The international community has become increasingly alarmed by the violence now ripping the fabric of Sri Lankan society. This concern is marked by the recent visits to Sri Lanka of Richard Boucher, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs, and the archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, who explained his visit as an attempt to understand the suffering of the people due to the war. Moreover, Sri Lanka has been a topic for discussion in Britain’s House of Commons, which has seen the need to form a parliamentary group. All of this international activity indicates a growing recognition of the worsening conflict in the country, which has degenerated to a killing match.
The Sri Lankan conflict provides some insight, however, into how problems that could have been resolved through vigorous democratic reforms can instead result in civil war when attempts are not made to achieve such reforms.
In 1931, Sri Lanka became the first country outside the developed world to have adult franchise. This opportunity, if properly utilized, could have allowed the country to emerge as a strong democracy that would have built bonds between all communities for the benefit of every citizen.
However, the elite in the country’s two major ethnic groups, the Sinhalese and the Tamils, came from the upper castes of their communities. The caste tradition was entrenched by centuries of discriminatory practices, to the detriment of the ordinary folk among the Sinhalese and Tamils. Moreover, the leaders of the political movements that arose in Sri Lanka were psychologically disconnected from the larger sections of their own communities. They neither grasped nor assimilated the basic traditions of democracy and, in fact, saw democracy as a threat to their own privileged status.
Instead of formulating a national vision for the improvement of people’s lives on the basis of a state infrastructure grounded in democratic traditions, the visions of these political parties were to divert the people’s attention to ethnic and religious issues. Consequently, the nationalism that took root in Sri Lanka was not one in which better conditions were created within a framework of solid institutional development. Rather, masses were mobilized as mobs under slogans related to ethnicity and religion.
There was also a leftist element in Sri Lankan politics that in the first half of the 20th century was able to build strong support. However, even these groups paid little attention to the development of a democratic vision or to struggles for an improved institutional framework as a foundation for the future. In fact, ideologically, these leftists were opposed to democracy and often denigrated democracy as a ploy of imperialism. Their slogans were about socialism—slogans which were never clearly defined and that were intended only for the consumption of the masses. Any perusal of the literature of these leftist movements of the time would demonstrate their lack of interest in developing a national identity based on a vision of how the quality of life could be improved for everyone within a democratic framework. Their negative approach to democracy, indeed, reinforced the right-wing political ideologies that diverted political attention to ethnic and religious issues.
Within a few decades, as the younger generation became alienated from the mainstream political parties of both communities, political discussion shifted to armed struggle as a means of achieving change. Among the majority Sinhalese, the call for armed struggle came from the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JPV) or People’s Liberation Front, under whose inspiration there were armed rebellions in 1971 and between 1987 and 1990 which caused a heavy loss of life due to the repression unleashed by the state. Meanwhile, among the Tamil community, there were several militant groups relying on armed struggle out of which the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) emerged at the top and was able to occupy the North. Later there were other armed groups which gained a great degree of control in the East. The conflict between the LTTE and the state has now intensified into uncontrolled violence after a ceasefire agreement between the two has, in effect, failed.
Whatever the immediate solution to halt the violence, the ultimate question will remain as to the political vision around which the ordinary people of both communities would perceive their interests can best be served through comprehensive democratic reform. Only through an authentic vision honestly pursued to reform the country’s political, administrative and judicial structures, one that is capable of winning the confidence of the people, can there be a credible and lasting solution to the present crisis.
Unfortunately, none of the political parties are proposing a political perspective for achieving these much-needed reforms. Even political groups with bitter experiences of massive human rights abuses, such as the JVP, do not deviate from a political vision based on ethnic and cultural factors. The opposition parties as well are unwilling to give leadership to a serious reform process in the country.
Thus, despite the deeply felt frustrations of the people and strong pressure from abroad, the development of a national vision to improve all areas of life through an improved democratic institutional framework does not exist. While everyone speaks of reducing violence, there is no talk of eliminating corruption and the abuse of power that is so entrenched within the institutional framework. Even the limited reforms initiated by the 17th Amendment to the Constitution in 2001, which attempted to introduce independent supervisory mechanisms to rid the country of inefficiency and corruption within such institutions as the police, public service, judiciary and the electoral process, have been abandoned.
As there is a greater international interest now in Sri Lanka’s civil war, it should provide the world’s democratic and human rights movements an example of how the failure to develop a proper democratic framework can lead to civil war and how such a process can be defeated only through the revival of the struggle for democratic reform. If the problem is approached from this point of view, the growing international interest will not only benefit all Sri Lankans but also provide a useful guide to the understanding of other similar conflicts and to finding non-violent solutions to them.
Source: Sri Lanka’s Failed Reforms Brought Civil War
