National reconciliation -
Biggest challenge facing President
National reconciliation was one of the upfront promises of the incumbent government when it came to power in 2015. Four years down the line, bridging the North and South has become an outdated topic of discussion. Whatever happened to solving the biggest problem Sri Lanka so deeply suffered from colonials since independence? With the country being literally bombarded and international terrorism penetrating into local villages, Sri Lanka’s political and economic instability has heightened by the day. The consequent resurfaced need to ensure national security has now made the pursuit of reconciliation take a backseat.
The Sri Lanka Press Institute(slpi) convened an expert panel a few days prior to the presidential election to deliberate over this concern, in particular to identify key challenges to reconciliation. Little may the panellists have known that the election itself would become the source of fuming racial hatred among communities having realised votes were polarised along ethnically-populated electorates. While election results were released and maps drawn indicating the polarisation of votes, there was an outbreak of racial hatred and backlash on social media against minority communities that voted for a candidate less preferred. The magnitude and pace with which this outbreak occurred clearly shows flames of racial animosity are still flickering bright under the volcanoes of pretencecoexistence waiting to erupt whenever possible.
With these developments, though national reconciliation may have been a secondary concern of presidential contenders, it is no doubt a major challenge to the newly-elected President as the leader of the State and representative of its entire people. True reconciliation and peace must be at the forefront of the new President’s endeavours if Sri Lanka were to move forward at one pace.
NATIONAL RECONCILIATION NOT KEY TO ANY POLICY MANIFESTO
Looking at challenges to national reconciliation prior to the election, Dr. Jehan Perera, Executive Director of the National Peace Council of Sri Lanka, expressed his apprehension that it might be in great danger as the potential Heads of States had not taken up the objective of bringing about true reconciliation in the country as one of their main objectives in policy manifestos. Dr. Perera explained that though national reconciliation was addressed indirectly by promises to set up a second chamber in Parliament and devolution of power, it was not included in the summary.
Attorney-at-law and socio-political activist Ms. Jeewani Kariyawasam pointed out that the reason for presidential candidates to avoid addressing the issue of reconciliation in a more upfront fashion was due to new trends surrounding it. With international political undercurrents and other extremely-dangerous invisible forces that lie beneath heinous incidents like the Easter Sunday attacks, and the resulting new wave of racism, ethnic violence has reached a stage where its trends and tendencies cannot be projected anymore.
Dr. Sanjeewani Rupasinghe, Senior Lecturer of the Kelaniya University added that given these developments, candidates feared they would lose popular support if they addressed the issue of national reconciliation more openly.
DIVIDE AND RULE
Another challenge to reconciliation identified by Dr. Jehan Perera was the divide and rule policy that is strategically used by presidential candidates. He recalled that the ethnic conflict dated back to 1956 when Sinhala was made the official language of the country as a political statement asserting national identity. This has led to long-lasting repercussions as the country is now divided along ethno-religious lines and politicians have recurrently manipulated this division by inculcating fear and suspicion among ethnicities. Dr. Perera’s opinion was that though not done overtly, separatist ideas were propagated by the State and used as a tool to retain power.
Ms. Jeewani Kariyawasam too agreed that State-sponsored separatism to achieve narrow political objectives had been practised by local leaders since independence. Historically, the Tamil population has been excluded from negotiations of law including the Constitution and their rights not upheld or recognised. She asserted that whether we liked to admit it or not, the seeds of terrorism in the North were grown by exclusionist and discriminatory policies adhered to by the Colombo-centred political leadership. Ms. Kariyawasam said this State-sponsored separatism had taken a new outlook after 2009/2010 involving the Muslim population. She maintained that either directly or indirectly, the State had a responsibility to bear in allowing feelings of animosity and bitterness towards the Muslim population to flourish among the Sinhala majority.
Dr. Sanjeewani Rupasinghe agreed that the State must account for inter-ethnic strains and hatred that prevailed in the country. She elaborated that historical Sinhala supremacy endorsed by the State had time and again continued to oppress the minority population – Tamils being the initial prey and now the Muslims. She opined that State organs and agencies like the Criminal Investigations Department must be more impartial and cautious not to instil fear among the innocent minority population in the exercise of their duties.
INTERNATIONALLY ORCHESTRATED SEPARATISM
The panellists agreed on the fact that global trends of separatism and segregation were one of the biggest challenges to national reconciliation moving forward, as ethnic tensions that prevail within the country was no longer an issue limited to national boundaries but had international implications.
Ms. Jeewani Kariyawasam said many leaders in other countries like the United States and India disseminated separatist ideas openly. With Sri Lanka being a country where minorities have been historically discriminated against and subjected to State-sponsored violence, the global trend of separatism operating parallel becomes a more aggravated challenge that needs tackling. She emphasised that we could not restrict ourselves to the same old methods within a capitalist system to deal with these challenges, but need to address deep-rooted causes of ethnic violence and historical wrongs in order to face them successfully.
NEED FOR A STRONG LEADER AND OTHER MECHANISMS OF MINORITY PROTECTION
As elaborated by Dr. Jehan Perera, true democracy bears within it safeguards that uphold minority rights and not limited to numerical superiority. Individual autonomy is an important aspect of democracy and so are other constitutional guarantees such as fundamental rights and independence of the judiciary and other institutions like the Human Rights Commission and the public service.
A strong national leader who is a leader to all ethnicities and religions and who will uphold the rights of everyone was identified as another key minority protection device. Dr. Perera opined that only such a strong leader could create a Sri Lankan identity that every citizen would associate themselves with devoid of any other ethno-religious cleavages.
SRI LANKAN IDENTITY
The failure to create a Sri Lankan identity shedding ethno-religious differences that stands in the way of national reconciliation was emphasised by all panellists. In particular, Dr. Rupasinghe pinpointed the need to identify oneself as a Sri Lankan and not as a Sinhalese, Tamil or Muslim as the overarching challenge to reconciliation. While it was accepted that culturally, each ethnicity and religion are different and have traditions and practices that are dissimilar, it was asserted that politically, we must all bear the common Sri Lankan identity. She said eliminating distrust and suspicion among ethnicities were not an easy task without genuine commitment on the part of the State. Reconciliation is not something that can be achieved by talking about it at a surface level; it needs well-thought-out structural changes to the education system, civil service and family upbringing of children.
POLICY CHANGES
Dr. Jehan Perera identified policy changes with each successive government as a major challenge to reconciliation. In example, he cited the attempt of devising a new Constitution by former President Kumaranatunga which could have put an end to the grievances of minorities as it took a more rights-based approached and envisaged division and devolution of power, which was ultimately aborted by the incoming government.
Dr. Perera explained that our political culture was shaped in such a way that an incoming government or President would do the exact opposite of what the predecessor had embarked upon – leading to a battle of taking credit for whatever is done for the sake of the country. He strongly urged that the civil society, media and people as a whole must undertake to lobby to ensure minimum cross-party agreement for policy stability. We must stop the polarisation of society by virtue of supporting one political party or the other and endorsing their views blindly. Calling for minimum cross-party agreement on policy between main political parties can prevent the country from moving back to zero whenever the country approaches a decisive point like the change of government or appointment of a new State leader.
DEFINITION OF RECONCILIATION
Dr. Sanjeewani Rupasinghe said we had never given a humane definition to reconciliation. Reconciliation is meant to be defined in terms of peace, unity, friendship and equality, but as objectives of ethnic reconciliation have always been a political agenda, it has drifted away from the people and is limited to political platforms. She asserted that despite whatever political direction the country might be headed for, reconciliation must have a constant meaning and must mean the same to everyone in the country. She then drew attention to the fact that defining reconciliation in more humane terms and coming into a consensus about what reconciliation meant and maintaining that definition was one of the biggest challenges moving forward.
FACING OPPONENTS OF RECONCILIATION
Creating a platform for open discussions about reconciliation is another challenge identified by the panellists. Ms. Kariyawasam stated that almost all conversations between opponents and proponents of reconciliation took place in social media platforms in the form of battles of posts and comments. With such social media being uncensored until there is a violent breakout resulting in civil strife, hate speech is left unmonitored – and these activities contribute towards the growing divisions among communities along ethnic lines.