_________________________
by Dr. Siri Gamage
(May 27, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) We seem not to have learned the lessons of our recent history yet! The terrible events in the last few weeks, especially after Geneva talks held this year, show that the parties involved in the talks are not fully convinced that the path to peace lay in serious and cordial negotiations, rather than tit for tat violence. Both sides seem to have thought that by showing the "muscle of arms" they can convince the other side of their supremacy. What we saw from other governments and international agencies was the insistence to protect civilian lives and come to the negotiating table. They condemned suicide attacks.
Then they condemned the civilian casualties of aerial attacks. Sooner or later the parties need to settle down to discuss the core issues characterising the conflict more than the ceasefire agreement per se. If the President is keen to secure Southern consensus, he has to come up with a strategy for resolving the conflict. This needs to be discussed in the all party conferences to gain support in the first instance. Whether he achieves such consensus or not, he should be prepared to present a reasonable solution to the core issues of the conflict.
One area of contention is the devolution of power to the provinces, especially the north and east. What is the government's approach to this issue? What subjects are to be devolved and what are to be retained by the Centre. Does the government have a preferred model for power devolution? If so what are its features? What are its minimal and maximal positions on this issue? How far is the government ready to go on this issue? These are the details that need to be worked out by the Peace secretariat and all others involved on behalf of the government. As the government has won elections on a peace platform, it has an obligation to tell the people of Sri Lanka about the strategy and solution to the key issue affecting the country today. This requires the government to go beyond the rhetoric of Mahinda Chintana and unitary state and spell out in concrete details (but in simple language) the vision for a united Lanka.
If such a vision and strategy for resolving the North and East issue is spelled out, then the political temperature can reduce while parties involved will start reflecting on the merits and demerits of the strategy and the vision. At least as a first step, the government can present, in broad terms, the envisaged solution. It needs to work with its political allies the details of the broad solution. Without a serious proposal or a strategy for resolving the core issues, involved in the political conflict with the LTTE, I fear that many more lives will be lost and the political and social decay in the country will continue, while those with power and protection will go on with their regular activities, irrespective of the conflict. Another election will come in six years time and those seeking people's votes will still say they are for peace in the country. It is time to go beyond the rhetoric and concentrate on real issues and real solutions.
No doubt the solution has to be within a democratic framework of governance for all of Sri Lanka. A dialogue has to be started on the nature of the key pillars of democratic governance, within a united but devolved structure or system. What about the law and order aspect? Are we going to keep the same system or introduce changes with any seriousness so that the citizens -- irrespective of their standing can seek justice in a fairer system. Will there be any independent bodies to monitor the elections, senior appointments to the government, human rights violations? What about education and the medium of education? Is it advisable to teach English as the link language, and convert to teaching in English, or should some other method be used? The government needs to engage the LTTE (and other parties in the country) on these issues and develop a common vision and strategy for the whole of Sri Lanka. No doubt some will say that the LTTE is not for democracy. But we know that even in the South significant political reform is necessary to appease the population, who have been subjected to a centralised system of Presidential government for so long. A crucial question to address here is whether the government is going to keep this system or change it. If it is going to be changed, when and how? As long as we blame the other, and attempt to secure the moral high ground (which the LTTE is also doing in situations like this), our energies are directed in the wrong direction. Visionary leaders take unprecedented steps (often against the will of the majority) if they think it is the right thing to do to resolve a crisis. Past experiences show us that all party conferences were not helpful in resolving the crisis in Sri Lanka. They in fact delayed the process and provided a diversion from discussing core issues of the conflict with the main protaganist.
With or without the consent of the LTTE the government should be developing its own stance, vision, solution and strategy for resolving the political conflict. If it requires more time to do this, then the government should tell the people in Sri Lanka when it is able to present a proposal for resolving the conflict, i.e. three-six months?
(The writer is Senior Lecturer of Professional Development & Leadership Faculty of Education, Health and Professional Studies University of New England, Armidale NSW Australia. He is also a Member of the Centre for Research on Education in Context, Affiliate Fellow, UNE Asia Centre, and Australian Migration Research network.)
- Sri Lanka Guardian
Post a Comment