Basil Fernando

The peace audit in Sri Lanka cannot be anything but a survival audit. The lives of the ordinary people of the South and in the North are more unstable than ever before. In fact, life has become so precarious and so hard that most simple folk have retired and withdrawn into their own little ways of finding day-to-day survival and security. The debate on peace, in terms of this or that constitutional argument or purely in terms of geographical winning of this inch or that, is far from the minds of both ordinary Singhalese and Tamils and also Muslims living on the island. Discourses that confine themselves to the nitty gritties of pseudosolutions miss the whole point about the things which are important to the people-their survival!

A continuation of the present state of affairs is bound to push Sri Lanka to join the ranks of nations that have returned to the primitive times, such as Burma for several decades and Cambodia since the Pol Pot regime. Sadly enough, Sri Lanka has traveled on the same path for quite too long a time itself. Therefore, it is worth first to examine the conditions of life in the country today.

These conditions are not necessarily products of the civil war. While the civil war has contributed to the present state of affairs, the civil war is not the sole reason for the decay of Sri Lankan society as a whole. A closer look at the situation will show the existence of other factors. These other factors have also contributed to the civil war and have become even more grievous because of the civil conflict.

To keep this discourse within ethnic confines is to lose sight of the social and political content of this enormous crisis. What the ethnic explanation does is to prevent consideration of the conscious and deliberate aspects that go into the making of the crisis. Then the conflict can be attributed to the uncontrolled elements residing in the human psyche due to race. However, the crisis in Sri Lanka is not one that has been brought about by accident nor by mere animal instincts associated with race. It has been brought about by choice. The consideration of the role of free choice in the making of this crisis helps not only to understand the crisis but also may explain the ways out of the crisis. However, the ways out of the crisis too can be brought about only by free choice. The conscious decisions that keep the civil war alive need to give way to the conscious decisions to abandon the civil war and to live another way of life.

Among the options open to various groups, the dominant groups have chosen the path of civil war. How can one say that it was the dominant groups that have chosen the option of war? This is only for the reason that it is only the dominant groups that can impose their options on others. Weaker groups can impose their choices on society only when dominant groups become weak or when the choices made by dominant groups corner the weak in such a way that they find the option to fight back to be a compelling choice.

A more important question is why should a dominant group choose the option to fight as against finding a peaceful solution to the conflict. Is it because they find peaceful solutions are not available? This is not likely; for in any given situation, there are bound to be many approaches to solving problems. Is it that the choice of civil war is based on the perception that it is a better choice than a peaceful one? If the answer is in the affirmative, why should the path of war be seen as being better? As the choices are historical ones, it is to history that one must turn to find why options leading to severe conflict are seen as better choices than their peaceful opposites.

A quick review of the last 50 years of Sri Lankan history shows that the dominant political groups in Sri Lanka, by which I mean the major political parties, see peaceful times as dangerous. The peaceful times are those in which intense demands are made on the ruling elite. Wage struggles, struggles for work, particularly among the unemployed, demands from the large social groups, such as peasants, demands from the middle class, demand from those who feel disadvantaged due to gender, race or religion and other groups with serious demands come forward.

These demands call for a change in ruling styles. The demand for changes in the ruling methods implies changes in the ways of living, thinking and associating with others. The choice to deal with this situation democratically cannot be divorced from facing such changes. What if the ruling groups do not want to undergo such changes in their ruling and living styles but still want to be democratic? This means that they face a very contradictory situation. When one faces a contradictory situation, then one has to decide on an option to choose a way out of the contradictory situation.

If the ruling groups decide to take the path of democracy and a peaceful solution of conflict, then they must adjust to some inconvenient changes. What happens if they choose not to accept such inconveniences and do not change in any way? When that happens, the ball is passed to the many movements in the country to adjust to the ways of life which the ruling groups consider as convenient. Thus, the choice open to various groups who have demands is not to make such demands. As the people who make basic demands do so compelled by requirements of survival, it is most unlikely that they will adjust to the convenience of their rulers by giving up their demands. Thus, the option of the ruling groups to retain their conveniences and the option of the people to make demands for their survival are two conscious choices, and these choices have within them the seeds of conflict. Thus, the conflict becomes a deliberate one.

The result is that the ruling group has to impose its demands on the various groups who will not give up their demands, if necessary, by force. Thus, the easy use of force is chosen as a convenient and better way of ruling. The use of force brings the military to the forefront and changes policing from civil policing to military-style policing. Caught in this situation, various forms of defiance against force develop among the people who make demands for their basic needs. In due course, some of the people choose to retaliate against force with force. This makes the State's use of force even worse and the retaliation from protesters greater as well. The choice of convenient political styles in ruling thus ends in rather inconvenient military actions.

*

An explanation: The terms 'dominant groups' and 'ruling groups' have been used several times in this article. These words have not been used in an ideological sense. The words merely mean those persons and groups who have played dominant roles within the political system during the last 50 years.

For example, we may look at the members of the first cabinet of the government of Sri Lanka after independence. From among the several cabinet members, we may choose three characters which are well-known. They are D. S. Senanayake, the first prime minister, and S. W. R. D. Bandaranayake, who became prime minister in 1956, and J. R. Jayawardene, who introduced the executive presidential system. What sort of democratic discipline did these persons have? The first two were sons of landlords who had deeply collaborated with the British during the colonial period. The third was a son of a Supreme Court judge and from a family with a long history of collaboration with several colonial powers. All of these men come from families that, previous to British rule, belonged to ruling circles, known as Radalayas. All three continued in their traditional ways of ruling and deeply resented the government developing a democratic discipline. One way or the other, they protected their conveniences, and the third one removed almost every form of democratic discipline. The executive presidency, as found in Sri Lanka, is nothing more than a contraption for ruling without any serious democratic discipline.

*

What happens to the ordinary people caught up in this conflict? The following poem, entitled 'Yet Another Incident in July 1983,'

is a reflection of what happens:

Burying the dead

being an art well developed in our times

(Our psychoanalysts having helped us much

to keep balanced minds-whatever

that may mean-) there is no reason really

for this matter to remain so vivid

as if some rare occurrence. I assure you

I am not sentimental, never having

had a 'break down,' as they say.

I am as shy of my emotions

as you are. And I attend to my daily

tasks in a very matter-of-fact way.

Being prudent too, when a government says 'Forget!'

I act accordingly. My ability to forget

has never been doubted, never

having had any adverse comments

On that score either. Yet I remember

the way they stopped that car,

the mob. There were four

in that car: a girl, a boy

(between four and five it seemed) and their

parents-I guessed-the man and the woman.

It was in the same way they stopped other cars.

I did not notice any marked

Difference. A few questions

in a gay mood, not to make a mistake

I suppose, then they proceeded to

action, by then routine. Pouring

petrol and all that stuff.

Then someone, noticing something odd

as it were, opened the two left side

doors, took away the two children, crying and

resisting as they were moved away from their parents.

Children's emotions have sometimes

to be ignored for their own good, the guy must have

thought. Someone practical

was quick, lighting a match

efficiently. An instant

fire followed, adding one more

to many around. Around

the fire they chattered

of some new adventure. A few

Scattered. What the two inside

felt or thought was no matter.

Peace-loving people were hurrying

towards homes as in a procession. . . .

Then, suddenly, the man inside

breaking open the door, was

out, his shirt already on

fire and hair, too. Then, bending,

took his two children. Not even

looking around, as if executing a calculated

decision, he resolutely

re-entered the car.

Once inside, he closed the door

himself. . . . I heard the noise

distinctly.

Still the ruined car

is there, by the roadside

with other such things. Maybe

the Municipality will remove it

One of these days to the Capital's

garbage pit. The cleanliness of the capital

receives Authority's top priority.

(Basil Fernando 1983)

When Social Life Reaches the Point of Absurdity

The deliberate decision of the ruling group not to face the changes required for democratic change have created a situation of absurdity for the ordinary person in the country. Armed conflicts between groups-Southern youth and the military, Northern groups and the military (in both instances also the police)-are a product of this absurd situation and not the cause of it.

Such armed conflicts are also conducted in the most absurd way. In the South in the last conflict (1988-1990), there is an officially acknowledged figure of around 30,000 disappearances, which NGOs and some foreign diplomats have estimated as being more than 60,000. The rule of law disappeared, but the State claimed victory. In the North, there was no such victory, but brutality on both sides has become normal. Suicide bombers, which have become a common phenomena, speak to the profundity of the absurdity. In the name of fighting for sovereignty, on the one hand, and a traditional homeland, on the other, beautiful Jaffna town was razed to ground. The battle for sovereignty or a homeland offered to vast numbers of people only refugee camps.

The term 'democratic discipline' used to mean the discipline required of rulers within a democratic framework. In South Asia, however, discipline is always used to mean the discipline of the people, of the ruled. However, democracy requires the strict discipline of rulers in all matters. When a ruler breaks the mandate of maintaining discipline, the whole system becomes weak. If they are too undisciplined, they can even cause the breakdown of the system. The three persons mentioned in the first explanation had no sense of any such discipline. They are symbolic of all others in the ruling groups. An essential part of democratic discipline is to deal with various forms of demands coming from the people with respect and to exercise restraint in situations of disagreement. When people acting on behalf of the State lack restraint, they tempt others to lose restraint as well.

The absurdity involved in the civil war is only an amplification of the totally absurd situation that has spread throughout the country. Meanwhile, the political system, which created the absurdity, has become even more absurd. When the first executive presidency was created, no post of vice president was introduced as no one could be trusted with such a position. This was made even worse when the third president could trust only her own mother as prime minister, the second most important political position in the country. Now, under the proposed constitutional amendments, the president can hold both positions, the presidency and the prime ministership. This situation is reflected in the following poem called 'In the Republic of Non-Sense':

In the Republic of Non-Sense,

The king is also the queen,

Lest one may poison the other.

To reason is treason;

Lawlessness is the law.

A wise man becomes a fool

When he reads the Constitution.

Economic planning

Is to create destitution.

Storytellers are punished with death.

Every thinker is deprived of bread.

Even the executioner is executed

Just for a few cents.

(Basil Fernando 2000)

President Jayawardene proudly delared that he would close the electoral map in Sri Lanka for some time, and he, in fact, did so. The result was the loss of a familiar mode of protest against governments that people did not like. The raison d'etre for the use of violence was thus created. The electoral map still remains virtually closed. Many of the elections in the last two decades have been considered to be rigged; the belief in free and fair elections is no longer common. The argument against violence was thus lost.

The weight of such absurdities on the ordinary people gets manifested through frightening happenings, which are now treated as just normal happenings. There is a daily average of 21 suicides taking place in the country, most of which occur in the South. Malnutrition figures among children have gone up 36 percent; living costs have gone up an unbearable extent and the value of the rupee is dramatically devaluing constantly. Meanwhile, policing systems have virtually collapsed, and the criminal underground has spread their power in all parts of the country. The electoral system has also been subverted by large-scale violence and intimidation during elections to such an extent that there is hardly any belief in free and free elections anymore. The belief in the legal and judicial system is at an all-time low.

A Colossal Explosion of Social Consciousness among the Ordinary Folk

What is quite manifest in Sri Lanka today is a colossal explosion of social consciousness among the ordinary folk . The total collapse of faith in the ruling groups and their style of rule is a fact that will determine the future of political institutions and other democratic institutions in the country. The unwillingness of the people to adjust to the bluff created by the ruling groups poses the single greatest threat to the continuity of any political authority. To try to force authority which has been rejected as irrational will only worsen the already bad situation. The changes in the mass consciousness demand a rational response. A rational response on the part of the ruling group can come only if they choose to do so. Such a choice will impose many burdens. Ruling the country without facing these burdens is no longer possible.

Under these circumstances, what does a survival audit mean? The analysis below is offered.

(1) It means a dramatic change in the style of ruling from what has existed throughout Sri Lankan history, particularly to the styles introduced during the colonial period and continued during the last 50 years after independence. The aspects of democracy, which are inconvenient to the ruling group, need to be accepted as normal ways of ruling. Not to make a choice to achieve this purpose is to opt for a continuation of the present state of affairs, which naturally will degenerate even more.

(2) To try to remove the brutality of war which keeps the war going is the implied position taken by many peace groups. This position is a reflection of the absurd situation in which the country finds itself. However, this position is itself absurd. Blaming both sides of the war for their brutalities may be unavoidable. However, without a fundamental option on the part of the ruling group to give up their choice of war, brutalities are only likely to increase.

(3) The task of democratic movements is to seek ways to remove the basic absurdity involved in the situation, which is the choice of the ruling groups to rule undemocratically. Bringing democratic discipline on the ruling groups becomes imperative. Without such discipline, the country will further sink into anarchy. The excuse that civil war is the reason for the loss of democratic discipline on the part of ruling groups is only a pretext and historically not true. The ruling groups deliberately chose, and still choose, to defy discipline.

(4) Lastly, any real peace audit must take the following factors into consideration:

(a) Are the avenues that people should have for making their demands on basic needs and issues being recreated?

(b) What is the nature of the democracy existing in the country today?

The demand for separation is often understood to mean geographical and territorial separation. However, for ordinary folk, if they make such a demand, it means a call for a better life than the one currently available. A precondition for dealing with the settlement of disputes that are articulated as demands for separation is to deal with the issue of the actual improvement of the life of the people.