Archives

by S.T. Hettige, Professor of Sociology, University of Colombo

Sri Lanka's donors will be happy to contribute to physical development projects which are tangible and visible when completed and can therefore, be easily quantified and documented. The same applies to political leaders who are eager to travel around, opening hospitals, bridges and culverts in front of large crowds.

While such facilities undoubtedly will contribute to an improvement of the standard of living of the ordinary people in war ravaged areas, they would hardly change the social circumstances that immensely contributed to the current crisis. Some of these circumstances are monolingual education, ethno-linguistic segregation, inadequate opportunities for spatial and social mobility, ethnically segregated settlements, inadequate facilities for skill development and employment, and lack of opportunities for social learning and cultural exchange across ethnic communities.

It is true that the social and cultural issues cannot be effectively addressed in a few months, or even in a few years. On the other hand, the Government has already publicly stated that a permanent settlement is not around the corner and that it will take a long time before a durable peace is achieved. If this is the case, it should be possible to broaden the scope of post-war reconstruction and rehabilitation to address the kind of social issues mentioned above as well.

The politicians involved in the negotiation process would no doubt wish to concentrate on issues of power sharing and physical infrastructure. Many politicians usually take for granted the argument that inadequate devolution of power has been the primary cause of the ethnic conflict. If we simply accept this argument, then we only have to hire a few persons as did the previous government, to find the best formula to end the crisis. But, as we know, the reality has been, and will always be, far more complex than what the political scientists and power hungry politicians want us to believe.

As I have already argued in numerous previous articles, a whole range of policy failures in economic, social and cultural fields over several decades created conditions that facilitated not only the formation and consolidation of mutually exclusive ethno-linguistic constituencies but also the fragmentation of the Sri Lankan polity. If we ignore all these factors and simply argue that separatist tendencies emerged mainly because there was no devolution of power, then the remedy may also appear to be simple and straightforward, i.e. devolve power and that will take care of everything.

On the other hand, if we do not simultaneously address the non-political factors that pulled the socio-political system apart and reinforced particularistic tendencies, we have to assume that these factors will remain dormant and will not exert similar pressures as they did in the past. My own assessment is that it would be too naive to be guided by such an assumption.

Since, it would amount to ignoring a whole range of critical social issues that have not only underlined the ethnic question for many decades but also adversely affected the lives of many people, in particular, marginalized youth, our failure to address such issues as part of a broad based reconstruction effort would leave many causes of social discontent, individual frustration and ethnic exclusion untouched.

It is not necessary to mention that such conditions are not conducive for the development of modern democratic institutions and creating social and political stability.

As I have argued elsewhere, many post-independence state policies militated against the emergence of a broader Sri Lankan identity among successive generations of youth or they effectively contributed to the formation of separate ethno-linguistic identities overriding the former. Moreover, some of these policies alienated minority youth from the Sri Lankan state, throwing them onto the lap of those politicians who thrived on ethnic particularism. In other words, if we adopt policies and implement programmes that, on the one hand, facilitate the emergence of an open Sri Lankan society and substantially neutralise particularistic and exclusivist tendencies on the other, then, we will be encouraging the younger generations to converge within an open, multi-ethnic society where they enjoy equal opportunities and share a sense of belongingness wherever they go.

So, post-war reconstruction should not only involve building roads, schools and market towns but also constructing social and cultural bridges that would gradually bring divergent ethno-nationalist constituencies closer together. However, at a time when the whole world is preoccupied with naked wealth creation and brutal power games, bringing social concerns to the forefront is going to be an uphill task. (business leaders are anxiously waiting like vultures to grab business opportunities to make easy money and many politicians are looking for short cuts to retain, gain or regain power).

Moreover, we should not be so gullible as to expect those who thrive on gross material inequalities and social disharmony to readily promote redistribution and social solidarity that transcends great social and cultural divisions that formed the basis of the present crisis in the country.

Hence my humble appeal to all those socially concerned leaders and members of the international community to ensure that the social concerns are also taken on board when moving to the all important stage of post-war reconstruction in Sri Lanka.

This is perhaps the only way to ensure that the eventual political settlement, whatever that may be, not only satisfies the political aspirations of the leaders but also provides an institutional and policy framework within which the needs and grievances of diverse social groups are effectively addressed.

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager