Challenges in Transitional Justice, Reconciliation and Power Devolution
By Ajith Rajapaksa –
November 11, 2024
The policies of the JVP (Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna) and the NPP (National People’s Power) deserve careful consideration, especially because the leader of both these parties is now the President. From its early days, the JVP has viewed India with suspicion, accusing Indian imperialism of supporting the Tamil struggle.
Consequently, the JVP allied with Sinhala nationalists in the south in supporting the war against Tamil militants. The JVP also vehemently opposed the Indo-Lanka Peace Accord and the establishment of provincial councils as a solution to the conflict. Today, the JVP claims that while they do not reject provincial councils, they oppose granting them land and police powers. They also oppose investigating war crimes and punishing war criminals. The majority of NPP members hold a similar stance on devolution. Although a small faction supports federalism and broader power devolution, most members believe that economic development in the Northern and Eastern Provinces is key to resolving the region’s issues. They argue that solving economic problems will eliminate the need for power-sharing. The JVP’s political ideology is based on the belief that a socialist system would render power devolution unnecessary, as such devolution only serves imperialist interests.
Within the Tamil community, there is a faction that has placed its trust in the newly elected President. Some within the Tamil diaspora also supported Anura Kumara Dissanayake in the last election. Their expectations revolve around the hope that there will be some change under the new President, and that repression against their community will cease. There is also hope for reduced corruption and economic development. However, this group does not see power devolution as essential, focusing instead on achieving progress within the existing political framework.
After the new President took office, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) held a session where Sri Lanka’s government once again rejected its proposal to extend the mandate of the war crimes evidence-gathering mechanism for another year.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake made an executive decision to reject the resolution, stating that he “will not seek to punish anyone accused of rights violations and war crimes.” He further claimed, “Even the victims do not expect anyone to be punished,” despite repeated calls from Tamil groups for an international accountability mechanism and for Sri Lanka to be taken to the International Criminal Court (ICC).
This suggests that the prospects for progressive approaches to transitional justice, reconciliation, and power devolution under the new administration are slim. Even though the President has promised to introduce a new constitution, he is unlikely to challenge the powerful nationalist forces in the south. With many nationalist supporters, including former military members, having shifted their allegiance from the Rajapaksas to the NPP, it will be difficult to bypass their expectations.
The Case for Federalism and Other Solutions
Many progressive thinkers and Tamil politicians believe that a federal system offers the most viable and lasting solution. However, is there sufficient room for the people of the Northern and Eastern provinces to achieve this level of autonomy? Can support from the South be secured to implement such a system? Or are there other practical solutions to consider? Could constitutional reforms, emphasizing equal rights, anti-discrimination policies, and protections for language and religious freedoms, help resolve this crisis?
I recently discussed these issues with Dr S V Kasynathan, an academic and longtime friend who has been a valuable discussion partner on matters related to Tamil rights and devolution. Here’s a summary of our conversation:
Q. The independent Tamil candidate performed poorly in the last presidential election, with Tamils voting in large numbers for the two main candidates from the South. Why do you think this happened? Does this suggest that the idea of “Eelam” (a separate state) or greater devolution is not supported by the majority?
A. The poor performance of the Tamil candidate can be attributed to several factors, including the candidate’s lack of broad appeal and an incoherent rationale that failed to build a strong consensus among Tamil voters. Additionally, the Tamil political party ITAK’s decision to dismiss the idea of a unified Tamil candidate outright would have further weakened support. The outcome seems, therefore, not about opposition to devolution but more about the candidate’s limited appeal and the lack of unified backing within the Tamil political spectrum.
Q. The JVP (Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna) and the NPP (National People’s Power) are not in favour of devolution of power. While they are principally against provincial councils, they state they are willing to accept them because they are already part of the constitution. However, they are not prepared to devolve land and police powers to the provincial councils. They have promised to eliminate all forms of discrimination against minorities and are open to introducing policies and constitutional reforms to address minority concerns. Given this scenario, why do you think the Tamil people still need a federal structure? Why is devolution so important?
A. Devolution is not a god given idea to the Tamils: it is something that they have picked up from what was current in the world of ideas and in practice in many countries and explained as no more than a political device to reconcile the preservation of local autonomy with the maintenance of national unity.
A large part of the incentive for the craving for as much devolution as possible also comes from their perception that the Sinhalese are jealous of their progress and wish to block them as much as possible. They cannot make sense of the burning of the Jaffna library and others such as at Harley in Point Pedro in no other way.
Through successive elections they have also picked up the sense that elections in the south were won or lost by parties bidding against each other about how much they will deny the minorities.
If the President and his allies do not like devolution and agree with the current dogma that federalism is a dirty word, they should convince the minorities or the “numerically inferior “as Mr Sumanthiran has poignantly described them, that the Sinhalese do not dislike the minorities succeeding. Promises that we will now be good, count for little when talking about the governance of countries, as was well aired recently in the discussions about letting PTA legislation remain.
If the President is “open to introducing policies and constitutional reforms to address minority concerns”, he must demonstrate that he has sufficient awareness and understanding of what you call minority concerns and the living anxieties of the numerically inferior living under the legislative and executive power of a people who have not always shown great generosity or even a sense of justice.
How likely is this anti-devolutionist to reintroduce a provision such as 29(ii) of the 1947 constitution?
To the question why devolution is important, the answer has to be that policies and even benign constitutional changes are ineffective under certain circumstances or even always amidst ungenerous political cultures. This was the answer provided recently by a spokesperson for a trade association in the north: Even when the laws permit, there is no guarantee that the agents of the government would: the bureaucracy, the army and other agencies with the army’s assistance or even helpful presence can and do frustrate and intimidate the minorities. In the absence of an enabling culture – the president so far has much less than universal support of his policies – the numerically inferior feel just inferior.
The thousand ways in which a numerically inferior people seen as such can be oppressed and deprived by the numerically superior always self-perceived as such, must be fully imagined by the President and his fellows before airily dismissing the implications of ethnic differences in our democracy.
Q. The JVP and its leader, as Marxist advocates of socialism, argue that devolving power to the Tamil population in the North and East of Sri Lanka would not address the real issues, which they view as primarily economic. They also caution that devolution could foster separatist tendencies and potentially align with the interests of foreign imperialist forces. How would you respond to these concerns?
A. From a certain point of view, it may seem convenient to imagine a uniform world of beings who are all happy and peaceful when they are fed enough. But differences do exist, and they cannot be simply imagined away. And the President, in thinking about these matters, must not forget that he himself enjoys the numerous advantages and security of being one of the numerically superior.
The Tamil population in Sri Lanka has not historically sought separation but only just and equal protection of their rights within the country. Tamils were widely integrated across the island, contributing to various sectors and living alongside other communities. And Sinhalese too. If anyone wishes to cite the long war with the young militants as a counter example, they should re read the history of what preceded that war: hostile administrative measures without any . consultation, backed by state sponsored or connived violence in a rapid series and in ever increasing scale. And consider this thought: the Tamils lost enormously from the separatist war forced on them so contemptuously.
G G Ponnampalam’s proposal at the eve of independence for 50:50 representation for the minorities in parliament certainly did not seek separation or even devolution but only vainly imagined in his elite colleagues a much broader vision of the goals of democratic practice. It is worth considering, if you can, why it seems to this day so right to dismiss the idea off hand with contempt and ridicule. What would the majority have lost? Really, apart from their hubris?
Some at least of the time spent on repeating that the minorities will separate should be devoted to considering why they might and what you can and must do to dissuade them from such self-destructive thoughts. Manacling a population which you persist in keeping dissatisfied is not a responsible idea. Not good for your health and certainly not for your budget.
As for what the imperialists may or may not do to the country, the President must pray much more than relying on how he deals with the minorities.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.