The April elections leave the Southern electorate to choose among three visions in relation to the “peace process”:

Sri Lanka Elections: Peace as if People Mattered

-- Nanthikesan

Elite politics[i], 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.[ii] 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:

UNF platform wants the peace process to continue regardless of the cost to the communities in the North and East,
PA/JVP platform is increasingly aligned with the view that peace process is a threat to Sinhala-Budhist hegemony in a unitary Sri Lanka
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[iii]. 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. The question then is, in the absence of democratic space, how can they 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[iv]. 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 a platform 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[v], linking a deeper vision of inter-ethnic and economic justice to peace process– needs to be priorities for this election.