Sri Lanka Elections: Peace as if People Mattered
-- Nanthikesan
Elite politics[1], has dragged us all in its destructive wake
and dumped an uninvited guest at our doorsteps – April elections!
The political ‘leaders’ shall party away with their predictable
moves – presenting neo-liberal wine in populist bottles – we are
allowed to decide how much wine we can stomach, and of course
the color of the bottle. We do not have much choice with the institutionalized
election violence. This is the picture of the South in a broad
canvas. As for the North and East, well, let’s change the subject
quickly or else we’ll all end up discussing the weather with one
voice.
This is not to say that the outcomes of the elections are of
no consequence – the amount of neo-liberal ‘wine’ we are forced
to consume impacts many. Without detracting from the issues of
bread and pol sambol, it is clear that this election is also about
our on-off peace process. From donors to political analysts have
all reminded us, quite justifiably, that elections are not good
news for the peace process.[2] While agreeing with them, I would
like to add to the voices of many fellow voters that we also need
to worry about what kind of peace we are after as much as we worry
about the peace process. The two seem to be separated in practice.
Indeed, a closer look at the choices emanating from the party
platforms show that while there may be different takes on the
peace processes, in terms of visions of peace, it is clear that
the southern voter has not much to choose from. First, let me
list the three key choices we are presented with:
i) UNF platform wants the peace process to continue regardless
of the cost to the communities in the North and East,
ii) PA/JVP platform is increasingly aligned with the view that
peace process is a threat to Sinhala-Budhist hegemony in a unitary
Sri Lanka
iii) The Left supports the peace process, but views acceding
to LTTE demands as the only option available to defend the gains
that the Tamil Self-determination struggle has accomplished.
The UNP supports the current peace process because it has realized
that war is inimical to the business interests in the South -
to most segments of the business interests (perhaps with the exception
of those benefiting from the war economy) absence of war removes
an obstacle to harness the gains from past three decades of neoliberal
policies. This is a dramatic shift from the policies pursued by
JR and the UNP till the turn of the century – which had twin priorities:
‘putting Tamils in their proper place’, and pursuing neo-liberal
growth.
This new UNP vision argues for the continuation of peace process
at any cost…(.read at any cost to the North and East).. in so
far as that translates to business as usual in the South. This
vision could not care less about those living in the North and
East – Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims alike. It is linked to a
minimalist notion of peace as absence of war. Its vision for peace
is not one that leads to a future for those living in the North
and East without the threat of fear, oppression and dehumanizing
disempowerment in every walk of life.
The UNF support for peace process is predicated on a brand of
chauvinism - as many observers have pointed to its willingness
to subjugate the interests of the Tamils and Muslims in the North
and East to its own. Hence its denial of ongoing child recruitment,
extortion, systematic intimidation and political murders committed
by the LTTE, the rising tensions between the Muslims and Tamils
in the North and East[3]. This brand of chauvinism is informed
by the cost of war to the neo-liberal economic initiatives and
is a recent entry to the mainstream politics in the South.
This new brand of chauvinism shows continuities with the elitism
of the leaders linked to familiar populist chauvinism in their
willingness to sacrifice a few poor Sinhalese for the ‘cause’–
For instance, the latter would settle Sinhalese youth in irrigation
schemes in the East - ostensibly to provide them with much needed
economic opportunities. In doing so, the ruling elite knowingly
exposed them to the risks of ethnically charged and - what has
now become - violent environment. These settlements also served
to alter the demography of the East, enabled gerrymandering for
a more entrenched sinhala majority in the parliament – They became
a major bone of contention in the struggle for self-determination
by the Tamils.
The current PA/JVP alliance shares more than unease with the
concessions extended by the UNF government to the LTTE. JVP and
significant segments of PA are aligned with the familiar brand
of chauvinism that sees peace process as a threat to the sinhala
budhist hegemony in a unitary Sri Lanka. At present, this vision
is a continuation of the chauvinist agenda that habitually scuttled
initiatives to bring political resolution of minority concerns
- from the Kelani march of JR in the ‘30s, to the Banda-Chelva
pact, to the forces that stalled the peace drive in the 90’s.
Fortunately, this familiar Sinhala chauvinism shared by UNP and
SLFP ever since they were part of parliamentary politics, is no
longer a sure ticket to election victories. However, it remains
as an ideological force to reckon with.
The Left and the liberals seem to share a vision that peace process
must be protected and rights of Tamils and Muslims must be a recognized
principle. They correctly see the peace process as the necessary
first step towards bringing peace with justice. However, this
vision fails to go beyond supporting the abstract idea of Tamil
self-determination. They have become intellectually paralyzed
when it comes to dealing with ground realities which show that
the foremost enemies of Tamil self determination are those who
are not only the chauvinist forces in the South and the state,
but also those who are fighting for this self-determination. Often
the Left and the liberals defend their position by asserting that
Tamils should be allowed to determine their own fate. In the absence
of democratic space, how can Tamils in the North and East achieve
this? Equally problematic is how this hands-off approach is going
to help the Muslims and the Sinhalese in the North and East.
This is not to undermine the courageous role the Left and the
liberals in the south played championing for minority rights.
However, time has come for them to extend their visionary thinking
and go beyond the rhetoric of self-determination. The priority
is to foster conditions that will expand the democratic space
that is being denied to those in the North and East.
Absence of war could enable some democratic spaces that were
closed during the war[4]. But this is by no means an automatic
process. Thus the support for the peace process needs to negotiate
the tension between keeping the LTTE on the negotiating table,
while creating conditions for fostering sustainable peace. The
latter requires processes to create and expand democratic space
in the North and East – such as monitoring of human rights violations,
bringing in human rights as an aspect of peace negotiations.
However, the Left and the liberals have been reluctantly reacting
to the revelations – thanks to tireless efforts of isolated individuals
and CSOs - that paint a picture of deeply troubling conditions
in the North and East. This information seem to have no bearing
on their position in acceding to LTTE demands as the only option
available to defend the gains that the Tamil self-determination
struggle has accomplished – save some slap on the wrist comments/condemnations.
Curiously, the consequence of this vision is not dissimilar to
that of the UNP Vision, which basically gives a free hand to the
LTTE in the North and East. For a consequentialist, this vision
is not different from an LTTE point of view that sees itself as
the sole-representative of the Tamil people.
While there is a diversity of views on the peace process, none
of the visions of peace stand for peace with dignity and justice
to the peoples of the North and East. This neglect unfortunately,
is not new. We seem to be relying on the same neglect that fueled
the crisis to end it!
History has shown how costly this neglect can be for the country.
The forthcoming election is an opportunity and a responsibility
for all Southern parties to correct this void. Peoples of the
North and South will not be able to express their views publicly
in this election – which makes it all the more important for the
rest of the country to take up their call and bring about peace
with justice.
This is an opportunity to address peace process in ways that
go beyond debates about best possible constitutions, and administrative
boundaries. Peace process is not about peace in the distant future
divorced from current realities. Peace that emerges from the current
processes, if it does, will be marked by the limitations (and
strengths) of the current practices – weak emphasis on democratic
accountability now, could not be expected to bring about just
peace down the road.
This call should not be read as insisting on having a system
of perfectly accountable structures in place right at the beginning.
We do realize the inevitable need for a process to take incremental
steps when negotiating such a difficult terrain as ours. However,
each step cannot be blind to the larger vision of bringing about
just peace. For instance, right at the onset of the process we
need to institute checks such as human rights monitoring, etc.
– such a move is one of the vital steps necessary to bring about
a culture of democratic accountability.
This election offers an opportunity to speak of the processes
and practices that create and expand democratic space in the North
and East that could be of value to the rest of the country and
lead to peace with justice. As an immediate step, embedding a
broad notion of human security into political decision-making,
building accountability and economic democracy into development
initiatives[5], linking a deeper vision of inter-ethnic and economic
justice to peace process– needs to be priorities for this election.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Where leadership of major political parties determine the
priorities of the nation, strategies to pursue and redistributive
goals, etc.
[2]; See comments made by Norwegians and Jayadeva Uyangoda -
http://www.etaiwannews.com/Asia/2004/02/23/1077501799.htm; Sunanda
Deshapriya, "The SLFP-JVP pact sounds the death knell of
Sri Lanka's peace process." In http://www.oneworld.net/article/view/76809/1/
[3] According to a recent Amnesty International press release
(February 27, 2004 AI Index: ASA, 37/001/2004), LTTE is suspected
to be behind the assassination and attempted assassination of
over 50member of Tamil political groups and several Muslim civilians
since the ceasefire came into force in February 2002.
[4] Recall the courageous resistance by the 26Jaffna Municipal
council members who resigned in protest resisting LTTE (see for
details, Editorial
of Vasuki Nesiah, Lines, February 2003), the response of TULF
president Ananthasangari to LTTE’s moves to dominate TNA (see
Ahilan Kadirgamar’s interview
in this issue of lines)
[5] See editorial of Vasuki Nesiah
in this issue of lines.
HOME
