri Lankan civil society groups have warned that the government’s contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law could result in isolation by the donor community causing considerable economic hardship. There is the concern that the country is sliding down towards anarchy. The culture of violence with impunity has grown very fast with State patronage. The erosion of democratic and civil values is apparent to any normal person.
The head of the Organisation of Professional Associations (OPA) said the way established norms of good governance were being ignored and the interference with anti-corruption institutions augured ill for the future. The Sri Lankan branch of Transparency International, warned that the government was becoming increasing intolerant of criticism and was heading towards a dictatorship. Head of the Citizens Movement for Good Governance said “President Rajapaksa was acting in ‘complete contempt’ for the people by blocking attempts to activate independent institutions and interfering with the Bribery Commission by removing its director general for no valid reason.” The Free Media Movement said it was the government’s own abuse of power and disregard for the rule of law that was bringing Sri Lanka into disrepute internationally and not criticism of such abuses by civil society groups.
The Centre for Policy Alternatives has also warned that the government’s abuse of power could endanger critical economic concessions won from western governments giving access to their markets. The European Union’s GSP Plus scheme under which clothing, a key Sri Lankan export, and a host of other products, get duty free access is coming up for renewal by the end of 2008 and “the main requirement for Sri Lanka is to ratify and implement 27 international treaties, the main one being the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”. Although Sri Lanka is a signatory to these treaties, none have been sufficiently implemented. (Source: LBO report 5 March 2008-Sri Lanka drifting towards dictatorship: civil society). All concerned citizens must be anxiously waiting for the next move by civil society groups to save the country from another national disaster. Sri Lanka is already on the verge of being categorized as a failed state and unless steps are taken to reverse the present trend the country will soon be in this group.
[The writer is Former Additional Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, Sri Lanka and UN Advisor, Development Economics/Planning]
Ms. Campbell is the head of the EC’s unit overseeing Sri Lanka and other south Asian countries except India. Andrea Nicolaj is in-charge of the relations with Sri Lanka. Both represented the External Relations Directorate-General of the European Commission.