The 97% and the 3% in Sri Lanka
Repost This Article
Photo courtesy Daylife/Reuters
We all know about the 99% and the 1% and most of us know where we are or which we sympathise with. I’m with the 99%. But what about the 97% and the 3%? How many of us know about the 97% anyway? I didn’t until a few days ago, so I wouldn’t blame anyone, but those of you who read this article will know all about it when you’ve finished and you can figure out which side you’re on. I’m with the 97%.
As you read on, it will be tempting to caricature the point and reduce the 97% to a partisan stance, which it is not. To spin it as such would be the most gigantic undeserved compliment one could pay an administration or a political bloc. The 97% is about a perspective on an important theme or cluster of concerns (‘national-popular’ in Gramscian terms) of the enormous majority of the country’s citizenry, which translates itself into partisan support only because a political leadership and formation have decided, for reasons of conviction or convenience, to identify with it and channel that perspective. Nothing prevents the alternative formation or any other from doing the same, which would prevent a single political bloc from tapping and monopolising that collective sentiment.
So, read on, and go look in the mirror: figure out whether you are part of the 97% or with the 3%.
The latest number of Lanka Monthly Digest (LMD) to reach me (belatedly), its December 2011 issue, has Kumar Sangakkara on the cover as the Sri Lankan of the Year, which is an apt pick indeed. The LMD has been a periodical of repute since its appearance in 1994 and is a prominent voice from within the country’s vibrant corporate sector. Regular commentators in its pages include Jehan Perera, hardly an ideologue of the ruling coalition. Therefore I take rather seriously its regular item Talking Point, Voice of the People, presented by the LMD Business Desk, and features this time, the LMD-TNS opinion poll on the issue of international pressure on war crimes, human rights etc. The survey is conducted by TNS Lanka, the local affiliate of TNS which bills itself as the world’s largest customised research agency and is part the WPP group which has offices in 106 countries. The research methodology was a random sample and face to face interviews of respondents between 18 and 55 years of age , with an equal gender divide and covering Colombo and the provinces ( or ‘outstations’ as it quaintly calls them) in equal proportions.
The questions are full-on and the results are dramatic. Are you in favour of the Government’s reaction to allegations of human rights abuses? 97% say YES. Do you feel that certain nations in the West are applying double standards in regard to alleged ‘war crimes’? 85% say YES. Does the Secretary General of the UN have the right to appoint a panel to report on the final stages of the war? 78% say NO. Has the Opposition adopted the right stance as far as Sri Lanka’s defence in the face of these allegations are concerned? 80% say NO. (p45)
Little wonder then that the LMD Business Desk reports that “a staggering 97% of people interviewed by TNS pollsters across the island say they are in favour of the Government’s response to allegations made by the UN panel and some Western nations”. (Ibid)
It goes on to disclose “that the West practices double standards is highlighted, and it is no surprise that 85% of the poll participants believe this is also the case in the present scenario. ‘The West very frequently publicises false statements’, ‘Western countries only act in their best interests’ and ‘some Western countries support terrorists’ are some of the opinions expressed during the nationwide survey.” (ibid)
Strikingly important as these results are the questions and answers that follow are even more significant to students and practitioners of politics. These pertain to the political behaviour and prospects of the Opposition, the preferred foreign policy perspective of the public and the commitment of the citizenry to democracy.
What then does the public think Sri Lanka should do, as a counter-hegemonic strategy? “Looking at the bigger picture, poll participants believe that Sri Lanka should seek the support of friendly nations such as China and Russia, who as permanent members of the UN Security Council have veto powers. They say it is also important to set a mechanism in place to counter such allegation s through the international media – with the use of online forums and so on. Reorganising the country’s foreign diplomatic service ‘to work efficiently and make strong representations against such allegations’ is also recommended by survey respondents.” (ibid)
This criticism or more accurately, defensive counter-criticism of the West is not a manifestation of congenital or culturally conditioned anti-Westernism, unlike in the case of the Southern chauvinist fringe. Almost 30% of those polled called for ‘building and strengthening ties with the Western countries’.
Fascinatingly, the poll results reveal not merely the secret or a secret of the popularity of the government, but of the unpopularity of the opposition.
“Criticism is also levelled at the opposition almost by a similar majority (80%) of respondents who are of the opinion that ‘the opposition is working towards gaining political advantage’ out of the present situation when the government has locked horns with the mighty West.” (p45)
Here lies the deadlock, because the unambiguous diagnosis, obvious prognosis and clear prescription for the Opposition are completely at variance with the stance, ideology, self-image and proclivities of the main opposition party under its current leadership. Bluntly put, the UNP has always been seen as pro-western and soft on sovereignty, with the significant exception of the Premadasa presidency. This perception is indelibly ingrained under Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe and those associated with him. This public perception is a fatal electoral affliction at times of heightened public sensitivity to issues of sovereignty and perceptions of Western bias—times such as these current ones.
Anti-government strategists are probably betting on the oil price shock and economic crisis to generate a meltdown of the administration’s patriotic support, while the Opposition and its existing leadership stand pat and occasionally stir the pot. However, the slightest awareness of comparative politics and contemporary history would show that economic hard times do not cause patriotism to evaporate, only to combine in unusual combinations, generating unorthodox displacements and choices, not all of them predictable or palatable. As Egypt and Tunisia show, none of the outcomes, especially the electoral endgames, escape the ‘over-determining’ effect of the ‘national-popular’.
The colossal indictment of the Opposition contained in the LMD-TNS opinion poll cannot be countered by ritualistic bows to race, religion and language (a la DB Wijetunga and IMRA Iriyagolla, the UNP’s notion of ‘nationalists’), because that is not what it is about, going by the data—the figures of approval and disapproval far exceed any ethnic, religious or linguistic demographic. Contrary to both the pro-Western opposition and cosmopolitan intellectuals on the one hand and the Sinhala ultra-nationalists on the other, this is manifestly not about Sinhala –Buddhist nationalism or chauvinism; it is about Sri Lankan patriotism.
The figures reveal that this overwhelming and overarching patriotism is by no means part of an authoritarian still less totalitarian mindset. Those critics who contend that the Sinhalese are making today, the same trade-off that the North mistakenly made for thirty years, namely ‘the defence of ethno-national pride for democratic rights and freedoms’, ignore – incredibly—the fact that the Tamil people were under the totalitarian jackboot of the LTTE, unlike the South which had, as does the whole island now, a multiplicity of mass media, civic associations and political parties. Therefore any analogy is ridiculous. Moreover, the polls data shows that the mass of our citizens are unhappy and unwilling to make any trade-offs which affect democracy and identify the strengthening, deepening and widening precisely of democracy (internally), as the ultimate and abiding answer to the (external) threats to sovereignty.
“But if we are to close this chapter once and for all, Sri Lanka’s democracy must be strengthened; law and order must be restored…” A plurality, 51% of those polled recommend as the ultimate solution to the external challenge, that we “strengthen the country’s democracy and be more transparent in all activities”. (Ibid)
That is a clear indication of a domain in which the people wish to see reform, improvement, and change for the better. For our people then, democracy is the answer, and they will recoil from any attempt to resort to any other measures in defence of sovereignty.
The data of this valuable and credible exercise in public opinion polling shows that Sri Lanka’s people cherish national sovereignty and have a democratic vocation, i.e. they cherish both national and popular sovereignty. They stand firmly for an independent, sovereign democracy; a democracy that is not supine and which stands up to the West, but also a patriotism that is more democratic and transparent. Theirs is a democratic patriotism or a liberal nationalism of the centre; an articulation of the ‘national-popular’ and the democratic. It is a vision of a country that is free from interference from without and is no less free within: that’s a good description of a sovereign, liberal or social democracy.
Stand up to the West? Ho-hum. US visits Lanka weeks ahead of Geneva. Two days later, army appoints commission to probe ‘excesses’ – and suddenly, C4 doesnt appear all that fake.
I wonder why…
All this garble of words just to make this point:
“unlike the South which had, as does the whole island now, a multiplicity of mass media, civic associations and political parties.”
Therefore, the conclusion is that all the Sri Lanka is having democracy now.
Wow!
The recent fishermen incident is yet another example of this popular democracy that the Sri Lanka is having.
Oh and lest not forget the classic ‘external’ threat to sovereignty.
Dayan, you are doing a good job!
MV,
The shooting of the fisherman was horrific and must be unambiguously condemned, but you obviously do not know or do not wish readers to know about Kandasamy and Govindan who were shot in 1947, and the 8 unarmed, nonviolent protestors who were shot dead during the Hartal of 1953, my first-year batchmate Weerasooriya from Uhumiya who was shot dead by police at Peradeniya campus in November 1976 and the Colombo campus student who was shot dead before my eyes, down Havelock road in 1984.
The LMD stats point to a basic sociopolitical and sociopsychological reality that folk like you are simply blind to: it is perfectly possible, even likely, that come the Presidential election, if the choice is the incumbent vs the present leader of the Opposition, even the family of the dead fisherman will either vote for the incumbent (especially if he reaches out to them) or abstain from voting.
Nathan,
If you think SL won’t stand up to the West in Geneva this time whatever the outcome, you obviously do not know my comrade, Ambassador Tamara Kunanayakam.
Know her too well. As good a ‘firewall’ for the GoSL as you, or maybe better – since she’s ‘Sri Lankan Tamil’. Talented woman. Too bad for us actually.
But I think you are broadly mapping the West as one entity. Apart from a few who would make noise on ‘human rights’ blah blah, the US-UK axis is only going to press for speedy implementation of LLRC and some (token) prosecutions of guys in the army – a process which I think the honorable Lt.Gen. Jayasuriya has already initiated, which would culminate maybe – just maybe – in some petty punishments doled out to poor low rank soldiers to pacify the West.
To be frank, your ‘hoodwink’ is easy to figure. It’s the West’s hoodwink of the Tamils that is most confounding.
This is the second time in less than 12 months that a protestor was killed.
There have also been a spate of disappearances of late, not to mention the growing toll of deaths in custody.
The Russian-American writer Ayn Rand once said if you disagree with a rational man, you should let reality be the final arbiter. If Dayan is right, Nathan will learn; if Dayan is wrong, he will learn. One of them will win, but both will profit.
Let’s wait and see if Tamara can work her magic.
Nathan,
You have won. Can I cross over?
Dayan,
The firewall has been hacked.
Yes, Please say this to the thousands of families in Vanni whose members (who had nothing to do with LTTE but yet) were killed during the war and the thousand others who are still searching for their family members.
So,97% support State Terrorism.
Just as many suspected, even the tamils.
Justitia, please note that the 97% logically must include Tamils, because the Sinhalese are 74% and Sinhala Buddhists are 67%.
Cyril, you are right and those are among the goals that must be fought for, starting with the implementation of the LLRC recommendations and proposals.
Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka,
Did you read TNS Global’s survey report? Or are you basing your article solely on what was written on LMD?
Mechanisms and processes of transparency and accountability are fundamentals of a liberal democracy are demonstrably lacking in SL
“Do you feel that certain nations in the West are applying double standards in regard to alleged ‘war crimes’? 85% say YES.”
I think the 15% should read the:
Goldstone Report
On the 3 April 2009, South African Judge Richard Goldstone was named as the head of the independent United Nations Fact-Finding Mission to investigate international human rights and humanitarian law violations related to the Gaza War. The Mission was established by Resolution S-9/1 of the United Nations Human Rights Council.
On September 15, 2009, the UN Fact-Finding mission released its report. The report found that there was evidence “indicating serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law were committed by Israel during the Gaza conflict, and that Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity.” The mission also found that there was evidence that “Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes, as well as possibly crimes against humanity, in their repeated launching of rockets and mortars into Southern Israel.”[63][64][65] The mission called for referring either side in the conflict to the UN Security Council for prosecution at the International Criminal Court if they refuse to launch fully independent investigations by December 2009.
Goldstone has since partially retracted the reports conclusions that Israel committed war crimes, as new evidence has shed light upon the decision making by Israeli commanders. He said, “I regret that our fact-finding mission did not have such evidence explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians in Gaza were targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes.”
Goldstone acknowledged that Israel has “to a significant degree” implemented the reports recommendations that “each party to investigate [the incidents] transparently and in good faith,” but “Hamas has done nothing.” The Palestinian Authority has also implemented the reports recommendations by investigating “assassinations, torture and illegal detentions, perpetrated by Fatah in the West Bank,” but Goldstone noted that “most of those allegations were confirmed by this inquiry.”
March 2011 controversy
At the UNHRC’s opening session in February 2011, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized the council’s “structural bias” against the State of Israel: “The structural bias against Israel – including a standing agenda item for Israel, whereas all other countries are treated under a common item – is wrong. And it undermines the important work we are trying to do together.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council
“But if we are to close this chapter, we should first and foremost change the Constitution of this multifarious country to suit the needs of its citizens, before it gets into worse hands. I see it getting pushed there, and wish that a patriotic, level headed, individual would start a political party with its main objective being the abolition of this draconian constitution, which would pave the way to strengthen the country’s democracy and be more transparent in all activities”
Is there a break up of how the races responded to the survey?
It would be interesting to see how many minorities agreed.
Bo Peep,
I contacted LMD for the ethnic breakdown. Their response was as follows:
We do not have a break up of ‘ethnicities’, because as a rule
we prefer not to dilute the concept of the ‘Sri Lankan identity’
Nathan
You say :”But I think you are broadly mapping the West as one entity. Apart from a few who would make noise on ‘human rights’ blah blah, the US-UK axis is only going to press for speedy implementation of LLRC and some (token) prosecutions of guys in the army – a process which I think the honorable Lt.Gen. Jayasuriya has already initiated, which would culminate maybe – just maybe – in some petty punishments doled out to poor low rank soldiers to pacify the West.”
How do you know? Maybe Sri Lanka too will punish the perpetrators “as severe as” America punished these people who killed civilians in Iraq!
Please Read:
(Reuters) – A U.S. Marine sergeant accused of leading a 2005 massacre of 24 civilians in Haditha, Iraq, was spared jail time on Tuesday for his role the killings that brought international condemnation of American troops.
Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, 31, was sentenced instead to a demotion to the rank of private, the lowest rank in the service, a day after he pleaded guilty to a single count of dereliction of duty.
Wuterich, who could have faced a maximum penalty of three months in confinement, showed no emotion as a military judge pronounced his sentence.
More serious charges of involuntary manslaughter and aggravated assault had already been dismissed as part of a plea deal, which cut short Wuterich’s court-martial and was decried by a victim’s relative as “an insult to all Iraqis.”
As part of his guilty plea, Wuterich accepted responsibility for providing negligent verbal instructions to the Marines under his command when he told them to “shoot first and ask questions later,” which resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians.
sabbe,
I know that GoSL is bad. Really bad – have been at the recieving end of things, so I would know. But it still is not half as bad as the US. Believe me, all the ‘excesses’ that SLA committed in Vanni did indeed affect my subjective senses as a Tamil. But an objective analysis shows that the blueprint of the CI strategy that led to Mullivaikaal was not laid in Colombo but in the US-UK axis.
So dont pull this ‘hey look at what the US is doing before you criticize our government’s crimes’ on me. You can use this against Tamil compradors who think that Obama will get them some settlement. In my view, both the US and GoSL are on the same side.
If it is 97% they must be living in Paris ! No one I know and I live in the Capital, has ANYTHING good to say about this regime and what they have done to our Country.
Dr. DJ,
If a vote had been taken from Germans in Nazi Germany whether Hitler was corrrect in persecuting Jews, planning to invade neighbouring countries, promoting the ideology of white supremacism and all the rest of the stuff the majority would have voted yes.
If a vote had been taken from Jews in Israel todya whether their treatment of Palestinians is correct they would overwhelmingly say yes.
The majority is not always right.
The propaganda they here from morning to night, day in and day out from the pro-government media and from people like DJ does not let them a space to think for themselves.
It is a well known fact that people are part of the problem can not see the truth clearly. Their perceptions are always biased, self-centred and partial. Only a outsider can see the truth.
Patriotism today is used in a distorted sense. A person can be a patriot without being a nationalist. Loving one’s country is not saying yes to all the bad things done by the government and its people.
A person, who opposes MR and his government, advocates granting rights to minorities, belongs to the DJ’s 3% can very well be a patriot and love his country.
It is not DJ who decides who is a patriot or a traitor.
If you want to support something you can find a hundred and one excuses to do so. ‘Kanna Unahama Kabaragoyath Thalagoya Wenawa’.
‘The problem with democracy is that the majority is not always right. The virtue of democracy is that the minority accepts that’ – Unknown
Acceptance of majority need not be automatic. It is subject the certain conditions. There are certain principles, which can not be compromised. In such a scenario minority has the right to oppose it.