Which country in the world would have a government that is ethnic and religion neutral? Every single country in the world has a main ethnic group and a dominant religion and culture. Sri Lanka will be dominated by Sinhala-Buddhists the same way England is dominated by Protestant Anglos and Saudi by Sunni Arabs. Representative democracy is about one man having one vote where the will of the majority wins. The solutions you suggest are not that different from apartheid era South Africa.

Do you expect the 70% Sinhalese and the minorities to have an equal number of representatives in the parliament, administration, universities and workplaces? Of course all these institutions will be dominated by Sinhalese because they form the majority. Every person should have equal rights and privileges on an individual level, but as an ethnic group, Sinhalese will always win with their majority in numbers in addition to their uniqueness. We’re certainly better than the oh-so-federal USA, where there’s only one black man in the Senate and he’s half white!

Is there a single country in the world (except for pre-Mandela South Africa) where you could see a system like the one you propose for Sri Lanka. Which country does not have a majoritarian culture and expect minorities to blend in? Where in the world do minorities have more rights than in Sri Lanka? Which modern country allows exclusive monoethnic administrative regions for minority groups of foreign origin and appoints unelected vice presidents from minority ethnic groups. Where in the world does any country let its minority groups have their own ethnic/religious law above the country’s common law? What country are you comparing Sri Lanka with? I’m confused, please enlighten me.

From the people I have spoken to, the war path seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to the brutality of the LTTE to killing of civilians in the South. The Sri Lankan media also manages to insulate the public from anything else that is going on in the country so very few people will be open to the point of view that the army is harrassing the people in the North and East, and worse, that civilians have been wantonly killed and tortured.

“Now Chil the Kite brings home the night
That Mang the Bat sets free–
The herds are shut in byre and hut,
For loosed till dawn are we.
This is the hour of pride and power,
Talon and tush and claw.
Oh, hear the call!–Good hunting all
That keep the Jungle Law!”

Kipling – Mowgli’s Brothers

Good night…and good luck!

I tend to disagree with your position, realising of course, that what you say does make a certain degree of sense. What I find hard to believe is the “essential decency” you speak of. For sure, manifestations of this may have been in the spontaneous outpouring of aid and relief from Southern communities to their fellow citizens in the Eastern and Northern provinces after the Boxing Day tsunami in ’04. This, you would agree, was underplayed in the media and was regrettably a foundation that could have led to political reconciliation, if those we had in power then had the prescience and sagacity to realise its potential.

Sadly, but not unexpectedly, they did not. And over time, as has been the case with the conflict, this essential decency gave way to the support of politics and politicians who have, since their election (I speak here of the incumbent President and his govt.) undone much of the hope that was the result of the CFA in Feb ’02. That the ballot box was unable to refute, clearly and firmly, the rise of Sinhala Buddhist nationalism, once again, is a demonstration I feel refutes strongly the basis of your optimism – that we have a body of citizens aware and capable of electing those who will strengthen peace, good governance and democracy.

I share you sentiment about the UNP – suffice to say that we are reaping today the singular lack of vision, political acumen and dastardly process design that the UNP instigated from 2002 – 2004, even though credit is certainly due for having fostered the CFA.

Embracing democracy is one that we both do, as do, I would assume, a majority of our fellow citizens. But embracing it requires us to also step up to the central responsibility of citizenship – which is to, in effect, act as watchdogs of those we elect, ensure that democracy is real and not just in word, and reject, by ballot or by democratic dissent in the media and on the streets, those who do not ascribe to democratic ideals.

We have not in the past. We seem unable to at present. It is highly unlikely that we will be able to do so in the future.

So as a democracy in name we will continue, but it is a bunkered Stalinism that we will endure in the Soth (a la the “Chintanaya”) and a bunkered (some would say dwindling) totalitarianism in the North (a la the Sun God).

Caught between these two equally unpleasant realities – each one contributing to the strength of the other – I fear that citizens will only become more insular, unable to comprehend or cope with the trauma of polity and society writ large. Accordingly, we will not have a national interest in democracy, and will increasingly see society that is supine and will believe in the wild ravings of politicians only interested in continuing and raking up anxiety and fear, and a perennial war on terror.

No distaste for the commons, but a great distaste for their inability, perhaps inevitable, to act – decisively.

And so we have, as you say, a case for engaged elitism. But hang on, wasn’t that number played by the UNP? And didn’t that record skip a beat when CBK pulled the plug? What chance of success now?

Elitism, also, is all well and good – but are you really espousing the creation of a Consociational state in Sri Lanka? Surely Che, that would be a disastrous experiment, given our political and constitutional evolution?

Good questions, yours, too.

But I am a pathological optimist, and think that the problem lies in the diabolical failure of the UNP to give inspired and inspiring democratic political leadership to what are, essentially decent people, but who can be, as you say, disgruntled and therefore open to demagogic persuasion by a bit of charisma, easy-to-understand solutions, and critically, the feeling of “apey Mahinda.”

If we, as I do, embrace demoracy, then you get it warts and all – so the task of democratic political leadership is well-difined: turn voters (the great unwashed) into prosperous, civic virtuous, citizens (a petit bourgeoisie).

No point, and I fully understand the sentiment, in succumbing to the temptation of distaste for the masses. As is already hapenning, the worst among them will rise to the occasion and thereby to political leadership, and there’s nothing worse than a mob led by a peasant.

That’s the case for an engaged elitism.

Good questions, all. The decency you speak of – is it proven to exist? Or better yet, can it exist in a context where 54.5% of majority – the Sinhalese – honestly believe that “The Government should expand its military action including even to all out war in order to
weaken the LTTE.” (question taken from Peace Confidence Index of Centre for Policy Alternatives – November 2006 issue)?!

The question also is how much this revulsion of the JHU and JVP translates in SL’s complex electoral politics. The sad fact is that we have voters, not citizens, in SL – and come election time, the disgruntlement with existing political parties has, historically speaking, only rarely prevented bigots, war mongers and racists from coming into power.

Given that SL is not Nepal – and that it would be foolish to expect a peoples movement for peace in our lifetimes – saying that the “vast majority” (sic) of Sinhala Buddhists are “revolted by the lack of decency in Southern politics with regard to their fellow country of different ethnicities and religion” is one thing (for the record, I would agree) but perhaps that only increases the tragedy of the violence in Sri Lanka – this majority seems unable / unwilling to change SL’s slide back into war.

Similarly, I think JM has misunderstood the role of the APRC and its Experts Panel. Vitharana is doing exactly what he was mandated to do – create ideas broadly acceptable in the south through a politically representative process for what can be done re devolution. It is up to the government to do what it wants with his ideas. JM is therefore confusing proposals for government policy.

However, there are two points made by Foobar and JM that are more important than disagreements. JM is absolutely right to insist that any constitutional reform process must be inclusive and participatory, and not least of all of Sinhala aspirations and grievances. There can be no peace in Sri Lanka if the interests of the Sinhala people, along with those of other communities, are not addressed. This is connected to Foobar’s important point re the efficiency and good governance value of federal-type arrangements. If you set aside for a moment the ethnic conflict, and talk to the people of, say Moneragala, about basic government service delivery, you will find the strongest pro-federalist there!