Dayan during President Premadasa’s time defended Stalinist repression in an article published in the Daily News. To defend repression and to deny the existence of repression are two different things. There may be those who believe that repression is justified for ideological reasons. However, to deny repression when it exists is a completely different thing. It is deception.
There are people who believe that repression is necessary for establishing a type of stability, or even certain developments that they wish to achieve. However, such beliefs have lead to disastrous consequences. Two examples which demonstrate the catastrophic consequences that such an idea can lead to are the experiences of Cambodia and Burma.
Within just four years, Pol Pot caused one of the greatest human disasters in history. Pol Pot sincerely believed in the Stalinist idea of repression as the means of achieving great things. He had a vision of a new society and new ways of bringing prosperity to Cambodia. However, his style of repression, based on the Stalinist model, caused the complete collapse of the economy and the deaths of 1/7 of the population. The whole idea of the administration of justice disappeared during this period and it has proven an almost impossible task to rebuild it. In the post-Pol Pot Cambodia, nobody understands what ‘law’ means. By words like ‘police’ or ‘judges’, the people merely understand party functionaries who will defend the system. The idea of protection through law and justice is completely alien.
I had occasion to watch this sad situation for almost three years, as I was myself engaged with the United Nations, particularly working in the area of assistance to judicial reforms. The extent of the loss of the memory of justice can be manifest through one incident: At a meeting with the Minister of Justice, I pointed out that some things had to be done in order to address the issue of the independence of the judiciary. The Minister of Justice replied emphatically, “Do not worry about this! I will make them independent!” That is how the conception of law and the administration of justice can disappear when people are exposed to extreme forms of repression. I have been associated with many Cambodians who are struggling to introduce the rule of law and democracy into Cambodia. They realised, along with me, that it will take very many more decades and the investment of extensive resources if Cambodia is to return to the situation prior to the Pol Pot regime; and even before that time, Cambodia had a very backward rule of law system.
General Ne Win of Burma was a different kind of admirer of Stalin. He wanted to amass power and wealth for himself. During Ne Win’s rule in Burma, all benefits went to his family and to a few friends, who were the only ones he trusted in terms of administration. But his style of repression was also Stalinist, and he called it the Burmese way of socialism. From the point of view of administration of justice, the result of this repression was the same. People lost all memory of what the law, judges and civilian policing meant. One of my friends is doing doctoral research into the way the administration of justice process was completely displaced in Burma. This displacement was so much that when, recently, a UN Rapporteur inquired from some prisoners about whether they receive assistance from lawyers, the prisoners replied, “What are lawyers?” Perhaps they could have also asked, “What is a trial?”
The idea of protection through law is something that no Burmese in the country can now comprehend. The law is seen as an instrument of the denial of protection and a tool of repression. There are numerous cases that have been documented which expose the absurdity of it all.
To a great extent this has already happened in Sri Lanka, and if this repression continues in the way it exists now it will not take Sri Lankans long to acquire the same mentalities regarding law and administration of justice as the Cambodians or the Burmese. Already, the extent to which there is loss of meaning of legality and illegality within Sri Lanka is quite manifest. There are enough writings exposing how Sri Lanka has become a lawless place.
Anyway, to defend a Stalinist style of repression is one thing. But to deny that such a repression exists in Sri Lanka is quite another. Can anyone argue that the human rights situation in Sri Lanka is now better than during President Premadasa’s time? If one goes by the paramount law, which is the 1978 Constitution that allowed President Premadasa to do what he did, that remains the same still. The emergency laws and the Prevention of Terrorism laws have given even more power to the security apparatus. The absence of criminal investigations into extrajudicial killings, disappearances, torture and the like are much more prominent now than before. Attacks on journalists and the media have also risen in number and extent of violence. Arbitrary arrest and detention and politically motivated trials are also part of the present scene. Nepotism is much more visible and corruption is much more widespread. No one knows whether there are any means for any legal protection.
Someone may defend such repression, either honestly or otherwise, for ideologically reasons. However, denying such repression when it exists is pure deception.