Political Commentary

The government achieved its main goal at the UN Human Rights Council at the session just completed in March. It was able to obtain a two year extension to deliver on the promise it made at a previous session of the UNHRC in October 2015. There is a consensus that the government’s performance has been inadequate. The government itself has not denied this. Not one of the four reconciliation mechanisms that the government promised to establish are yet operational. Only one of them, the Office of Missing Persons, has received parliamentary assent, but it is still only on paper. The OMP has yet to be operationalized. In the meantime, the fate of missing persons continues to remain as unknown as it was 18 months ago when the government promised to set up an Office of Missing Persons which would be tasked with the mission of ascertaining the whereabouts of those still missing or what actually happened to them.

The draft resolution on Sri Lanka that is currently before the UN Human Rights Council gives Sri Lanka the additional two years that the government sought to deliver on commitments made 18 months ago. The extended time frame to be granted to Sri Lanka reflects the confidence that the international community reposes in the good faith of the government headed by President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. It also reflects the absence of other viable options with regard to hastening the transitional justice process in Sri Lanka. Transitional justice as mandated by the UN system consists of truth seeking, accountability through courts of law, reparations and institutional reforms to ensure that there will not be recurrence of human rights violations.

In a change from the past the ongoing session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva is no longer generating political passion at it did in the past. There is a sense amongst most people that the present government is on good terms with the international community unlike the previous government. Therefore they see no real threat emanating from Geneva. This has enabled the government to engage in a flurry of legislative activities that have not attracted so much of public interest. The government has drafted legislation to amend the Office of Missing Persons (OMP) Act and a gazette notice has been issued in this regard. The draft legislation will be presented in Parliament shortly. The government has also presented a Bill to parliament to ratify and implement the 'International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance'. Sri Lanka became a signatory of this Convention in December 10, 2015.

The weekend after the opening session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, I went to the public library to exchange books. While standing in line to return the borrowed books, I was approached by one of the other library members standing in line. He had seen me on television at the opening session in Geneva where I was part of the government delegation but representing a civil society perspective. This event had received wide coverage in the Tamil media in particular. He urged me to ensure that the victim survivors of the war should be compensated by the government without delay. He said they needed jobs and money to look after their children and the disabled needed to be provided with artificial limbs in addition.

Constitutional reform is once again on the front burner of the national agenda. The election manifestos of both President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe in 2015 gave high priority to it. The government started strongly with passage of the 19th Amendment through parliament. In an unprecedented act of statesmanship President Sirisena voluntarily relinquished much of the power he was vested with as executive president of the country and reduced the term of office of the president. This was followed by the government appointing a Public Representations Committee on constitutional reforms comprising leading public intellectuals drawn from academia and civil society. They were mandated to canvass the views of the general public on constitutional reform in a hitherto unprecedented manner.

A year ago a contractor whom I spoke to rejoiced that corruption was much reduced under the new government. He said that the minister in charge of his area of work had merely asked for a donation to be made to support a public institution. Though this donation had nothing to do with the contract, he was happy to oblige, as it was for a public cause and not for the minister’s personal pocket. When I met this same contractor last week he was a disillusioned man. He said that business was good, but that corruption had gone sky high, and there was no limit to what was now demanded. Although perhaps still less than it was under the previous government, corruption is on the rise and is likely to get worse unless government policy changes and there is the political will to implement it right from the top.

The government has been dogged by negative public opinion on its failure to tackle what it promised during its election campaigns of two years ago. In the public perception it has yet to satisfactorily tackled corruption, bring about visible economic development or ensure the correction of war-related injustices. It has been losing popularity due to its inability to defend its performance on these issues. Marriages of convenience tend to get weakened in times of prolonged stress. There has been open bickering between the two main constituent parties of the government alliance. It is no surprise in this context that the government has been balking at facing local government elections. These have been postponed on various grounds for the past two years. The government’s justification with regard to not holding the local government elections has been wearing thin.

The constitutional reform process appeared to be on track with the presentation of the report of the Public Representations Committee in June last year followed by the reports of the six parliamentary subcommittees in November. However, time tables and road maps are necessarily contingent. Whether the time frames or the targets to meet are realistic will also depend on the actions of others and cannot be exactly predicted. The government’s most ambitious reform project is the drafting of a new constitution. This could change the power balance between the different branches of government, the ethnic communities and between the government and people. It would hardly be cause for surprise if the time frame for constitutional reform changes or the content of the envisaged reforms themselves should be revised.

The formation of the Government of National Unity in the aftermath of the victory of President Maithripala Sirisena at the presidential election of January 2015 generated hopes of a rejuvenation of the polity and the unleashing of its full post-war economic potential. However, much to the disappointment of those who believed in the new government, the rift between the UNP and SLFP, which are the two main constituent parties of the government, appears to be increasing with the passage of time. At its root is the perennial quest of politicians and political parties for power, to gain it, keep it and not to lose it.

The change of government that took place in 2015 gave rise to much hope that the new government would solve the most intractable problem that the country faces, and resolve the ethnic conflict that has been a festering sore from the time of Independence in 1948. It is not as if sincere efforts at problem solving were not made in the past. But a notable feature of past attempts at ethnic problem solving was that they were made by one of the two major political parties, while the other remained in opposition. The lesson of history is that the party in opposition always did its best to scuttle the efforts of the party in government in order to come back to power using unleashed emotions of nationalism. The failed solutions of 1957 (Banda Chelva Pact), 1965 (Dudley-Chelva Pact), 1987 (Indo Lanka Accord), 2000 (Chandrika Constitution) and 2002 (Ceasefire Agreement) provide a dismal testament to this reality.

The change of government that took place in 2015 gave rise to much hope that the new government would solve the most intractable problem that the country faces, and resolve the ethnic conflict that has been a festering sore from the time of Independence in 1948. It is not as if sincere efforts at problem solving were not made in the past. But a notable feature of past attempts at ethnic problem solving was that they were made by one of the two major political parties, while the other remained in opposition. The lesson of history is that the party in opposition always did its best to scuttle the efforts of the party in government in order to come back to power using unleashed emotions of nationalism. The failed solutions of 1957 (Banda Chelva Pact), 1965 (Dudley-Chelva Pact), 1987 (Indo Lanka Accord), 2000 (Chandrika Constitution) and 2002 (Ceasefire Agreement) provide a dismal testament to this reality.

The disquiet about the government’s commitment to deliver on its promises is now extending itself to those sections of the international community that gave their support to the government on the basis of its commitment to human rights and reconciliation. The sense of disenchantment amongst the general population is also getting more pronounced. The common factor is the failure of the government to deliver on its promises. With regard to the general population it is the continuing failure to deliver economic development that directly benefits those who depend on governmental largesse to get them out of poverty. It is also the ineffectiveness of the government’s anti-corruption programme that is reflected in the failure to take cases through to their conclusion.

The reality that Sri Lanka is a country in transition was brought to the fore once again when the Consultation Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms presented its final report to the government. Task Force members expected their report to be presented to President Maithripala Sirisena in view of its importance. They delayed issuing their report for several weeks on account of the difficulty of obtaining a time when the President could be present. With the date fixed the presentation ceremony was held at the Presidential Secretariat. But unfortunately, the President failed to turn up at the last minute. The organizers informed those gathered on the occasion, that he had fallen sick. Former President Chandrika Kumaratunga accepted the report on behalf of the government. Making a brief intervention she said that the present moment was an opportune one in which a solution to the protracted ethnic conflict could be found.

Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa has predicted the collapse of the government in the New Year and his return to power. He is demonstrating the same tenacity that stood him in good stead during his long stint in politics prior to rising to become the undisputed leader of the country. He was kept down by his party leaders but prevailed in the end. After his unexpected defeat at the presidential election of January 2015 that he called prematurely he has been tenaciously struggling to stage a political come back to the centre stage of power. Together with his supporters in the Joint Opposition he has been able to demonstrate mass support among a section of the people on numerous occasions but so far has been unable to convert that into real power.

The more positive way to view the year 2016 that comes to a close this week is that it was about the government preparing for the changes to come in 2017. This period of preparation must necessarily change into one of materializing of plans if the support of those who voted to bring the government to power is to be sustained. Apart from the lifting of the thrall of fear, everything else appears to be in a preparatory stage instead of being susceptible to speedy implementation. This is leading to erosion in public confidence in the government although there is no indication as yet that the political opposition is getting substantially stronger. In the coming period there will be three areas of governance in which the government will need to show evidence of results that are tangible. These would be in the areas of corruption, economic development and political reforms that address the ethnic conflict.

Nationalist Buddhist groups setting up temples and putting up statues in places where there are hardly any or no Buddhists has become a visible source of inter ethnic agitation. The Northern Provincial Council has passed a resolution that no Buddhist temples should be constructed in the North. Many Tamils see the putting up of Buddha statues and the construction of Buddhist temple as a projection of Sinhalese domination in the North after the defeat of the LTTE. They ask why Buddhist temples are being built and statutes are erected in areas where there are no Buddhists. Some of them are constructed by the armed forces. However, it is not only Buddhist groups that are engaging in this practice. Christians in the North have complained of Hindus doing the same and that large numbers of Hindu temples are coming up on encroached state and private lands using Diaspora money.

After a two year lull that followed replacement of the former government through the electoral process, public manifestations of inter community tension and media coverage of the same have been on the rise. There are indications of political maneuvering behind these efforts to disturb the peace in the country and to bring ethno-religious nationalism to the fore. Video footage of religious clergy engaging in vitriolic attacks on those of other ethnic and religious groups have gone viral on the social media. Most notably in the North and East, there are clashes being reported on inter religious grounds. There are many incidents of religious clergy getting involved in expansionist projects, such as religious conversions, destruction of ancient sites or building places of worship in areas where they are less numerous.

A particularly acute source of inter religious tension is the constant use of hate speech by groups that form themselves under the name of religion and attack those of other religions. Most visibly, nationalist Buddhist groups have been targeting the Muslim community in this regard. Ethno nationalist organizations have been engaging in hate campaigns and intimidating those of other communities at the local level. The expansion of the Muslim population, its increasingly visible economic strength, alleged connections to militant international Islamic groups and religious practices such as Halal have been the main focus of their campaigns. This has created and continues to sustain a sense of apprehension and insecurity in the Muslim community particularly in areas where they are a minority, which is most of the country.

SOCIAL TOLERANCE
During the period of the last government, these incidents of hate speech and violence were ignored by the government. There was also a widespread belief amongst human rights groups and the Muslim community that a section of the former government was also tacitly supporting the aggressors. On the other hand, at the present time government leaders have shown no support for actions that are in opposition to inter ethnic and inter religious harmony. Both President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe have made it clear that they wish these incidents to cease and the law to prevail. President Sirisena’s admonition that anyone who violates the law would be dealt with by the law enforcement agencies will serve to embolden the police to take deterrent action rather than stand idly as they did during the Aluthgama anti Muslim riots in 2014.

As a result of government policy that is not anti minority but is focused on preserving inter community relations, there is no mass sentiment that is in favour of communal confrontation visible in any part of the country. The National Peace Council has been conducting inter religious meetings at the community level. A gathering earlier this month in Trincomalee which was attended by members of all religions, and by government officials and police, on the contrary revealed a great deal of goodwill. The police officer who had been entrusted with communal amity said that there were youth who went about pasting stickers which had hate messages. But apart from pasting the stickers they did nothing much else, and the general population did not support them. It appears that at the level of the general population there is little or no personal animosities. On the contrary social relations and cultural similarities make the people prepared to sit with one another and attend meetings that are called in the name of inter ethnic and inter religious harmony.

Sri Lanka is fortunate in that its past traditions of inter ethnic and inter religious tolerance, of which there are records from the days of the kings, continues to prevail at the social and individual level. On the other hand, the visible manifestations of aggression and intolerance are politically created ones. When such politically motivated action takes place they are highly visible and are immediately given media attention. This creates an impression of crisis. But those who seek to attack those of other communities on account of religious rivalries and for purposes of religious domination do not have support amongst the people. Therefore the agitators are susceptible to control by the law enforcement agencies.

COMMUNITY TENSION
However, in contrast to the politically motivated inter religious tension, there is a degree of community level tension between the different ethnic communities living in the North and East that is having an impact on their lives. In Mullaitivu, an inter religious meeting became a forum for conflicting views to be expressed on matters pertaining to land. A Muslim participant explained that in 1990 when the LTTE expelled the Muslim population from the Northern Province, about 1500 Muslim families had left Mullaitivu. But now more than 26 years later, there are about 4500 Muslim families that have returned due to the natural increase in their population. Obtaining land for the additional families is providing to be difficult as it is resisted by those from the Tamil community and the government administration that functions in that area.

In Batticaloa it was a similar issue of land that led to one of the outbursts of the Buddhist monk against the government servant which went viral on the social media. The monk was angry that Sinhalese who sought land permits were being denied them although they had a claim to the land, according to the monk. On the other hand, the Tamils in the area felt that it was they who were under threat, now that the Eastern Provincial Council had a Muslim Chief Minister. According to them most of the provincial council appointments were going to Muslims, including being security guards in Tamil schools. They also pointed out the prosperity of Muslim towns in the east, as compared to the impoverished Tamil towns that lay adjacent to them.

In situations where there is political mistrust between communities and a history of conflict, it is important that governmental and provincial authorities should take decisions in a fair manner and in a manner that does not create more conflict. The use of a majoritarian mindset by politicians to favour their own community when they are the majority in a region is not conflict-sensitive nor is it acceptable. Decisions that are taken need to be seen as fair by all communities. If this is not the case, inter ethnic and inter religious harmony will be difficult to achieve, and the gains of the present will be dissipated in the new conflicts of the future. The role of civil society would be to identify these conflicts in dialogue with the communities and find ways to take them up to those who make the decisions so that they may decide fairly and take into consideration the concerns of each community in a conflict-sensitive manner.