Reversing lessons learnt and reconciliation

by Jehan Perera

(August 17, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) It is ironic that at the same time as the government-appointed Commission on Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation has begun its public hearings, its reverse has taken the centre stage in the country. The lessons of the past were ignored and reconciliation for the future that embraces the entirety of the country suffered a major setback. A military tribunal recommended that former Army Commander General Sarath Fonseka be stripped of all his military ranks, honours and pension. This recommendation was accepted by President Mahinda Rajapaksa in his capacity of Commander-in-Chief of the Sri Lankan military forces.

The recommendation of the military tribunal to give General Fonseka such a severe punishment was on account of his involvement in politics while he was in military uniform. This case has been political from beginning to end and will, no doubt, continue to be dogged by politics. Key witnesses whose evidence was used against him are high officials in the government. The highly charged political environment, in which General Fonseka was first arrested shortly after he contested the Presidential Elections as the joint opposition candidate, and the protests by the opposition following his arrest, have made the political element predominate in this case.

There were many deficiencies in the military tribunal that General Fonseka alleged. That large section of the population who see in him a hero who played the key role in the defeat of the LTTE would probably concur in this view. This included charges that the military judges were all junior in rank to the General over whom they were sitting in judgment, and that they themselves had been subjected to military discipline during the tenure of General Fonseka as Army Commander. His lawyers protested that the military tribunal continued its hearings during the court vacation. General Fonseka had to appear before his accusers without his lawyers on the last three occasions before judgment was passed.

If there was an expectation that President Rajapaksa would utilize his power of discretion to soften or waive the recommendation of the military tribunal, it did not materialize. This would have been a major disappointment to the large section of the population who viewed General Fonseka as a genuine hero. The military tribunal left it to the President to make the final decision. This gave the President an opportunity to be magnanimous. The benevolent ruler is the ideal in Buddhist historiography. It is dear to the Sri Lankan ethos. But this opportunity was not taken.

Broader Canvass

The Commission on Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation has been required to investigate events that took place during a given a restricted time period. This has opened it to the criticism that its appointment is political rather than what its name suggests. The terms of reference of the Commission specify that it should investigate those events that took place between 2002 when the Ceasefire Agreement came into being and 2009 when the war finally came to its end. So far most of those who have testified or been invited to testify before the Commission have made critiques of the Ceasefire Agreement, the former government that signed it, and the international community. Those who could testify about what happened during the war have so far not made their presence felt.

If national reconciliation is to be truly the goal it is necessary to look at a broader canvass. Sri Lanka fell into the abyss of war not only because of a conflict between its two largest ethnic communities, but also because of repeated political failures. One of these was the inability of successive leaders of the government and opposition to forge a bipartisan consensus on the way to achieve national peace and reconciliation. Time and again, political leaders in opposition found ways to oppose what they themselves were prepared to propose while in government.

There was also the deliberate subversion of democratic norms and reneging on promises made. An example would be the coming to power of the government of 1977. The leaders of that government promised to convene an All Party Conference to resolve the ethnic conflict which by that time had started to become militarized. But instead of giving priority to dialogue and to consensus building, the leaders of that government decided to further weaken the opposition. The manner in which the all powerful J. R. Jayewardene government, which had a 5/6 majority in Parliament, treated the defeated opposition led by former Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike paved the way for national disasters that were to follow.

History will note that the decision of the government of President Jayewardene to strip Mrs Bandaranaike of her civic rights for alleged abuse of power during her tenure as Prime Minister set the country on a path of political polarization that made the ethnic conflict even worse. As it is today, the masses of people at that time, and opinion leaders too, were shocked and awed by the seemingly unlimited powers of that government. The government grew bolder in its impunity. The removal of Mrs Bandaranaike’s civic rights was followed by the infamous referendum of 1981. It deprived the country of general elections for five years. The anti Tamil riots of 1983 and JVP insurrection of 1988 cannot be dissociated from the earlier acts of impunity.

Checking Impunity

Today, Sarath Fonseka, who innovated new military strategies and led the Sri Lanka army to victory over the LTTE is in detention. He faces more military tribunals and civil courts. This one has stripped him of his military rank, honours and pension that came from a 40 year career as a soldier. Perhaps the government leaders believe that he would have done the same to them had he won the presidential election, or would do so, should he ever win. This may justify in their minds the need for total punishment.

During the Presidential election campaign, when it seemed that General Fonseka might even win the election, he, too, made several rash and crude assertions about what he would inflict upon his former governmental partners in winning the war who were now his political opponents. And so, it seems to have become a fight to the finish in the manner of a war. The way in which the government broke up the JVP demonstration in the city of Galle to protest against General Fonseka’s continued detention and the selective arrest of JVP Parliamentarians reportedly on orders from above is are signs that compromise is not in the offing.

It is often fear that causes people to do terrible things to one another, even when those things they do can come round to boomerang on them and be ultimately self-destructive. A civilized society, with its reservoirs of lessons learnt and its keepers of cultural traditions cannot let this happen. The DNA of which General Fonseka is the leader has announced that they will be appealing the court martial verdict in the Court of Appeal. Politics in this era of democracy is not about fighting to a finish. It is not a war against terrorism where any cost is counted as worth the price of total annihilation of the enemy. In democratic politics the desire to win and retain power has to be within a framework of checks and balances in which democratic norms are respected and upheld.

When it appointed the Commission on Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation, the government was making an effort to address local and international concerns about the human rights situation and fend off a possible international inquiry. In its statement regarding the appointment of this Commission the government stated it will seek to take the Sri Lankan nation towards the common goals of a multi-ethnic polity, in a spirit of cooperation, partnership and friendship, learning the lessons from recent history to ensure that there will be no recurrence of such tragic conflict in the future. The mandate of the Commission must not become a thing apart, but must be seen reflected in the conduct of the government as it governs Sri Lanka at this time.