Communal parties an impediment to national reconciliation
By Javid Yusuf
t a time when Sri Lanka is struggling with the challenges of the process of National Reconciliation it is opportune to examine the place and role of Political Parties that are based on a communal identity. National Reconciliation processes must not only be current in the sense of addressing the mistrust and increasing gap between the communities that has resulted from the fallout of the years of conflict, but in the long run, also be directed at welding the diverse communities together as a strong nation.
An examination of the past and present reveals a clear connection between the emergence of communal parties and inter communal suspicions. The recently concluded armed conflict originated with the perception among the Tamil community that the Sri Lankan State and its structures discriminated against Tamils and made them second class citizens in the land of their birth. Many National political parties like the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP) and Communist Party(cp) were expressly in support of addressing Tamil concerns as evidenced by Colvin R. de Silva's celebrated statement 'one language, two nationstwo languages one nation.'
Yet, the Tamil community chose to pursue its political struggles through parties like the Federal Party and the Tamil Congress which were purely Tamil identity-based parties rather than opting for the national parties sympathetic to the Tamil cause like the LSSP and the CP.
This resulted in even the most uncontroversial of Tamil demands being attacked by hardline Sinhala political groups. Such groups played on the fears of the general Sinhala populace who were trapped in 'a minority mindset' fuelled by the memory of invasions from Tamil Nadu and the numerical superiority of the Sri Lankan minorities in the global context. Despite the strong and active resistance by active Tamil groups, like the University Teachers for Human Rights and the Sri Lankan Democracy Forum and the silent disapproval of large sections of the Tamil community to the LTTE, the image of the Tamils and LTTE being synonymous (before the events of May 2009 ) and similarly in the case of the Tamils and the TNA (post May 2009) has wrongly, but inevitably gained credence in the less discerning minds of ordinary Sri Lankans. This has in turn become a significant obstacle in harnessing public support for addressing Tamil grievances.
It is possible to argue that if the Tamil community had channeled their aspirations through a sympathetic national party like the LSSP or CP, rather than a identity-based political party it would have been more favourably viewed by the populace as a justice issue of a section of the Sri Lankan people thus depriving hard-line Sinhala detractors of ammunition to subvert the Tamil cause. Such a strategy would have made it easier to accept the grievances of the Tamil people as a struggle for the human rights of an aggrieved section of the citizenry which is the collective responsibility of the entire country, rather than how it turned out to be - that is, the concerns of one ethnic community giving rise to fears among another ethnic community. In short, it ought to have been viewed as a 'national question' as opposed to a 'majority-minority conflict'.
Similarly, if the demand for devolution of power, which is so vigorously attacked by a small section of the Sinhala polity, is packaged differently from the ethnic or community based identity of the Tamil homeland (by the TNA ) and the Muslim Provincial Unit (by the SLMC), it would be less contentious. Devolution can be justified, even to the skeptics, if it is not based on ethnic demarcations but rather as a process of bringing Government closer to the people, hence strengthening democracy. Within the devolved unit special needs of any community or group can be addressed by the people of the area, in a spirit of mutual trust and understanding, without raising unnecessary bogeys.
On the other hand, the political history of the Muslims has proceeded on a different trajectory. From a situation where Muslim political leaders of the past like Dr. T. B Jayah, Dr. M.C. M. Kaleel and Dr. Badiuddin Mahmud participated in mainstream politics by working within the folds of the National Parties like the UNP and the SLFP to advance Muslim interests, the advent of the SLMC was an attempt to tread a different path for the Muslim community. This exercise has cost the Muslim community dear.
It has dented the excellent relations with the Sinhalese and Tamil communities that had been assiduously built up over the years and created suspicion and mistrust of the Muslims among sections of the Sinhalese and Tamils. The SLMC and its indulgence in opportunistic politics, as exemplified by its history of switching political alliances in return for Ministerial posts rather than on principled policies, has brought ridicule on the community by the uninitiated who mistakenly identify the Muslims with the SLMC.
It is no coincidence that the period of existence of the SLMC has been characterized by unprecedented suffering of the Muslims. The forcible expulsion of Muslims from the North; the Kattankudy and Eravur mosque massacres; the attacks on Muslims during the period of the Ceasefire Agreement and the exclusion of an independent Muslim delegation during peace talks in 2002 (when the party was a constituent of the Government) clearly demonstrated that the SLMC had not added any value to the Muslim cause.
On the contrary, it has created and fostered a culture of patronage-politics among a section of the Muslims; it discriminated against Tamil villages during the time it held sway over the Ministry of Rehabilitation and Reconstruction in the post 1994 government; it campaigned and voted against the non-contiguous Muslim unit included at its insistence in Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranike's Presidential Election manifesto of 1988, voted for the Town and Planning Amending Act in the Western Provincial Council last month and simultaneously opposing it in the Eastern Provincial Council; all point to unprincipled politics which has been to the detriment of the Muslim community. Careless reporting by the media has often represented the SLMC and the Muslim community as one and the same, further reinforcing the detriment caused to the image of the Muslim community by the conduct of the SLMC.
The SLMC Founder and Leader M.h.m.ashraff probably realized the damage caused to the Muslim community too late. It was in his last public statement before his tragic death that he stated that he had discarded the SLMC. Ashraff, who also founded the National Unity Alliance many years after the SLMC as an attempt to dilute the communal character of the SLMC, stated that his objective was to see the NUA in power in the year 2012. Ironically, 2012 has been the year in which the NUA has been deregistered as a political party by the Commissioner of Elections.
The Sinhalese community, however, has over the years acted with greater political maturity repeatedly rejecting attempts by exclusive Sinhala-based parties to take root in the political firmament of this country. Parties like the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna of K.M.P. Rajaratne and the Sinhala Mahajana Party of R.G. Senanayake quickly withered away from the political domain. The Jathika Hela Urumaya perhaps would not have won any seats if not for the Proportional Representation Electoral system and later by contesting under the SLFP (UPFA) label and is also likely to cease to exist soon despite the heightened Sinhala-consciousness currently prevailing.
That said, it is not suggested that communal parties should be banned. Such a step would be undemocratic to say the least. Rather, the people should take responsibility to advocate and support more inclusive political parties that are mindful of the National Interest and do not espouse the cause of one community at the expense of the other. The National Parties too should not give oxygen to these parties by opting for the easy way out and outsourcing the collecting of votes of a community, rather than directly engaging with the voters of the respec- tive community. The strictures made by the N.G.P. Panditharatne report regarding the UNPS dealings with the SLMC would be equally valid with regard to the SLFPS dealings with the SLMC.
The SLFP and UNP have both enjoyed the confidence of the Muslims over the years. Traditionally, the Muslims used to vote for the UNP until 1970. Thereafter with the impressive contribution by the SLFP to the welfare of the Muslims, particularly in the field of education, increased support for the Party was evident. No sooner were electoral pacts with the SLMC forged, competition for Muslim votes by the SLFP/ UNP ceased. The result was that the Muslim voters were denied the opportunity to choose from competing policies of an inclusive and national nature. Instead, the Muslim voters were compelled to consider the exclusivist policies of the SLMC and vote for its candidates without having any guarantee of continued alignment to the National political party (SLFP/UNP) with whom they had partnered at the election.
The responsibility of the two main National Parties, the SLFP and the UNP, cannot be overemphasized. The need to imaginatively refashion their policies to meet the sensitivities of the new context of Reconciliation and Nation Building is compelling. Such policies ought to embody justice, equity and nondiscrimination for the Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims so that they shall not become vulnerable to exclusivist policies of identitybased communal politics.
people should take responsibility to advocate and support more inclusive political parties that are mindful of the National Interest and do not espouse the cause of one community at the expense of the other.