Colombo, Peace and Conflict, Politics and Governance

Defeating the result and the cause of war – Role of the mass movement

About a week ago, Dilan Perera, the Minister of Justice happened to say something of a timely need – that there should be a political solution with some form of devolution of power if we are to defeat the cause of the North and East conflict and it can be done only by the politicians. He stressed that only politicians can ensure sustainability of the military victories of the Army. A good point and I’d say a brave remark at a time when the entire peace discourse is over flooded with a war discourse and at a time war has become an ideal solution to the war. But he has forgotten another party who has a big say in this conflict. Although under-presented, manipulated and used, masses of Sri Lanka had always acted and would act an important role in solving the social aspect of this conflict. To be direct, a political solution implemented overlooking the masses or without adequate participation of the masses, will not be sustained. This article will be looking at the concept of the ‘civil society’ in Sri Lanka and their attempts to generate a peace constituency in the recent past (during and post peace process 2002-2005). In doing so, it will question the capacity of the civil society in building peace with its limited assets, particularly in terms of persons. It argues that peace building attempts of the civil society as well as those of the politicians should be extended to incorporate the political society represented by the masses if peace attempts to be successful.

Importance of the civil society in transforming identity based conflicts by facilitating institutional, structural, behavioral as well as cultural democracy is stressed by scholars both local as well as foreign. Camilla Orjuela who had done extensive work on Sri Lankan civil society states that civil society can play a successful role of “(1) preventing violent conflict, (2) working in war zones, (3) supporting negotiations and settlements, and (4) endorsing reconstruction and reconciliation”. Civil society in Sri Lanka is said to be weak, politicized, divided on ethnic, urban- rural and gender lines and created and sustained with external assistance. Moreover, it is subjected to binary segregation:  nationalists and non-nationalists. If I am to speak with reference to positive peace, nationalist civil society has contributed negatively while the work of the non-nationalist civil society is rotted and stagnated due to their inability to overcome limitations set by them themselves. Pathetically, today the civil society in Sri Lanka is equated with non- government organizations (NGOs).

In 2002, war weary Sri Lanka diverted from her long adopted strategy ‘war for peace’ to ‘negotiations for peace’. An entire peace environment was created, “peace workers found themselves ‘fighting a winning battle'” (Orjuela in Civil Society in Civil War: Peace Work and Identity Politics in Sri Lanka, 2004). They took on the role of mobilizing and increasing the awareness among the masses about the need for peace by conducting peace education programs, study visits and media campaigns. They also took measures to build support base for peace and bridge inter ethic relations. They intended to reduce prejudices among ethnic groups and increase mutual understanding of each other’s sufferings. Consequently, they meant to increase the backing for peace initiatives. They targeted grass-roots, professional groups, religious leaders and Sri Lankan Diaspora in their manifestations for peace. Social movements such as Sarvodaya carried out Sama Bhavana (Peace Meditation) in Colombo, Trincomallee as well as in Anuradhapura and thousands of people participated. Apart from that various others carried out conflict resolution and peace building workshops, art and cultural activities. With the re-opening of A9 road which connected Jaffna and southern Sri Lanka during the ceasefire, interactions between North and South increased and as a result facilitated the activities of the grass-roots.

It is alleged that despite the pragmatism used and the momentum created, the peace process 2002-2005 is rather short sighted. UNF government preferred to have the minimum mass participation and instead counted on the blessings of Malwathu Asgiri Mahanayakas, Colombo civil society elites and media editors. With the upsurge of nationalist politics in the country lead by the opposition parties, Sinhalese nationalist civil society represented by the Patriotic National Movement (Desha Hitaishi Jathika Viyaparaya), Manel Mal Movement and National Movement against Terrorism (NAMAT) managed to mobilize a large portion of the southern population against the peace process. The peace lobbyers found it impossible to tackle this force. In the post peace process context, forces marginalized by the peace process, mainly the political opposition gained recognition of the grass roots. Campaigners for peace were regarded as the traitors to the country’s integrity and sovereignty. National Anti War Front which was formed in order to encompass all sections of civil society to support and strengthen the peace process by creating awareness about the need to build sustainable peace with the participation of all sectors in the society, met up with a massive protest on the part of Sinhalese nationalist civil organizations such as Patriotic National Movement and NAMAT.  Post peace process environment showed that it is difficult to generate a mass movement for peace in Sri Lanka with ethnic polarization, deep-rooted nationalism on both sides (Sinhalese and Tamil). The entire peace movement was divided and the absence of a mass movement for peace was felt hard.

Civil society for peace or civil society in general in Sri Lanka has failed to fit in or include the political society in the country which accounts for the majority of the population. Civil society in countries like ours represents only a small portion of the society and the rest is formed by the political society. According to Partha Chaterjee (in The Politics of the Governed), machineries of the welfare state which aimed at ameliorating living standards of the people of post-colonial states reduced populations into ‘descriptive categories’ facilitating administrative, legal, economic and electoral policies. Consequently, statuses of people were transformed into subjects not citizens by outstripping the agendas of ‘republican citizenship’ put forward in the liberation struggle. In the West, on the contrary, civil society was connected to the nation-state which was formed on the concept of popular sovereignty and equal rights to citizens. Laws documented in the constitution declaring that every man and a woman in the country is a citizen with equal rights contradict the actual situation. As one gentleman living in Karikattiya, Mundal told me, the only right he has enjoyed so far being a citizen in Sri Lanka is the right to vote and the only thing he has got from the government is the identity card.  He does not feel like a proper member the society. Like him, majority of the Sri Lankans do not have citizen-state relationship. They are looked after and controlled by various government bodies which bring them into a political relationship with the state.

Past experiences have shown that it would be extremely necessary to extend the civil society to integrate the political society if a peace process is to be broadened and to be successful. It is a pity that most of the decision makers, policy makers and other academic intellectuals fail to see this simple truth and continue to observe grass roots as a passive community. Non violent civil society has subjected to the same fate as that of the weak, hypercritic ‘ala-elite’ anti-ragging movement in the University of Peradeniya which is betrayed by the insiders themselves and contribute to the ‘othering’ at a different level and serves a selected community. It doesn’t make an effort to transcend the established boundaries.

If or if not this war to be ended by a military victory of the Sri Lankan Army accompanied by a political solution presented by the politicians, mobilization of the ordinary people towards peace is indispensable. It is high time we decide if the desired Peace = military defeat of the LTTE + political solution + ? or – ? Masses.

Are we ready to miss another opportunity?

  • Sinthaamani

    While civil society can serve as the bedrock to advance good governance, it cannot function in a corroded political setup that exists in Sri Lanka today. Nepotism is rampant, corruption, suppression of media and freedom of expression, racially divisive politics, is the norm in the South, genocide-by-attrition, and destruction of Tamil civil leadership by the Security Forces, encouraged by the Government is taking place in an organized/large scale in NorthEast. The article is useful, and intellectually attractive, but the priniciples cannot be applied for another generation to come in Sri Lanka.

  • The statement by Dilan Perera "there should be a political solution with some form of devolution of power if we are to defeat the cause of the North and East conflict and it can be done only by the politicians. " is years old political rhetoric.

    He should have said that either confederal or federal solution with Financial and Defence sovereignty to the people of North East that would bring peace to the island.

    UNP speaks its own rhetoric of "maximum devolution" to the North East which is also deceptive. They too should come out to guarantee constitutionally the "Financial and Defence sovereignty" to the people of North East, if they would like to alternate to Tamil Eelam as an independent sovereign state.

    History has shown and will undoubtedly show in future too that Sinhalese can never ever be trusted by Tamils.

  • The suggestions given below is for a system of governance that is unitary in character though NOT in accordance with what the APRC is going to produce.


    The main cause for all the ills of the country is the present democratic system of governance which allows "corruption" of all forms to thrive unchecked.
    In my opinion "Corruption" includes any kind of waste, neglect and every form of malpractice, dishonesty, abuse, misuse, unreasonable exercise of power, failure or refusal to exercise power, anything and everything left undone which results in the right of the people being denied or impaired.

    Without a "just society" in existence much talked about "terrorism" cannot be eradicated. For the creation of a "just society" there should be "good governance" in the country. For the creation of "good governance" in the country "corruption" of ALL forms must be eradicated. And to eradicate "corruption" the present democratic system of governance, where full power to make final decisions ultimately rests in the hands of one person, must be changed.
    So the only way to salvage the country is to change the present system of governance to one that is truly democratic where the final decision-making power will NOT be in the hands of ONE person.

    To make the country truly democratic, the powers of the Parliament should be split and separated and each of the separated powers must be handled by separate groups of persons selected and elected by the people for the purpose of administering EACH SET OF POWERS or duties as the case may be. Particular care should be taken to see that all powers are NOT CONCENTRATED in one place and that they do not overlap and there must not be a secret budget to be handled by a single person.
    All transactions should be transparent including Diplomacy which has to be diplomatically transparent.
    One set of powers dealing with the development of the country should be given to the set of representatives at the village level. The people of each and every village must be empowered to determine their way of life (lifestyle). The life-style of a village, its lands and resources shall not be disturbed by external forces. All plans of development of a village or remotely/indirectly affects the village must have the concurrence of the people of that village concerned.
    Even now the administration is from village level unto National Level with many stages in between – one above the other – with powers overlapping and the final decision-making power is at one place. That is the problem and that system must be changed. The decision-making powers with regard to every set of powers must be spread through-out the country.
    We can lead the world with such a REAL DEMOCRACY with a parliament encompassing representatives from all the villages and starting the administration of the country at the village level and going unto national level. Mahatma Gandhi wanted the villages to be empowered but it has not implemented by the government yet due to human nature of not willing to lose the little power each person (office) is already in possession.
    A change in the people's attitude and understanding of the problem is important. They must be made aware of the benefits it will bring to them in the long run. Now they are after short-term profits. They are not considering the future generations. A corruption-free society will bring-in good-governance that will benefit everyone other than the crooked politicians.
    In my opinion the people are ready to change the present system but they are not being given the opportunity by power hungry politicians. I think Loksatta movement is moving towards this goal and like-minded persons from all walks of life must join the movement and strengthen it. Only then can the people be able to give a send-off to ALL the corrupt politicians of ALL political parties and usher-in a new era of a corrupt-free society. Rajaji (the last Governor-General of India) tried it but was not succesful.
    Rather than continuing to express and analyze the problem of the day we must move towards a solution.
    They (the people) should move away from race/religion/language/class-centered/oriented politics and move towards a needs-focused administration that which is race-blind, religion-blind, language-blind and class-blind for sustainable peace, prosperity and a pleasant living for ALL the people in the country.

  • @Justin: Defence sovereignty? How is that even remotely related to a federal ideal? Justin is pretty much rephrasing the notion of a separate state in a deceiving way.
    Federal law enacted by a central government should govern the operation of federated forces. You cannot have 2 military forces in the same country that's just ridiculous. Also what do you mean by financial sovereignty? That Northern and Eastern states will make enough in their local economies to self sustain and they should not have to contribute to the federal budget?
    Lack of overarching legislation that governs financial, military aspects means it's not even a united state. The central government must have necessary powers to defend all its citizens while letting local states have the political sovereignty to govern them selves which is what a true federal system is all about from what I understand.
    Practically going to a federal system is just overkill for a small country like ours let alone separate it. So really we need to enhance the devolution of power and move towards absolute secularism while combating rampant corruption at the same time. No easy feat by any means!

  • shiraz

    "As one gentleman living in Karikattiya, Mundal told me, the only right he has enjoyed so far being a citizen in Sri Lanka is the right to vote and the only thing he has got from the government is the identity card."

    well , if SL stopped spending on free health and free education it can be like singapore. i dont know but want to check, is singapore, malaysia korea, US have free education to all? higher university level, where they can become lawyers doctors? can any one confirm this.

    i looked at state expenses and two of the largest contributors were education and health. so when the gentelman goes and says he doesn get much? do you think its justified?

    • neem

      This is not a valid argument. This person has indeed received and education (upto A/L at least if he so pursued it) and enjoys the ability to go to the doctor without having to cough up any money. If not, he is living in denial! or else went to private school and sought private health care. In the US you are guaranteed only education up to high school. University and medical fees are not provided or neither are they subsidized. University education is absurdly high and out of reach for many low and some times middle income families. People go into debt paying medical costs!