federalidea.com

By Dr. S. Narapalasingam

President Mahinda Rajapaksa repeated his strategic response to the international call for a lasting political settlement to Sri Lanka’s protracted ethno-political conflict in his keynote address to the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit in New Delhi held on October 13 under the theme ‘The India that can be.’ He said, “Sri Lanka, remains a vibrant democracy (sic), but lacked the advantage of a Constitution drawn up by our own people in keeping with our own ideals of freedom and governance. We began with a Constitution bestowed upon us by our former colonial ruler. The absence of a home-spun system of governance is something we are seeking to address today.” He also reiterated, “Sri Lanka is determined to fight terrorism, while committed to seeking a negotiated and sustainable solution to the conflict”. (The Sunday Observer 14 October 2007).

[President Mahinda Rajapaksa at the National Vapmagul ceremony held at Magalla in Nikaweratiya recently, is seen ploughing the field during the event staged to promote local food production - Pic: Pradeep Dilrukshana, Daily Mirror]

In the name of fighting terrorism, human rights and rule of law are being violated. The war is helping to conceal many problems caused by those abusing their power with impunity. People are expected to put up with the hardships since the elimination of terrorism is the main concern. Delaying the process of political reform, which is the assured approach for defeating terrorism and securing lasting peace and stability has also been not difficult with the attention of the Sinhala people drawn towards the ‘war on terror’. Negotiated political settlement is another slogan without serious intent. The negotiation is to be with the Tigers, who are fighting for a separate home land. The APRC process cited by the President as sincere commitment of the government to seek a “home grown solution” is now stalled and according to Chairman Prof. Tissa Vitharana, “it is too early to mention a specific time frame for submitting a final report” (Daily Mirror 20 October 2007). Anyway, it is uncertain whether the final set of proposals will be accepted as ‘OURS’ because of the President’s political necessity to include ultra Sinhala nationalistic members like JHU and JVP in his home.

The Experts Committee majority report of December 2006 was not acceptable to the President because it originated from a mixed soil identified with all three ethnic communities-Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim! The emphasis on ‘home grown’ solution in New Delhi also served to convey the message that India need not worry about her neighbour’s political field. However, the leader of the Western People’s Front and Convener of the Monitoring Commission on Disappearances and Extra Judicial Killings Mano Ganesan MP has now openly called for India’s involvement to end the damaging (for both countries) ethno-political conflict. He is a liberal democrat and human rights activist committed to the unity and integrity of the country. His challenging role in regaining the motherland of Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims is widely admired.

Let me recall here, the final paragraph of my previous article-’Sri Lanka’s homemade political constitutions‘-in the TamilWeek (October 7-13): “If the objective is to come up with a set of rules and guidelines useful for ensuring unity in ethnic diversity, political stability, real peace and development of all regions beneficial to the future wellbeing of the country, it has to be performed thoughtfully from a truly national perspective respecting the equality of all citizens and the aspirations and concerns of all ethnic communities. As in the past, narrow political interest should not influence the outcome. It should be flexible to accommodate the interests of all communities as long as these are not in conflict with the all-encompassing national (and not Sinhala hegemonic) interest. It should be a living article of faith for all communities”. The present constitution is also divisive because it has not been structured from a wide national perspective to meet these desirable aims. Now, President Mahinda Rajapaksa wants a constitution “in keeping with OUR (emphasis mine) own ideals of freedom and governance”. The 1972 and 1978 constitutions were also structured according to the ideals of the then political masters ignoring the aspirations and hopes of the OTHER (Tamil speaking) people in the country. Does President Rajapaksa want another constitution that can be regarded as OURS from the perspective of his Sinhala Buddhist cohorts? In this event, one can expect another party in power renewing the reform process according to its own perception of ‘our ideals’. Playing this game intermittently is part of the negative political culture that has evolved over the past 35 years.

Failed constitution

Present constitution of Sri Lanka like its predecessor has failed to foster unity, peace and stability vital for building a robust prosperous nation. Furthermore, it has failed to safeguard human rights, good governance, rule of law and democratic freedoms. The present political, financial, economic and law-and-order crises bear testimony to the several weaknesses in the system of administration. The anomalies and contradictions therein are well known to the political leaders but these do not bother some with self-interest in party politics. This writer in the previous article also pointed to the wrong approach taken to draft the 1972 and 1978 Constitutions ignoring the aspirations of all communities as well as the unity and integrity of the island nation. The need for constitutional changes arises from a wide range of issues that are pestering the people in their daily lives. The ethno-political conflict is only one prolonged issue that is obstructing the political, social and economic advancement of the country. As stated in the previous article, the present constitution is serving only those who are in positions to exploit the system for personal and short-term political gains.

Nepotism and the abuse of power for ill-gotten gains by those enjoying attractive salaries and enormous perks for supposedly serving the people and the country are clear manifestations of the nationally useless system. It is these attractions that have also tempted the class of avaricious politicians to retain its main features. It is not the long-term future of the multi-ethnic country but the retention of the present power structure is the main concern of some politicians. Democracy should be firmly based on the rule of law, social justice and individual human rights, freedom of thought and expression and equal rights and opportunities for all the communities in the different provinces to fulfill their shared aspirations and prosper. If any of these basics are lacking, then democracy is undermined. And on this basis the present political system is not really democratic.

The non-implementation of the 17th Amendment and the moves to circumvent even the minimal checks and balances set up for ensuring accountability and ‘good governance’ indicate the real intent of the egocentric politicians. The scandalous findings of the Parliamentary Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) also reveal the enormous damage done to the well-being of the people and the country by corrupt officials. The system itself is corrupt now. Attempt to scuttle the mandated work of COPE and the Parliamentary Accounts Committee (PAC) is now seen to be in the hidden agenda of the controllers. The inclination to act outside the system is rising. At the Cabinet meeting on October 24, President Rajapaksa is reported to have expressed doubts over the manner in which investigations have been carried out by the COPE and the PAC. One controversy pertains to the massive VAT fraud in the Inland Revenue Department, which comes under the Ministry of Finance. The Minister of Finance is the President. The COPE Chairman Wijedasa Rajapakse at a joint meeting of COPE and PAC members on October 24 emphasized the need to allow the parliament committees to carry out their duties independently and said any move to undermine the mandate of COPE and PAC should be condemned. This seems to be the general view of the members of the two committees. The loopholes in the Appropriation Bill for 2008 presented to Parliament on October 10 have also been pointed out by concerned citizens, the JVP and civil organizations.

M. B. Mathmaluwe has drawn attention to the narrow impulsive thinking that shaped the present constitution. (Ref. two-part article on “When democracy is under siege, Role the national press can play” – The Island October 18 and 19) Interestingly, how the system permits democracy to be undermined has been bared. The Executive Presidency was created to make governance independent of “the whims and fancies of the National State Assembly.” The original assumption was: People’s power in the hands of one supreme person, the President will expedite the development process. Under the 1978 Constitution, “the Executive President’s power extended over every aspect of the country’s administration, with little provision for the Parliament to curb it. Indeed, if there appeared at all, a few cosmetics of checks and balances, all the required mechanisms of maneuver to negate every one of them, were with the President”. And that is exactly what JR did, when the need arose. “He could do no wrong; blanket immunity had been secured by him, so that no legal proceedings could be instituted against him either in his official or private capacity in any Court of Law or Tribunal”.

There is no doubt, “this kind of concentration of power in the hands of one person, is inconsistent with the spirit of democracy and is unacceptable under a genuinely democratic government. Thinking men who have studied the nature of power have warned, time and again, to be wary of the many abuses it can lead to.” In this regard, the analyst has poignantly reminded the general warning given in 1978 by the late Dr. N. M. Perera who foresaw the adverse consequences that followed later. When the system considers a person is above the law of the land, it loses a cardinal principle of democracy. The analyst has pungently said: “It is here, that one sees how a person can subvert democracy by using the mechanisms of democracy”. The concluding remark is also very relevant to the present predicament. “Whatever, politicians say from time to time about saving democracy; their interests are only with themselves and their welfare”. The irony is when democracy is not vibrant because of political manipulation by democratically elected persons for consolidating power and other limited gains, then continuity of conditions conducive for stability, peace and overall development is difficult. Media freedom which is essential to democracy is also a target of political manipulation. There is some evidence to infer that this is happening. Sri Lanka has been ranked a poor 156 out of 169 countries in the World Press Freedom Index released recently by Reporters Without Borders (RSF). RSF compiled the index by sending a questionnaire to the 15 freedom of expression organizations throughout the world that are its partners, to its network of 130 correspondents, and to journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists. It contained 50 questions about press freedom in their countries.

Democracy and majoritarianism

The Sinhala nationalists interpret Democracy as majority rule ignoring the diverse composition of the population. This concept makes sense in one monolingual ethnic society where all the members have the same historical root, traditions and collective aspirations but not in a plural society. The presumption that the Sinhala majority rule conforms to democratic ideals is wishful thinking. If the Sinhala supremacists think they have the right to dominate national politics, because over 70% of the population is Sinhalese then this stance conflicts with not only democratic but also Buddhist ideals. It is this thinking that created the majority-minority division in Sri Lanka and has been hindering the settlement of the ethnic problem outside the unitary (majoritarian) system. The hindrance is now more intense because of the leaning of the President towards Sinhala nationalists.

The current war against the LTTE has also contributed to this change. The word ‘federal’ was not obnoxious five years back as it is today. If the separatists wanted the rise of Sinhala nationalism to expedite the division of the country, their plan seems to have backfired. Had the armed struggle been for self-rule with clear commitment to pluralism, human rights and democracy, the international community would not have turned strongly against the LTTE. It is the thoughtless sole dependence on killing unarmed civilians, including politicians and others perceived as ‘traitors’ to their cause as means to acquire an idealistic political objective that has put the rebels in the ‘terrorists’ grouping. However, it is because of the plight of the hapless Tamils, who are now victims of both State and non-state terror and the lack of keenness by a section of the Sinhala polity to settle the conflict by sharing power with the ethnic minorities; the LTTE is being tolerated to some extent. Those condemning the foreign governments that have banned the LTTE in their countries of double standards have not grasped this critical point.

Indian Constitution

President Rajapaksa in his New Delhi speech also drew attention to India’s “home grown” approach that “has served the country well in facing up to many challenges.” India’s approach to the adoption of national constitution was altruistic and holistic and unlike in Sri Lanka those involved in the virtuous task of structuring it were enlightened futurists. The principal aim was to consolidate the unity and the patriotic Indian national identity achieved under Mahatma Gandhi’s leadership; eradicate social/caste discrimination and poverty; and build a strong non-aligned democratic pluralistic nation. Although the majority of Indians are Hindus, India opted to be a secular State. The vision of our creators did not extend beyond the then life of the Parliament and at most that of its very next one.

India’s all inclusive approach involving provincial and national leaders is the main reason for the success. They all had the same vision of India’s future. There were no hidden political agendas from any quarter. The Constituent Assembly of India was the body that framed the Nation’s constitution. It is important to note how this Assembly was formed. The people of India elected the members of the provincial assemblies, who in turn elected the Constituent Assembly. The Congress party with its nation-wide popularity could have taken the political approach but it had the wisdom not to take this line.

Jawaharlal Nehru, Rajendra Prasad, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Shyama Prasad Mukherjee were some key figures in the Assembly. There were more than 30 members of the scheduled classes. Frank Anthony represented the Anglo-Indian community, and the Parsis were represented by H. P. Modi and R. K. Sidhwa. The Chairman of the Minorities Committee was Harendra Coomar Mookerjee, a distinguished Christian who represented all Christians other than Anglo-Indians. Constitutional experts like Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer, B. R. Ambedkar (a Buddhist harijan), B. N. Rau and K. M. Munshi were also members of the Assembly. Sarojini Naidu, Hansa Mehta, Durgabai Deshmukh and Rajkumari Amrit Kaur were important women members. The first president of the Constituent Assembly was Sachidanand Sinha but later, Rajendra Prasad was elected president of the Constituent Assembly while B. R. Ambedkar was appointed the Chairman of the Drafting Committee. The Constituent Assembly sessions were open to the press and the public. In Sri Lanka, it was powerful politicians in the government who also functioned as constitution experts. In hindsight, President Rajapaksa must be regretting the appointment of the Experts Panel to assist the APRC. He rejected not only the recommendations of the majority of the experts in the panel but also those of the APRC Chairman obtained by fusing the proposals in the majority and minority reports of the Experts Committee.

It is also useful to note the basic objectives of Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic of India indicated in the Preamble to the Constitution. These are to secure to all Indian citizens:

JUSTICE – social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;

In a case filed by a citizen against the State of Kerala, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution and may be used to interpret ambiguous areas of the Constitution where differing interpretations present themselves. In the original draft only the words ‘Sovereign Democratic Republic’ were used. The two additional words ‘Socialist’ and ‘Secular’ were introduced by the 42nd amendment spearheaded by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1976. The wording of the entire Preamble reveals the fundamental values and guiding principles on which the Constitution of India is based. It serves as a guiding light for the judges to interpret the Constitution as intended originally by the architects, who put the interest of the country above all other narrow interests.

The word ’socialist’ implies social and economic equality. Social equality means the absence of discrimination on the grounds of caste, colour, creed, sex, religion, or language. Under social equality, everyone has equal status and opportunities. Economic equality means that the government will endeavor to make the distribution of wealth more equal and provide a decent standard of living for all. This is in effect means a commitment towards the formation of a welfare state. Although some progress has been made towards poverty reduction (both in social and economic terms) there is a long way to go for getting any where near the desired goal. The mammoth size of the population itself makes the task difficult. Sri Lanka has no such innate problems except those created by the self-centered political leaders

In the interview Prasad Gunewardene had with DEW Gunesekere, the Minister of Constitutional Affairs and National Integration (Daily News 23 October 2007) the latter lamented, it has not been possible for him to get a consensus on any national issue. When asked about the reason for this problem, he replied: “That is the present day culture in politics. That is the striking difference between Indian leaders and our leaders. There with regard to foreign policy, all leaders arrive at a similar position. They take almost identical positions. For the Indians, country comes first. Here, they change their positions constantly to come to power and to be in power. Therefore, our post-independence history is a history of missed opportunities and lost opportunities.” To put it bluntly, the patriotism of our politicians is superficial. Its relevance is in competitive party politics, particularly when electoral support is needed or as seen now in silencing the voices raised against corruption, human rights violations and other misdeeds.

Ingredients for success

Aung San Suu Kyi, who was (and still is) under house arrest in Rangoon told journalist John Pilger a decade ago: “In Buddhism we are taught there are four basic ingredients for success. The first is the will to want it; then you must have the right kind of attitude; then perseverance; then wisdom” (Newstatesman 8 October 2007). This must be read with the clarification given by her with regard to success from a moral and lasting perspective. She said it is no longer acceptable to resolve (political) problems by military means.

Two striking examples of success and failure are in the outcome of the methods used by Mahatma Gandhi and Adolf Hitler. The former succeeded because he was able to win the hearts of many all over the world. The victors in the last world war also succeeded in winning the hearts of the people in the captured countries. If the success sought by political leaders in Sri Lanka was in creating and sustaining conditions for unity, peace, social, economic and cultural development of the entire nation, adherence to true democratic principles, human rights and equality of all citizens regardless of their ethnic origins, religious beliefs, social conditions and regional identities is imperative.

Obviously, the ingredients for success are still missing in the case of the Sri Lankan party leaders who have been assigned to find jointly a political solution to the national problem. The enormous losses incurred by the country and the unbearable suffering of the people have not influenced their minds. Arrogance, revenge and greed for power continue to influence the decisions of those who believe that success will come by pursuing their disastrous methods even after the whole world has condemned both the goals and the methods used to achieve them.

There should not be any illusion about the end result, if the violence continues in the absence of sincere efforts to seek a political settlement. The Dalai Lama has prophesied: “One may sometimes feel that one can solve a problem quickly with force, but such success is often achieved at the expense of the rights and welfare of others. One problem may have been solved, but the seed of another is planted, thus opening a new chapter in a cycle of violence and counter-violence”.

The immediate challenges

The real problem in Sri Lanka is with the leadership. Not only the lack of will and courage to lead from the front but also playing a negative role in collective decision-making merely to please the Sinhala nationalists is the biggest drawback. The leadership is not brave enough to rise above the chauvinistic forces and convince the people of the need for a pragmatic view on the national issue to settle it permanently for the benefit of future generations by changing the present disastrous system functioning since 1978. Sri Lanka like other countries in the present compact inter-connected world is also facing new global challenges. Despite receiving sizeable foreign aid for development, the economy has not progressed sufficiently to meet all the basic needs of the people. Unemployment and poverty remain major social problems threatening peace and stability. Without political reform, development will be slow and costly process. The Tamils and Muslims are useful assets for developing and sustaining the national economy. To have ignored their aspirations in the political process was a colossal blunder. The prone to commit blunders seems to have increased despite past experiences.

On October 13 Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights at the end of her 3-day visit to the conflict-ridden country decried “the weakness of the rule of law and the prevalence of impunity,” and implicitly endorsed the idea of sending a UN rights monitoring mission to Sri Lanka. Subsequently, on October 22 the US urged Colombo to reconsider the offer and accept the UN mission. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack in his statement on this subject said: “An international human rights presence in Sri Lanka would be an important step in improving human rights, accountability, and the rule of law, and ultimately resolving the conflict in Sri Lanka.” This suggestion was also rejected by Sri Lanka on October 24. The fact is human rights violations have been committed by both sides in the gory war and in the absence of any positive sign of early political settlement, the UN and other concerned governments cannot be faulted for assuming that the violations will persist. Past experience shows local monitoring arrangements are in useless. According to Daily Mirror October 26, thirty three community and city based activist organizations have called upon the International Coordinating Committee (ICC) of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in Geneva, not to lend credibility and legitimacy to the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL). They have said the Sri Lankan HRC has become an institution that has failed to live up to its mandate and has been unwilling and unable to respond to the severe human rights crisis facing the country.

The country is also faced with internal forces within the Sinhala polity that resist political reform and by extension economic reform not realizing the implications to the future well-being of the island nation. It is the dogmatic thinking based on pride and racial prejudice that is behind the resistance. It is not different from that prevailing among the separatists. The challenge is to find a way to overcome both. The Dalai Lama has said: “I am a Buddhist practitioner, but if I mix up my devotion for Buddhism with an attachment to it, my mind will be biased toward it. A biased mind never sees the complete picture and any action that results will not be in tune with reality”. This is the truth and it is not everyone who can grasp its sanctity.

The JVP a close political ally that helped the President to secure many votes of the Sinhala proletariat (the LTTE too helped differently by the enforced boycott of the Presidential election in the North-East) has accused Rajapaksa administration of engaging in a “conspiracy to devolve power to resolve national question”. Its parliamentary group leader Wimal Weerawansa, who is also the General Secretary of Patriotic National Movement (PNM) recently, “warned the government that the public will lose their patience if a devolution package is introduced”. He said the people are not protesting the government’s wrongdoings now as a result of intensifying the conflict against the LTTE”. Paradoxically, the JVP believes in resolving the national question by defeating ‘LTTE terrorism’ militarily.

Neville Ladduwahetty who writes regularly on the national issue, in ‘The Island’ of 11 October 2007 has opined on what he thinks are ‘Forthcoming Constitutional Proposals’. To him the concept of ‘maximum devolution’ is a euphemism for Federalism, an anathema to many Sinhalese. There are some Sinhalese experts who are anxious to equate federalism with separation (this too is synonymous to Tamil domination) and scare the Sinhalese people. He has said that the aspirations of the Sinhalese are significantly different from those of the ethnic minorities, the Tamils and Muslims. Interestingly, this is precisely the argument of the Tamil separatists to divide the island into two independent states! To put it plainly, their contention is the Sinhalese polity will never grant any rights to enable the Tamils to meet their aspirations. He has also said: “The reality however is that even if maximum devolution meets the aspirations of the Sri Lankan Tamils and Muslims, the aspirations of the Sinhalese would be severely challenged because they are extremely circumspect with the very concept of devolution let alone maximum devolution. Notwithstanding the inherent contradictions associated with fulfilling aspirations of all communities, even if the Sinhalese accept the concept of maximum devolution for the sake of resolving the national question, the concept of devolution is of little or no interest to the LTTE”.

Surely the APRC process is not to put together a set of proposals to satisfy the LTTE but to meet the broad objectives mentioned earlier enabling the different communities to meet their aspirations without endangering the unity and territorial integrity of the island nation. This is the real challenge now and to find excuses to dodge it is sheer political cowardice. It is also the responsibility of those who call themselves as national leaders to convince the people of the judiciousness of accepting a reasonable power-sharing arrangement. The consequences of rejection must also be told as the late S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike did when he succumbed to the protests staged by political opportunists and a section of the Buddhist clergy.

The President has to rise above petty party politics and take a constructive stand in the interest of the country, as the national leaders of other democratic countries have successfully taken to secure peace, unity and rising income and significant improvement in the living conditions of all their citizens. The same applies to the Opposition leader, who would have learnt from the damage done to the country in August 2000 when the agreed devolution proposals in the draft Constitutional Amendment Bill were abandoned after the antics performed in the Parliament. The irony is that in the absence of bipartisanship, some of the new actors keen on impressing the public than on solving the national problem are trying to take over the leading role in national politics. Foreign intervention is also resisted for the same reason. The leaders of the two main parties dabbling in power-centered confrontational politics ignoring the future of the country must open their eyes and see the writing on the wall.

[The writer is Former Additional Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, Sri Lanka and UN Advisor, Development Economics/Planning]