NESL have a very heavy military presence that is nearly totally drawn from the ethnic majority Sinhala community...!!!

Indigenous reality and prospect of reconciliation without devolution
by Jehan Perera

The government appears to have made a hard headed assessment about the need to address local and international concerns about the human rights situation and the ethnic conflict by taking steps to form a Commission on Reconciliation. In its statement regarding the appointment of this Commission the government stated that it was due to the overriding interest in the need for restorative justice by the Sri Lankan people. Its findings, it said, would seek to take the Sri Lankan nation towards the common goals of a multi-ethnic polity, in a spirit of cooperation, partnership and friendship, learning the lessons from recent history to ensure that there will be no recurrence of such tragic conflict in the future.

The government also stated that recommendations would be sought on the nature of compensation to be granted to the victims and their dependents who had suffered from the conflict situation. The commission will also look for institutional, administrative and welfare measures relating to the post conflict phase and would look into the issues of reconstruction, rehabilitation and reconciliation. However, government spokespersons have been categorical in stating that they will not copy alien foreign models such as South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, but will look to an indigenous approach to the issue of reconciliation and lessons learned in terms of the recent conflict.

The appointment of this commission will be particularly helpful to the Sri Lankan government in dealing with issues of human rights in the last phase of the war and good governance in the post-war phase about which several international organizations and governments have been expressing their concerns. The appointment of a Reconciliation Commission could prove to be a suitable governmental response to ease the pressures on this issue. The international community is generally respectful of national initiatives that are taken with regard to internal issues of governance. They would generally prefer to give the government the benefit of the doubt rather than to pre-judge the issue.

The government’s track record with regard to the establishment of commissions of inquiry has been controversial. The international eminent group of persons who came to assist the national commission of inquiry into serious human rights violations in the course of the war left unceremoniously when their mandate was not extended. The report of the commission itself was not publicized. The findings of other commissions of inquiry have been criticized by human rights groups as being inadequate with no punitive or deterrent actions of significance following upon their findings. However, the changed circumstances in the country after the Presidential and General elections may work in the government’s favour.

International Acceptance

In countries such as South Africa and Northern Ireland the appointment of reconciliation commissions have followed or accompanied major shifts in political power that were negotiated by the parties to the conflict. This is not the case in Sri Lanka, where there has been no such shift of power or negotiations. Instead the Sri Lankan government won the war totally and virtually on its own and so is able to stand firm to the point of being able to impose its will upon other parties. Those who have disagreed and sought to compete with the government have been thoroughly defeated politically, such as the mainstream opposition parties, or politically eliminated as a threat, as in the case of the defeated joint opposition presidential candidate retired General Sarath Fonseka.

The international community will be loath to alienate a government that has been so recently voted into power for a further six years or apply sanctions against it, as these are likely to only hurt the people of the country. International actors, such as the European Union, may decide that the power and longevity of the government merit constructive engagement with it rather than disengagement. The partial relaxation of some of the Emergency Regulations and the presidential pardon given to convicted journalist J. S. Tissainayagam may be seen as the fruits of such continuing engagement, small though they may be. The Sri Lankan government has also shown itself to have other options and other countries willing to step in and work with it.

However, it is unfortunate that the government’s actions with regard to those worst affected by the war continue to leave much to be desired. Most of the people of the Wanni region who were trapped till the very end in the battle zones of the North remain in destitute conditions. The fact that many of these people prefer to remain in government welfare centres where conditions are rudimentary gives an indication of the non-availability of acceptable alternatives to them. Vast tracts of the North and East where they once lived are in different stages of destruction and need billions of rupees to be reconstructed. There is also a continuing breakdown of law and order with people in those parts of the country feeling themselves to be vulnerable to unlawful abduction, ransom taking and killings.

The inadequacy of ethnic reconciliation on the ground is also borne out by the sharply differing stances taken by the government and TNA on the issue of the end of the war, and the first year anniversary celebrations being undertaken by the government. The TNA, which won most of the seats in Parliament from the Tamil majority parts of the North and East has urged the Tamil people to mourn and hold silent prayers to mark the event. They pointed out that a large number of people were forced out of their homes and rendered refugees in this and other countries, and that during the height of the war several thousand Tamils were killed and hundreds of thousands of others suffered heavy losses. There could be no more potent expression of absence of reconciliation than the diametrically opposed stances taken.

Political Soluiton

In these circumstances, it is unlikely that the mere appointment of a Reconciliation Commission by the government can by itself change the ethnic polarization in the country. A real change requires a change in the actions on the ground that improves the lives of those who have been affected by the conflict in the past and present. These actions are unlikely to come about in the absence of a political solution that would share political power with the elected representatives of the Tamil people. If indigenous experience is taken into consideration, there cannot be a denial of the need for the devolution of power. Unfortunately, all indications are that the government’s high priority plans for political reforms are to further strengthen the concentration of power in the Presidency rather than to share that power with any other institution.

It is reported that the government’s main concern with regard to political reform is to abolish the two term limit on the Presidency, which would benefit President Mahinda Rajapaksa who is in his second and final term President. A further political reform is reported to be to give back to the President the power to make appointments to high offices of state. This was a power that was taken away from the President by the 17th Amendment which was approved unanimously by Parliament a decade ago. It is unfortunate that this latter reform will further reduce the influence of ethnic minorities in governance, as the 17th Amendment gave them a say in the selection of high state officials.

The consequences of the ongoing centralization of power in an already over centralised system of government is not conducive to either democracy or to ethnic reconciliation. One root cause of the ethnic conflict was the frustration of ethnic minorities that they had no say or power to decide even on matters that affected them in the areas in which they are a majority. Recently a representative group of community leaders, academics and religious leaders from the North wrote to the President complaining about the destruction of historical sites in the course of road construction. This shows that the much spoken about Northern development programme of the government is taking place without the consent of the local authorities and is causing further ethnic polarisation.

Another example of the continuing polarization between the ethnic communities lies in the nature of the security apparatus. At present the North and East of the country have a very heavy military presence that is nearly totally drawn from the ethnic majority community. The people in whose midst this security force is located are unlikely to feel that it is their own, but would more likely see it as an alien force. The fact that even a year after the war there are abductions, ransom-taking and killings taking place would make the people of those areas lay the blame on the government. By way of contrast if the local law and order machinery were under their own supervision, they would have no reason to blame the government. The devolution of power remains the core necessity for indigenous reconciliation. Until and unless the ground situation improves, the Reconciliation Commission runs the risk of being seen as a thing apart.


www island.lk