Sri Lanka: Democracy vs terrorism
Bernard Goonetilleke
As far as the Western world is concerned, the history of democracy
begins during the times of ancient Greeks and Romans. However, coming as
I do from the East, we are aware that a form of democracy existed in
ancient India, long before Athenians even began to practice democracy.
The system of governance in ancient Sri Lanka also goes back several
centuries before the Christian era, and many of you may be aware, that
the history and culture of our island is intertwined with India's. That
being the case, it is safe to assume, that some form of participatory
democracy existed in ancient Sri Lanka as well.
Going ahead with development work in the Eastern Province after
its liberation. Pictures by Chaminda Hittatiya |
Despite its sheer size and diversity, India remains a stalwart of
democracy, and Sri Lanka, despite the challenges it has had to face over
the past several decades, with a bloody armed conflict that consumed
over 60,000 lives, continues its democratic traditions and is currently
engaged in a process of consolidation.
A little known fact is that in Sri Lanka, the seeds of democracy were
sown long before its independence in 1948.
In fact, universal adult suffrage, an essential ingredient of
democracy, was introduced to Sri Lanka in 1931; a mere 14 years after
the U.S. afforded that facility to its people. Thus, Sri Lanka became
the first country in Asia, where its people enjoyed the opportunity to
vote without any distinction.
Addressing the Indian parliament on January 2, 1978, President Jimmy
Carter said, "Democracy is like the experience of life itself - always
changing, infinite in its variety, sometimes turbulent and all the more
valuable for having been tested for adversity."
Strength of democracy
Taken in the context of Sri Lanka, this compelling description of
democracy by President Carter, involuntarily moves to a more powerful
echelon of thought, for, democracy in Sri Lanka has indeed been tested
more than once, for adversity. And, it is an achievement of considerable
significance, that despite the challenges it had to face over the years,
the democratic fabric of our country yet remains intact.
In fact, it ought to be said that, the strength of democracy in any
country should be assessed, not when those countries are enjoying
relative peace, security and prosperity, but when they are compelled to
face adversity, and challenges, which threaten the very sinews of
freedom and democracy.
This is the case of Sri Lanka: a country that has endured
untrammelled terrorism for several decades, which has violently pulled
apart the country and its people, as never before in history.
Despite the magnitude of the challenge and the death and destruction
that spewed because of unmitigated acts terrorism, Sri Lanka, has no
choice but to respond to such threats appropriately, in keeping with
norms expected of democracies.
This, I must say, is not an easy task, and am confident that there
will be no disagreement on that score.
History of Terrorism
The 20th century saw terrorism being practised widely when it became
the hallmark of subversive movements, representing the extreme right to
the extreme left of the political spectrum.
Technological advances, the spread of small arms and light weapons,
deadly explosive devices that can be electrically or electronically
detonated, and the ability to purchase air tickets on the internet, with
freely available credit cards, and circle the globe, thanks to rapid air
transportation, have given terrorists a new lethality and mobility.
The Baader-Meinhof gang of West Germany, the Japanese Red Army,
Italy's Red Brigade, the Puerto Rican FALN, the Shining Path of Peru,
PKK claiming to represent the Kurds, the universally dreaded Al Qaeda
and the LTTE of Sri Lanka, to name a few, were among the most feared
terrorist groups of the latter part of the 20th century.
The increasing use of terrorism to achieve political objectives, is a
relatively new phenomenon that developed in the second half of the 20th
century. At first, the world witnessed a spate of hijackings of civilian
aircraft by Palestinian organisations.
Gradually it began to witness other acts of terrorism, such as the
attack against the US embassy in Beirut in 1983, followed by another
truck bombing against US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut six month
later, together causing more than 300 deaths. On the heels of these
attacks, civilian airliners became targets.
Over the years, we have heard the LTTE, and similar organisations in
many parts of the world, express their view, that their acts of
terrorism can be justified, in exercising their right to
self-determination.
However, it must be pointed out, that although the universal right to
self-determination is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations,
and embodied in the International Covenants on Human Rights and in the
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and
Peoples, contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14
December 1960, none of those international instruments encourage or
condone terrorism in pursuit of that objective.
Indeed, some groups tend to bolster their case by making reference,
to the 1970 Declaration on Friendly Relations and Cooperation among
States, albeit partially.
However, it is pertinent to point out that in 1993, having
deliberated on the matter extensively, UN member States, while
recognising that all peoples have the right to self-determination,
declared, and I quote, "Taking into account the particular situation of
peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign
occupation, the World Conference on Human Rights recognizes the right of
peoples to take any legitimate action, in accordance with the Charter of
the United Nations." End of quote.
The crucial point made in the Vienna Declaration is that, those who
seek to exercise the right to self-determination should take "legitimate
action," and such action should be "in accordance with the Charter of
the United Nations."
Unbridled terrorism
I need not emphasize here that acts of unbridled terrorism are wholly
illegitimate and such actions are not condoned, or encouraged in the UN
Charter.
The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
and the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural
Relations, state that, "All peoples have the right of self determination
and by virtue of that right, they freely determine their political
status and freely pursue their economic social and cultural
development."
However, both these conventions also make it clear that those rights
can only be promoted, "in conformity of the Charter of the United
Nations."
Focusing on the Sri Lankan conflict, language and standardization in
university admissions, are among the major issues highlighted by the Sri
Lankan Tamil community, to establish that their community was
discriminated against, by successive administrations, thus, prompting
them to demand a separate state.
To buttress their claim for a separate state, they also claim that
the North and the East had been the traditional homeland of Tamils since
time immemorial.
However, the fact remains that at no time in the history of the
island was there a 'Tamil Eelam,' encompassing the North and the East.
Furthermore, when a separate sub-kingdom did exist in the North, it
never encompassed the east of the island. Even the so called Jaffna
kingdom came to a partial end in 1561 A.D. and to a complete end in 1621
A.D., when Cankili the Second, a usurper to the throne, was removed by
the Portuguese to Goa, and was promptly hanged.
Therefore, the vain attempt made by the TULF in 1976, to claim
statehood on historical basis, relying on an erroneous minute made by
the first British colonial secretary Hugh Cleghorn, can be put to rest.
However, when the allegation of discrimination relating to the
language issue is discussed, one can understand why the newly
independent Ceylon decided to introduce the Official Languages Act (33)
of 1956, with a view to making Sinhala the official language of the
country.
Ceylon was emerging from colonial rule that had lasted several
centuries, where English had been the language of administration,
irrespective of the fact that over 70 per cent of the population spoke
Sinhala.
From a Tamil viewpoint, the Official Language Act, while giving
prominence to the Sinhala language, ignored the fact that Tamils
comprised approximately 23 per cent of the population.
Even though the administration of that time attempted to address this
lacuna, two years later, through the The Tamil Language (Special
Provisions) Act of 1958, it must be admitted that, the measure did not
fully remedy the situation.
Standardization was also a contentious issue, as the Tamils saw it as
a measure to admit Sinhalese to the universities at the expense of
Tamils.
However, the Sinhalese saw it as a corrective measure, to give the
Sinhala youth their dues in university admissions, particularly to the
medical and engineering faculties, which had a much higher percentage of
Tamil students in comparison to their ethnic ratio.
Sympathise
While one can sympathise with the Sri Lankan Tamils, for losing the
privileged position they enjoyed during the colonial era, it must be
pointed out that even before independence, Tamil politicians made it a
practice to make submissions to the colonial administration that their
community was subjected to discrimination on several areas.
However, having examined the alleged discriminatory practices, the
colonial administration said "a careful review of the evidence submitted
to us provides no substantial indication of a general policy on the part
of the government of Ceylon of discrimination against minority
communities."
Similarly, responding to another complaint made by the All Ceylon
Tamil Congress (ACTC), that there was discrimination with regard to
public appointments affecting their community, the Soulbury Commission
said, "we received from the All-Ceylon Tamil Congress, complaints of
discrimination against the members of their community in regard to
appointments in the Public Services.
Grievances
Apart from real or perceived grievances, such as those relating to
discrimination, Sri Lankan Tamils have other issues that make them feel
they have been short changed by respective governments, over the
decades.
Take for example, the pacts, the leader of the Federal Party,
Chelvanayakam, signed in 1957, with then Prime Minister SWRD
Bandaranaike representing the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and in
1965, with Dudley Senanayake, representing the United National Party (UNP).
In both instances, two agreements signed with two different
administrations in two different decades by Chelvanayakam, failed to see
the light of day, due to protests, primarily from the opposition parties
in Parliament.
First, it was the UNP, which opposed the Chelvanayakam /Bandaranaike
Pact, and hit the streets with massive protests.
Eight years later, the SLFP returned the favour to the UNP. While Sri
Lankan Tamils can fault the southern polity for reneging agreements
signed in good faith, and for their inability to make concessions to the
Tamils, there have been inherent weaknesses, not only in the manner in
which agreements were negotiated, but also in the content.
One of the major drawbacks was, the administrations of the time, not
understanding the importance of taking the electorate into confidence,
and briefing them on the need for reaching accommodation with a
substantial group of citizens, and getting their consent, which is part
and parcel of participatory democracy.
Thus, both Bandaranaike and Senanayake, failed to make good of their
understanding with the Sri Lankan Tamil leadership, and succumbed to
political pressure exerted by opposition political parties of the day,
whose interest was not to accommodate the Tamil leadership, but to use
the opportunity provided to weaken the administration, in the hope of
grabbing power.
The LTTE too, had no intention of reaching a political arrangement,
in place of a separate state.
In the first instance, in its quest for power and unadulterated
supremacy over other Tamil political parties, and the numerous Tamil
armed groups that emerged in the late 70s, the LTTE systematically
decimated leaders of other Tamil political parties and armed groups,
until it succeeded in emerging as the single most powerful organization.
In this process of elimination, the LTTE assassinated the TULF
leadership, including its party leader, A. Amirthalingam, along with
politburo member, V. Yogeswaran, in 1989.
It can be safely said that the LTTE believed the goal of a separate
state could be realized, not democratically, but only through violence.
The role of the LTTE in the ensuing years in decimating the Tamil
intelligentsia, and in coercing the TULF to step aside and make way, was
described by the current leader of the party, V. Anandasangaree, whose
lone voice of reasoning is still heard from time to time.
CFA
The Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) signed between the LTTE and the
Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) in February 2002, was a watershed for the
LTTE, as that event facilitated the LTTE to climb on to the world stage.
Moreover, thanks to the Norwegian insistence, the LTTE was received
and recognized as an equal to the government of Sri Lanka.
The leader of the LTTE delegation was addressed by the Norwegian
facilitator as, "Excellency Anton Balasingham."
Even though the CFA provided an ideal opportunity for both sides to
reach an understanding, the LTTE was not prepared to negotiate in any
real sense, for one good reason.
The writer is Sri Lanka's Ambassador to the US
To be continued |