You have hit the Nail on the Head.

Very incisive two lines

Zizek was talking about the work of trying to reconcile antithetical opposites as “ideological”, i.e. as that which mystifies our perception of social realities. He was not discussing only the capital and labour situation. I am not arguing that the situation between the North and South cannot be resolved–it can be. Tamil expectations of obtaining equal rights are well within the systemic capacity of a democracy. I was, at the first level, interrogating your suggestion that Tamils need to be partners of Sinhalese nationalism such that they are “neither posturing competitors nor pliant clients”. There is no position between “posturing competitors” and “pliant clients” that is a pure space that doesn’t take in either of those two extremes that you mentioned, i.e. it is pure ideology in the classical definition of false consciousness–and it may involve trickery, Tamils pretending to be one, while covertly being the other. To my mind, citizens shouldn’t need to resort to trickery to obtain their rights, and if they do need to do that, that merely shows that they are, in the final analysis, “pliant clients”, powerless. You expose the nonsense of your own recommendation by asking Tamils to become “partners” of “Sinhala nationalism.” A partnership is about each obtaining its own goals but also helping the others to achieve theirs. So, Tamils are supposed to help Sinhalese grow or at least sustain their own nationalism? And what would happen to their own goals when they do?

But to move to another macro level of meaning, reconciliation entails each party at the opposite end of contradictions GIVING UP something (so that their positions are no longer contradictory). That is the shift that is required. The Tamils, at one end, want a Tamil Eelam; the Sinhalese want a unitary Sinhalese-dominated nation. Reconciliation is possible if the Tamils give up the Eelam demand and settle for a unitary state, and the Sinhalese accept the idea of a unitary state with protected equal rights for minorities. Or there is the federalism option. Your idea of reconciliation is that of the Sinhalese standing where they are, and handing out gifts to Tamils–a Santa Clause kind of gift-giving that entails gratitude from Tamils.

If your position is that the Sinhalese don’t have to budge from their nationalism because they are the majority holding the reins of power, then aren’t we back at square one of the conflict–except you’re trying to disguise it as a reconciliation!

Yes, recalcitrance can lead one to Nandikadal and Menik farms, and that applies to South as well as to North.

As someone from the Tamil diaspora, with family still in Sri Lanka, I find your suggestion that Tamils become partners of Sinhala nationalism extremely offensive.

You forgot to mention those really long lines of people, desperate to get visas, gathered outside American and European embassies. Give them the chance to vote for Mahinda or leave the country, what choice do you think they’ll make…

I’d argue tyranny and corruption matter to them in ‘normal’ times – this election happened in anything but a normal time. The crushing defeat of the LTTE was something that meant a lot to the Southern voter. On that single fact alone, MR was always going to be more likely to win the election – the oppositions weak campaign made that a certainty.

Should this gov’t continue with the same governing style for its next term, I would fairly confidently wager that at the next election in 6 years, with sufficient time for the euphoria of the LTTEs defeat to subside, other every day issues will become much more important as a voting factor and we will see a very different result.

Now, part of what has continued to hamper the opposition is the government’s willing to play the race card to taint the opposition as ‘non-patriotic’ and ‘eelamist’ due to the oppositions willingness in words at least to countenance a degree of political structure reform and de-militarization beyond what the government is willing to offer.

While accepting the many faults of many many successive governments on the front of ethnic/national unity, our leadership has also been sorely lacking.

We have for too long allowed the ‘Southern’ parties to define our interests to the Sinhalese people – and in most cases when election time comes around, i’d say mischaracterize our interests fairly effectively.

I think it is time we developed a national message and went beyond speaking just to the Tamil people on Tamil issues alone – framing a clear message of what we see our issues as being, how they are different and how in a lot of cases similar to issues the poor and unconnected among the South face, what reforms we see as necessary to alleviate these issues, and our willingness to do so within one country.

One good thing coming out of this election is talk of the TNA and SLMC forming an alliance. It is a step towards framing the question of the place of the minority communities, not just the Tamils.

The next step would be for them to firmly disavow the concept of Tamil Eelam as a separate country while continuing to advocate political reform and practical solutions for the very real issues their constituents face, contest and win seats in an open parliamentary election in April to gain legitimacy and go South with a message. Learn Sinhalese, address the Sinhalese media, etc.

Yep I’ve read Zizek advising against reconciling opposites but he’s talking about capital and labour. I don’t consider the Tamils and the Sinhalese or the North and South as opposites, unlike you obviously do. I prefer Lenin’s distinction between contradictions and antagonisms, or Mao’s elaboration on non-antagonistic contradictions as distinct from antagonistic ones. The contradiction between the North and South ( or Tamils and Sinhalese) is a non antagonistic one, capable of resolution. Try reading Mao’s essays on philosophy, with Zizek’s introduction.

Let me play devil’s advocate. What’s the alternative to reconciliation? The last alternative wound up in Nandikadal and Menik farms.

Maybe the opportunity to loot Tamil shops and burn Tamil homes? Basically anything anti-Tamil will bring them onto the street in great numbers.

But may I register that you yourself were puzzled watching the after-election interviews, that voters conceded corruption and bad governance to the incumbent president, but voted for him anyway. I suspect that the reasons cited, that they didn’t know what the other side stood for, and whether Fonseka and company would mean anything different, are really just excuses to justify their vote. These are not the real reasons why they voted for Rajapaksa. If clean government meant anything to them, they would have voted for the other side, or for one of the minor contenders–simply because there was at least some chance that these guys might do things differently as opposed to the absolute certain knowledge that Rajapaksa promised corruption and tyranny.

Either tyranny and corruption don’t mean anything to them, or it does not mean as much to them as something else. Perhaps they figure that even if there’s corruption, something will trickle down to them with big development projects with China in the works?

What would make the Sri Lankan masses run out into the streets in heavy protest? Perhaps if we answer that question, we’ll know what makes them tick, what made them vote for Rajapaksa. Which ones of these imaginary scenarios would bring them out into the streets:
1. assassination or incarceration of a respected opposition leader or civil society figure by the current regime?
2. Big news of Rajapaksa family’s financial stakes in development projects?
3. Increase in tempo of white van abductions and killings?
4. Government corruption in handling international aid directed at helping people struck by a natural disaster?
5. News that Rajapaksa is planning on implementing the 13th Amendment?

I would be interested in knowing if there are any other issues that would make them come out by the droves.

No, democracy doesn’t stump me. I know what it means. Do you?