Present-day Sri Lanka has got a leadership that it wanted, and which reflects the sentiments of the larger Sri Lankan population – as witnessed in the presidential polls of 2005. It was like the choice of other Presidents at other times in the nation's history. They too reflected the moods and methods of the society they lived in and that they led and represented.
____________________
by N. Sathiyamoorthy
(June 16, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) It is a sad commentary on contemporary Sri Lanka that the endless discourses and debates on the ethnic issue, war and violence often tend to taper off with inevitable references to human rights violations, autocratic attitudes and authoritarian approaches. Such references however do not stop with the issue on hand, but tend to overflow into other walks of life, polity and society as a whole.
This is not the first time it is happening. Nor may it be the last occasion. But unlike in the past, critics of authoritarian behaviour on the part of the Sri Lankan State do not stop with the arms and institutions of the State, or the Government as an institution. They have now begun personifying the same in President Mahinda Rajapaksa.
It is another matter that most charges thus laid against the Sri Lankan State and the persona that represent it at different times could be laid also at the doors of the LTTE leadership that is conducting the long drawn-out ethnic war, terror strikes and guerrilla attacks. But the State is expected to be more responsible in such matters, and unfortunately, the varied moral and legal yardsticks that are applied to such cases make exception the rule for guerrilla organizations in similar circumstances or worse.
It is not as if the history of ethnic issue was shorn of charges of authoritarianism and autocracy. At an early stage in the career, the charge used to be leveled at the Sinhala polity in general. Those charges continue till date whenever a political solution is discussed and the methodology for implementation gets debated. "You cannot trust the Sinhala politicians," is the not-so-uncommon refrain of a substantial section of the Tamil polity, academic community and society at large.Individual political leaders were seen only as personification of an attitude.
With such individuals at the helm, the charges would target the Sri Lankan armed forces and the police for resorting to a high degree of human rights violations, like torture, custodial death(s) and planned killings, often bordering on State-sponsored genocide. The 'anti-Tamil pogrom' of 1983, which started off the unending war and violence, too was seen as a part thereof.
On the last mentioned occasion in particular, critics had charged the Sri Lankan State and the Government of President J R Jayewardene with complicity, not conspiracy, per se. It was true of the 'Galle Face Green' attack on peaceful Tamil protestors when Parliament was debating the 'Sinhala Only' law in the mid-Fifties.Today, in contrast, the charges leveled against the Government are more direct. The alleged involvement of those in authority too has come to be personalized even more.
In all this, the charges relating to autocratic behaviour on the part of individuals close to President Mahinda Rajapaksa have begun covering a canvas broader than the 'ethnic issue'. Political opponents of the President have also begun charging him with authoritarian behaviour, bordering on dictatorship of a democratic kind.
Similar charges had been laid against other Presidents and Prime Ministers in their time, to varying degrees. If true, such behaviour on the part of the men in authority has had the mandate of the letter of the law and Constitution. Or, so it would seem However, none of them served or sub-served the spirit of the Constitution, or the larger mandate of democracy, the latter being a corner-stone of the former. The Constitution being the fountain-head of all powers resting with individual institutions and authorities in the political administration of the country, the 'unitary' nature of the Constitution cannot be overlooked, either.
The JVP critic of President Rajapaksa in particular needs to ask itself the question. If the answer is "Yes', then it will have to work towards restructuring the institution from which such authoritarian attitude and behaviour flow. It is more so in the context of the JVP wanting to challenge the dissolution of the North-Central and Sabaragamuva Provincial Councils, in the Supreme Court.
It is the 'unitary Constitution' that has empowered the President in the matter, just as it has empowered the presidency to similarly dissolve Parliament. Charges of misuse and abuse of the provisions abound.
In contrast in neighbouring India, with a quasi-federal constitutional scheme, the Supreme Court ordered against the creation of a 'constitutionally-sanctioned dictatorship' through such dissolution of Parliament (U N R Rao vs Indira Gandhi, 1971). Diluting the presidential powers in Sri Lanka in this and similar other matters would contribute to making it sound 'federal' – which is what JVP's opposition to the dissolution of two Provincial Councils would imply. It is possible that supporters of the 'unitary State' theory are convinced that the problem lies not with the system but with the individuals in office. The same is true of 'federalism', or even a 'confederate State', both of which they abhor for Sri Lanka, branding the system as faulty. Otherwise, nations and peoples get the polity and governments they deserve. No purpose would be served by blaming the individual or the system for the ills of the society. The society needs to look itself in the mirror for answers, instead.
Present-day Sri Lanka has got a leadership that it wanted, and which reflects the sentiments of the larger Sri Lankan population – as witnessed in the presidential polls of 2005. It was like the choice of other Presidents at other times in the nation's history. They too reflected the moods and methods of the society they lived in and that they led and represented.
These are all inevitable parts of the trickle-down effects associated with the democratic process. Sri Lanka inherited an elite political leadership when the British ruler left the shores without any real demand or protest from the locals. The transition was smooth also because the new leadership represented continuity, not necessary change – as witnessed in most other one-time colonized nations. The latter had to fight for their freedom. This does not mean that they did not have agendas near-similar to the accusations leveled at the current leadership. Their elitist methods could and did divine elitist ways of targeting political opponents. Ethnicity had nothing to do with it, either. Nor had the ethnic issue which was already reaching the boiling-point however. Faced with a formidable opposition from the politically entrenched Sirimavo Bandaranaike and her SLFP, which still captured the imagination of a substantial section of the population, President Jayewardene and his ruling UNP at the time disenfranchised her. Though on a specific charge, it was Chandrika Kumaratunga Government that saw to S B Dissanayake continuing in prison for contempt of court. She did not use the presidential mandate to have him released, as Rajapaksa would do in his time, later.
CBK's sacking of three ministers, that too when then Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe was away on a foreign tour, that too in the all-important US, fell into a pattern. So was Ranil's unwillingness to share the details of the CFA negotiations and P-TOMS arrangements with his President. The subsequent sidelining of Mangala Samaraweera in Rajapaksa's had already been written into the script.
Be it JRJ, CBK, or Ranil, they approached their political problems in elitist ways. They came up with elitist ways of finding political solutions. In the less rarified atmosphere that is beginning to take roots in the post-elitist evolution of elitist polity, aberrations of the kind would occur, and recur, too. Using elitist yardsticks to understand or evaluate the same would only leave huge gaps in such understanding. The evolutionary process may throw up new faces and new attitudes in the upcoming years and decades. It could well then be for the urban elite – academics and media included – to redefine their own definitions, for them to be able to see the clear sky, clouded by their current vision that owes to their own past.
The current state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue. But using the yardsticks of a fading past to measure the emerging future would take them nowhere. They have to learn their a,b,c afresh if they have to make sense out of such terms as 'autocracy', 'bias' and 'political conspiracy'.
The solution has to come from within. The solution-provider thus would have to come from within, too. Those standing outside and wanting to be a part of the solution would then need to study and understand the processes before being able to work out soluions.
____________________
by N. Sathiyamoorthy
(June 16, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) It is a sad commentary on contemporary Sri Lanka that the endless discourses and debates on the ethnic issue, war and violence often tend to taper off with inevitable references to human rights violations, autocratic attitudes and authoritarian approaches. Such references however do not stop with the issue on hand, but tend to overflow into other walks of life, polity and society as a whole.
This is not the first time it is happening. Nor may it be the last occasion. But unlike in the past, critics of authoritarian behaviour on the part of the Sri Lankan State do not stop with the arms and institutions of the State, or the Government as an institution. They have now begun personifying the same in President Mahinda Rajapaksa.
It is another matter that most charges thus laid against the Sri Lankan State and the persona that represent it at different times could be laid also at the doors of the LTTE leadership that is conducting the long drawn-out ethnic war, terror strikes and guerrilla attacks. But the State is expected to be more responsible in such matters, and unfortunately, the varied moral and legal yardsticks that are applied to such cases make exception the rule for guerrilla organizations in similar circumstances or worse.
It is not as if the history of ethnic issue was shorn of charges of authoritarianism and autocracy. At an early stage in the career, the charge used to be leveled at the Sinhala polity in general. Those charges continue till date whenever a political solution is discussed and the methodology for implementation gets debated. "You cannot trust the Sinhala politicians," is the not-so-uncommon refrain of a substantial section of the Tamil polity, academic community and society at large.Individual political leaders were seen only as personification of an attitude.
With such individuals at the helm, the charges would target the Sri Lankan armed forces and the police for resorting to a high degree of human rights violations, like torture, custodial death(s) and planned killings, often bordering on State-sponsored genocide. The 'anti-Tamil pogrom' of 1983, which started off the unending war and violence, too was seen as a part thereof.
On the last mentioned occasion in particular, critics had charged the Sri Lankan State and the Government of President J R Jayewardene with complicity, not conspiracy, per se. It was true of the 'Galle Face Green' attack on peaceful Tamil protestors when Parliament was debating the 'Sinhala Only' law in the mid-Fifties.Today, in contrast, the charges leveled against the Government are more direct. The alleged involvement of those in authority too has come to be personalized even more.
In all this, the charges relating to autocratic behaviour on the part of individuals close to President Mahinda Rajapaksa have begun covering a canvas broader than the 'ethnic issue'. Political opponents of the President have also begun charging him with authoritarian behaviour, bordering on dictatorship of a democratic kind.
Similar charges had been laid against other Presidents and Prime Ministers in their time, to varying degrees. If true, such behaviour on the part of the men in authority has had the mandate of the letter of the law and Constitution. Or, so it would seem However, none of them served or sub-served the spirit of the Constitution, or the larger mandate of democracy, the latter being a corner-stone of the former. The Constitution being the fountain-head of all powers resting with individual institutions and authorities in the political administration of the country, the 'unitary' nature of the Constitution cannot be overlooked, either.
The JVP critic of President Rajapaksa in particular needs to ask itself the question. If the answer is "Yes', then it will have to work towards restructuring the institution from which such authoritarian attitude and behaviour flow. It is more so in the context of the JVP wanting to challenge the dissolution of the North-Central and Sabaragamuva Provincial Councils, in the Supreme Court.
It is the 'unitary Constitution' that has empowered the President in the matter, just as it has empowered the presidency to similarly dissolve Parliament. Charges of misuse and abuse of the provisions abound.
In contrast in neighbouring India, with a quasi-federal constitutional scheme, the Supreme Court ordered against the creation of a 'constitutionally-sanctioned dictatorship' through such dissolution of Parliament (U N R Rao vs Indira Gandhi, 1971). Diluting the presidential powers in Sri Lanka in this and similar other matters would contribute to making it sound 'federal' – which is what JVP's opposition to the dissolution of two Provincial Councils would imply. It is possible that supporters of the 'unitary State' theory are convinced that the problem lies not with the system but with the individuals in office. The same is true of 'federalism', or even a 'confederate State', both of which they abhor for Sri Lanka, branding the system as faulty. Otherwise, nations and peoples get the polity and governments they deserve. No purpose would be served by blaming the individual or the system for the ills of the society. The society needs to look itself in the mirror for answers, instead.
Present-day Sri Lanka has got a leadership that it wanted, and which reflects the sentiments of the larger Sri Lankan population – as witnessed in the presidential polls of 2005. It was like the choice of other Presidents at other times in the nation's history. They too reflected the moods and methods of the society they lived in and that they led and represented.
These are all inevitable parts of the trickle-down effects associated with the democratic process. Sri Lanka inherited an elite political leadership when the British ruler left the shores without any real demand or protest from the locals. The transition was smooth also because the new leadership represented continuity, not necessary change – as witnessed in most other one-time colonized nations. The latter had to fight for their freedom. This does not mean that they did not have agendas near-similar to the accusations leveled at the current leadership. Their elitist methods could and did divine elitist ways of targeting political opponents. Ethnicity had nothing to do with it, either. Nor had the ethnic issue which was already reaching the boiling-point however. Faced with a formidable opposition from the politically entrenched Sirimavo Bandaranaike and her SLFP, which still captured the imagination of a substantial section of the population, President Jayewardene and his ruling UNP at the time disenfranchised her. Though on a specific charge, it was Chandrika Kumaratunga Government that saw to S B Dissanayake continuing in prison for contempt of court. She did not use the presidential mandate to have him released, as Rajapaksa would do in his time, later.
CBK's sacking of three ministers, that too when then Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe was away on a foreign tour, that too in the all-important US, fell into a pattern. So was Ranil's unwillingness to share the details of the CFA negotiations and P-TOMS arrangements with his President. The subsequent sidelining of Mangala Samaraweera in Rajapaksa's had already been written into the script.
Be it JRJ, CBK, or Ranil, they approached their political problems in elitist ways. They came up with elitist ways of finding political solutions. In the less rarified atmosphere that is beginning to take roots in the post-elitist evolution of elitist polity, aberrations of the kind would occur, and recur, too. Using elitist yardsticks to understand or evaluate the same would only leave huge gaps in such understanding. The evolutionary process may throw up new faces and new attitudes in the upcoming years and decades. It could well then be for the urban elite – academics and media included – to redefine their own definitions, for them to be able to see the clear sky, clouded by their current vision that owes to their own past.
The current state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue. But using the yardsticks of a fading past to measure the emerging future would take them nowhere. They have to learn their a,b,c afresh if they have to make sense out of such terms as 'autocracy', 'bias' and 'political conspiracy'.
The solution has to come from within. The solution-provider thus would have to come from within, too. Those standing outside and wanting to be a part of the solution would then need to study and understand the processes before being able to work out soluions.
Acceptance of ground realities and changes has to precede criticism and suggestions. It is a difficult process for anyone entrenched in personal perceptions. It is more so in the case of contemporary Sri Lanka, where perceptions are influenced by static factors like the 'ethnic issue' that has dynamism of its own.
It has happened elsewhere, too. Sri Lanka is thus no exception. In most, if not all such cases, it took the entrenched elitist class time to revisit its traditional priorities and positions, and reverse the, where required. But, it happened after all. That is what matters the most.
In many such cases however the elite sections of the polity and society found themselves swept away by the needs and vagaries of Time before they could understand what was happening and began appreciating, if not adjusting themselves, to such changes.
The 'ethnic issue' has dominated the political discourse, constitutional debates, judicial actions and societal interactions in contemporary Sri Lanka. It has thus dominated the political discourse on such rarified fronts as human rights and autocracy.
To conclude that autocratic or authoritarian behaviour is attributable to a lone individual or a group, and not to others in their place is an anomaly that could come unstuck after a time. Instead, it is an attitude that could out-live the ethnic issue – just as it had out-lived other issues, be in Sri Lanka or elsewhere.
( The writer is Director, Chennai Chapter of Observer Research Foundation (ORF), the Indian policy think-tank headquartered in New Delhi. )
- Sri Lanka Guardian
Post a Comment