Peace time governance requires more power sharing

by Jehan Perera

(June 07, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Two years after the elimination of the LTTE on the military battlefield the government has continued to derive its strength from that victory that has now become a topic of study in military academies internationally. This was reflected in the second anniversary celebrations that took place with thousands in attendance and millions watching it on their televisions screens. There were military parades and sea and air shows on display for which the government granted a special school and public holiday for those in Colombo, where the events took place. This was followed by an international conference hosted by the government which military delegations from a large number of countries attended. The purpose of the conference, which was titled ‘Defeating Terrorism: the Sri Lankan Experience’, was to offer the Sri Lankan example of winning a war against terrorism to international scrutiny and lessons learnt.

As pointed out by government speakers at the conference, one of the key reasons for the government’s success in winning the war against the LTTE was political will and leadership. The fact that the Army Commander during the war, General Sarath Fonseka, was doing time in jail during the conference could not have been lost on the participants at the conference. It would have demonstrated the supremacy of the political leadership over the military as befits a polity in which the military is subordinate to civilian authority. During the time of war, all necessary resources including men and material were made available by the political leaders to prosecute the war to its successful conclusion. All other values and priorities were subordinated to this primary goal. The current pressures on the government from sections of the international community particularly with regard to human rights violations are partly on account of this.

A central feature of the successful prosecution of the war against the LTTE was the need to concentrate power so that decisions taken would be implemented without delay. The concentration of power enables decisions to be made swiftly and before the Opposition has a chance to mobilize. The concentration of power is especially important in a time of war, when crucial decisions have to be made without prevarication and the goal is total victory. This is what Sri Lanka achieved under the government headed by President Mahinda Rajapaksa, and which the participants at the international conference were enabled to understand. But the problem that was not discussed at the international conference was the temptation that governments worldwide sometimes have succumbed to, which is to carry on with the successful model of wartime centralization of command into peacetime governance.

Democratic governance

Any democratic government in the modern world is duty bound to uphold its own constitution as well as those international covenants to which it has become a party. An important aspect of democratic governance is the holding of regular elections. This has been done by the present Sri Lankan government without fail, with the single exception of the Northern Provincial Council, where elections are long overdue. The failure to hold the Northern provincial elections could be due to an apprehension on the part of the government that it will lose those elections. However, democracy is not only about holding regular elections and demonstrating majority support. It also includes engaging in consultations, making compromises and obtaining consensus in national decision-making.

The three Cs of good governance (consultation, compromise and consensus) were first put forward as a political slogan by President Ranasinghe Premadasa as his motto of governance. This followed the excesses of his government’s war against terrorism in the 1988-89 period. Tens of thousands of people were killed in that abortive insurgency by the JVP, which proposed a new political system which would empower the rural masses and disconnect from the capitalist section of the international community. In the aftermath of the insurgency President Premadasa tried to heal the fractured polity with new concepts and propaganda. But anti-government sentiment had become too entrenched for words to dispel and his hostile campaign against his political opponents and some of the NGOs did not enhance the credibility of his words.

Oddly enough, the government has made President Premadasa one of the ten role models of leadership in its controversial orientation programme in military camps that is meant to impart leadership skills for prospective university students. But there are some important lessons for the present time from that period. One is the manner in which international pressure joined up with internal pressure to facilitate change in the policies of the government. The internal opposition had grown so strong that there was an attempt to impeach President Premadasa in Parliament by members of his own government. In addition the government had to face down a threat of international sanctions which impelled the President to accept a list of over 30 recommendations by the human rights NGO, Amnesty International, aimed at improving the government’s governance and human rights performance.

New Challenge

So far President Rajapaksa and his government have been virtually immune to internal pressures due to the popularity of the President, the visionary nature of some of the senior government members and the ground level weakness of the Opposition party leadership. The only source of concern to the government has been the human rights cry emanating from sections of the international community that appears to be gathering momentum at this time in Geneva where the UN’s Human Rights Council is having its annual meetings. Recent developments within the country indicate that the same coalescing of internal and external forces as occurred during the period of the Premadasa presidency may come into being, unless the government changes its course. The government’s reluctance to consult Opposition and civic groups regarding actions affecting the people’s interests has finally reached a boiling point. An issue that reveals the government’s vulnerability concerns the proposed private sector pension scheme.

The violent clashes that erupted between the police and garment factory workers protesting against the proposed pension scheme for the private sector led to the death of one worker and injuries to scores of others due to the police firing with live bullets. The pension scheme was deemed to be especially disadvantageous to garment factory workers, whose work life is typically five to seven years. The original formulation of the pension scheme requires a minimum of ten years of contribution prior to being available to workers. The pension scheme was also opposed by the Opposition parties and trade unions who asserted that the government had failed to consult them on the matter and there were aspects of it that were very disadvantageous to private sector companies and workers alike. Now, after violent clashes that involved thousands of workers and police, the government has decided to temporarily stall the scheme and only bring it again for passage as legislation after a process of consultation with those affected.

The government’s determination to address the issues of private sector pensions and the right of strikers to disrupt public traffic near the country’s sole international airport are legitimate ones. The problem is the way in which the government has sought to impose these on beneficiaries, without consultation, compromise or consensus. The government’s failure to abide by the three Cs can be considered to be indicative of an attitude that derives from the years of war when unilateral decisions regardless of political and human cost were made to ensure military victory and annihilation of the enemy. The continuing reliance of the government on a unilateral approach to problem solving, to denying that serious problems exist and accusing those who oppose it as being in league with an international conspiracy, is meeting with growing resistance nationally. Inevitably, it will also give legitimacy to the international voices making various charges, unless the government changes course in the direction of genuine power sharing with the rest of the polity.