Reconciliation - essential requirements

Dr. Laksiri Fernando

Reconciliation in Sri Lanka is a promising possibility and a need, although it is not easy or self-evident. Reconciliation is about coming together, understanding each other, admitting and forgiving for the past mistakes or atrocities and working towards a united, democratic, peaceful and a prosperous Sri Lanka irrespective of ethnic, religious, language, regional, political, social or other distinctions.

In any country reconciliation entails multiple facets and factors. The difficulties of reconciliation would largely depend on the intensity of the past (or present) conflict, its duration and the issues involved among others matters. There is no doubt that the conflict in Sri Lanka was a protracted one, the violent phase lasting for nearly three decades, and given the involvement of outside factors, the conflict was more complicated than the usual. Ethnic conflicts by nature are hard to reconcile given the emotions, perceptions and extra-political characteristics.

Promising conditions

There are nevertheless some promising conditions for the reconciliation in Sri Lanka. The conflict is not at all racial. All three groups to the conflict - the Sinhalese, the Tamils and the Muslims - are of the same people who have lived together for centuries or millennia in peace and harmony, intermixing with each other. Their differences are based on language, religion or culture in relative terms and for any ‘forward looking’ or ‘modern’ person these or even racial differences are not reasons to fight or kill each other except that any discrimination based on these differences cannot be tolerated or condoned.

It is basically extremism on all sides that has prevented reconciliation in the past and the necessary defeat of one form of extremism, and that is ‘terrorism,’ has paved the way for reconciliation although the ‘process of defeat’ itself must have created new forms of difficulties to reconciliation. There are other promising conditions. Any analysis of root causes of the conflict reveals the phenomenon of different communities ‘fighting for the small cake’ whether in the sphere of employment, business or education. However, with the expanding economy or with the ‘bigger cake,’ there are possibilities that many demands of different communities being resolved amicably. Economic development undoubtedly is a promising condition for reconciliation.

Whatever the difficulties or temptations in the past, largely due to the conflict itself, Sri Lanka has admirably preserved its system of democracy which should allow an added momentum to the reconciliation process. Reconciliation is not something that could be achieved outside democracy. It should grow within. The parties to the conflict should have faith in democracy, whatever the weaknesses. The weaknesses should be rectified through the reconciliation process itself.

Whatever the conducive conditions, however, reconciliation is not automatic or inevitable. It should be forged consciously and in a planned manner as much as possible. In this respect, there are at least five major requirements for reconciliation. They are the leadership, policy, environment, processes and strategic measures.

Leadership for reconciliation

Leadership is a decisive factor in many human endeavours. This is correct in politics, society, religion, business, or even day-to-day life. Even without a rudimentary leadership, nothing would move in society. This is correct in human society and also in the animal kingdom. There are different types of leadership, and a large number of theories about them, but what is important for reconciliation is a practical leadership.

Leadership is not about one person. One person like the present President of Sri Lanka might be decisive, but the leadership for reconciliation should come from all necessary sectors. This involves not only the leaders among the Sinhalese, the Tamils and the Muslims but also the leaders who are seemingly beyond ethnic differences. The latter group i.e. leftists or liberals could play a decisive role in ethnic reconciliation as neutral or independent elements. However, they should be more realistic than idealistic.

As reconciliation is a cooperative effort, the leadership for reconciliation should necessarily be a cooperative leadership.

They may begin without much cooperation, but eventually they should be able to forge more cooperation between them and with others. The leaders of reconciliation should be ‘transformational leaders.’ They should be able to transform situations and transform people. Reconciliation cannot be forged without transforming the attitudes of the people, and attitudes of the leaders themselves.

The traditional leaders are not usually geared for reconciliation. They should be modern. They can be charismatic to the extent of leading the people, but not arousing people for populist ends. They should be rational, but not so much 'legalistic' in its adverse sense. They should be practical or realistic against being 'idealistic' or 'utopian.'

It might be easy to come to agreements between two or three leaders i.e. Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam Pact etc. but difficult to implement. The leadership for reconciliation should be broad based.

Committed policy

There should be a committed 'policy' for reconciliation on the part of all parties to the conflict. The commitment is something which is very difficult to verify. The commitment is a matter that the other parties would continuously doubt. The realization of this mutual 'doubt' at least should neutralize the mutual 'suspicion.' A policy is always an evolving phenomenon. This should not mean haphazard policy or opportunism. There can be change in policy but with justification and with consistency. All should take into account the changing circumstances and the need for policy development but not policy retraction.

The policy for reconciliation or policy discussions for reconciliation should not limit to one or two matters or constitutional reform only. The policy for reconciliation should entail a comprehensive framework addressing the respective policies for example on (1) the nature of society (2) the state (3) ethnic relations (4) language and religion (5) devolution (6) power sharing (7) peace and democracy (8) the fundamental rights of citizens and all other relevant matters.

Not only the parties to the conflict, but all registered political parties should be persuaded to declare their policies on reconciliation particularly addressing the above or any other matter that they consider important for reconciliation.

Enabling environment

Reconciliation should have a favourable environment internally and externally. If the situation is not conducive, the situation should be changed. The international community also could play a major role in creating a favourable external environment if they intend to do so, and if the local actors, including the government, unnecessarily do not spoil the situation.

Some may consider the situation after the military demise of the LTTE as favourable; the others may differ. However, the situation since May 2009 has been more than 'relatively peaceful' with normalization of life in the South almost to the fullest, and in the North and the East, to a greater extent. There are no bombs exploding and there are no arrests or military roundups taking place.

The mobility between the North and the South are strong through A9 road and other means. Over 90 percent of the internally displaced persons are now resettled whatever the incumbent weaknesses. There is a relative resurrection of economic life in the North and the East. Some of the irritants for the people in the North would still be the large military presence and the much inconvenient high security zones. The holding of elections for local governments in March and July 2011 has strengthened the democratic participation at the grass roots level. The lifting of the emergency also has gone a long way in creating an enabling environment. A major challenge nevertheless would be to maintain the atmosphere continuously.

A favourable environment does not however mean only the objective conditions. The subjective conditions also should be favourable. This is something lacking in the current atmosphere. The mood in the South at best is 'lethargy' or 'satisfaction' without feeling positively for reconciliation. The mood in the North or the East is 'reserve' or 'caution' without perhaps knowing what to expect. In this sense, the environment is not so favourable. There are no intermediary actors or strong civil society engagement to change the situation. The creation of a favourable subjective environment for reconciliation by and large is a task for the civil society and peace organizations.

There are more spoilers in the international scene than in the local context. The remaining LTTE support base in the Diaspora and in South India appears to have not changed much irrespective of the changed situation in the country. To defuse the situation, the Indian support in crucially important.

There is a considerable policy gap between the government and what is understood as the 'international community' including some sectors of the UN. If these matters are not resolved favourably, the atmosphere will remain an obstacle to reconciliation.

Necessary processes

Reconciliation should be an all-inclusive process. It should not stop at the top but should incorporate the bottom and the intermediary as much as possible. If politicians are the top, the large bureaucracy and the business sector are the intermediary. The ordinary people unfortunately are the bottom, but decisive.

Reconciliation is also a social process as much as a political one. This means that there should be a national effort with a clear agenda and targets to mobilize the people for reconciliation. The media and the civil society organizations could play a decisive role in the national effort.

There is nothing wrong however if the process is unleashed from the top. There are two major layers of democratic institutions that could be utilized for reconciliation from the top:

Democratic institutions

There is at least one layer of democratic institutions that could be utilized from the bottom. That is the Local Governments.

The role of Parliament in reconciliation should not be limited to a Parliamentary Select Committee. Before the Select Committee or parallel to that, Parliament could discuss the issue/s, all parties submitting their policies for reconciliation openly and frankly. Parties outside Parliament and any other sector or citizens should be able to submit their policies to the Select Committee. There should be a time frame, perhaps two years maximum, for the Select Committee to submit its report.

The role of the Provincial Councils is crucially important in the reconciliation process. A province like the Eastern Province is an acid test for reconciliation. All Provincial Councils should and could have reconciliation programmes giving prominence for power sharing, participation, consultation, language policy, multi-culturalism, equal opportunity and human rights. Two or more Provincial Councils could cooperate in implementing the reconciliation programmes not on the basis of ethnic similarity, but dissimilarity. For example, the Northern Province and the North Central Province could cooperate in reconciliation. The public service and the business sector should be involved in the reconciliation process together and separately as the intermediary layer. Almost all the sore points of ethnic relations are located at places where people come to deal with the government officials for example at police stations, divisional secretariats, the ministries or even hospitals. The situation should change.

In addition, there are now the army posts or establishments that the people in the North and the East have to deal with. The public servants and the public service should be geared to reconciliation, including the Police, Army, Navy and the Air Force. There is much potential of mobilizing the business sector for reconciliation and it should be within the overall process. The potential of the local government system is the most important in reconciliation. They are the most closest to the people.

These institutions should be motivated through training, and making financial resources available, to undertake reconciliation programmes accompanied by economic, social and service activities. Reconciliation process should go hand in hand with rural development and income and employment generation.

Strategic measures

It is not only the overall designs of leadership, policies, environment or long term processes that would practically bring reconciliation to the country. There are some strategic measures or steps that could bring reconciliation to the forefront. As the saying goes, 'one practical step might be more important than hundred policies.'

The holding of elections for the Northern Provincial Council or the early constitution of the proposed Senate is strategically important.

Equally important might be to neutralize the vociferous sections of the Diaspora if at all possible. If the former Eastern LTTE Commander, Vinayagamurthi Muralitheran, and the international LTTE leader, K. Pathmanathan, could be won over for a process of reconciliation, the winning over at least some of the remaining Diaspora leaders cannot be that difficult. The effort should be genuine, frank and should come from the highest possible leadership of the government. If this could be done, the reconciliation could be rest assured provided that the reconciliation processes with leadership and policies are implemented.

The writer is a former Senior Professor in Political Science and Public Policy at the University of Colombo and currently a Visiting Scholar at the University of Sydney