Any ordinary person unendowed with your erudition on social scientific methodology, however, would be reasonable in asking the question that I did: viz., when authors’ institutional affiliation is mentioned in juxtaposition to their names at the end of a published work WITHOUT the customary caveat establishing that the views expressed are personal, it is a reasonable inference that the views are those of the organisation. There is nothing ‘given’ about not making that clear.

Your response, therefore, mirrors an anomaly in the broader crisis of governance in Sri Lanka, i.e., the utter inability to separate personality from institutions (which places us in democratic ‘evolvement’ [sic] somewhere in the 18th century when Louis XIV said “L’etat, est moi”).

I appreciate your invitation to comment on the content of your article. However, had I wanted to do so, I would have done so regardless of any solicitation, given the format, point and purpose of this forum. I might add that this is because I am largely in agreement with your argument and the conclusions you draw. Nonetheless, the tone and attitude of your response betrays a fatal fragility and intolerance of critique and challenge (a fundamental virtue of “political/sociological enquiry”) and consequently devalues what was originally an excellent contribution to a timely debate.

Finally, may I politely point out that there is no such word in the English language as ‘evolvement’. The word I believe you are looking for is ‘evolution.’

Why do you not blame the Sinhala majority for this country’s problems then? I think I know why. Because this would mean that you want you’re own authoritarian solution, a peaceful dictatorship, committed to peace against the wishes and expectations of the majority of Sri Lanka. Is not the entire point of democracy to elect a Government that performs what the population expects?

And I find it startling that the assertion that “this conflict cannot be solved by military means” is never backed up by military fact. The fact is, the Army/Air Force has always had an opportunity to finish off the LTTE, but has always been stymied by political infighting. The lack of a political consensus in the South has not only hurt the chances of a fair peace, but also damaged military planning and morale.

My basic point is that the Government of Mahinda Rajapakse is giving the country’s majority exactly what it elected him for. This is democracy. So please, as journalists, have the courage to blame your readership, and not pursue the tired cliches of blaming the Government for our ills. The Sinhala majority feels that it has been wronged, brutalised and impoverished by the LTTE over the last few decades and that the LTTE will never be satisfied with any political solution. Their election of a Sinhala leader for a final military solution is a just expression of their democratic rights.

We honestly do not think that we should clarify the aspect of ‘ethnical responsibility’ toward our employer at this forum. Nevertheless, we would like to say that none of the CPA researchers who regularly contribute to the political debate ever state that their writings are influenced by their personal opinions. This is taken as a given.

You seem to worry, Che, that we allow our personal opinions to “skew” the designing of the PCI. We assure you that this is not so.First and foremost, we should tell you that you are asking a very theoretical question about methods of ‘political/sociological inquiry’.

The evolvement of behavioral science back in late 20th century was considered as a transformation of subjectivity to objectivity in the methods of social inquiry. Today, with highly sophisticated quantitative methods people tend to be enthusiastic about being objective. However, the degree of objectivity is always questionable. Just by deciding to conduct a survey on peace process is a subjective decision. The framing (i.e. questions to ask) the study involves lots of subjectivity. Nevertheless, as long as the researcher adheres to survey research theory and good practices that he or she will be able to minimize the subjectivity and hence increase accuracy. However, unfortunately the readers/users of the survey findings may not be aware about the degree to which the survey agency deploys research theories or adheres to good practices. There the only help that outsiders have is the credibility of the survey agency and its past history. Social Indicator, the agency that produces the PCI and where the authors work, has been in the business last 8 years and contributed to many sensitive issues with its survey research capacity. So far, SI is the only agency that conducts such surveys regularly and has received attention from diverse political opinion.

So, cutting the long story short, we thank you for your questions and want to emphasis that anything we articulated was solely ours. Further, our past track record has already confirmed that Social Indicator’s surveys irrespective of its topics were very objective and has never been influenced by the persons who work at SI or its Executive Director.

Now that we have given you this clarification, we look forward to hearing your comments and questions on the article itself.

If the latter, as I suspect is the case, then the authors owe an ethical responsibility to both their employer as well as the public to make that fact absolutely clear.