|
|
 |
  |
| Sunday, 17 October 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
The role of dialogue in a democracy Speech delivered by Foreign Affairs Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar at the inaugural meeting of the National Advisory Council on Peace and Reconciliation (NACPR) on October 04, 2004
It was a pledge to establish a forum in which all the communities, groups, interested parties, individuals, all those who are concerned with the resolution of the problem that we have faced for so long, would have the opportunity of interacting, making their contributions, engaging in debate and discussion on the issues relating to a final settlement of our problem. Today, that pledge is being redeemed. This forum is a unique structure. It has a political component comprising members of Parliament; a religious component comprising all the faiths in our country - many of our leading prelates are here - and a civil society component. Without the active cooperation and interaction of all these segments of our society the final decisions that the nation as a whole will have to take will not be as well considered as they should be. Democracy The strength of democracy lies not just in the tolerance of dissent but in the active encouragement of it. Let there be no mistake about that. A democracy that is meaningful, vital and rich is based fundamentally on the accommodation of dissent. Any other kind of democracy is a form of pseudo democracy. There are so-called guided democracies. They are not real democracies. Our democracy, has over the years, proved its vitality, its strength, its durability. It has not only survived, it has grown, it has matured, it is a democracy that is greatly admired in the world. It would be only natural for me, to speak a few words this evening from my perspective as the Foreign Minister of the country. I have just returned from the 59th Session of the UN General Assembly. It was an important session in many ways. To a large extent it was dominated by the question of terrorism. There is a great deal of uncertainty about how the problem should be dealt with. There are those who say, and they are increasingly in a minority, that the only answer to terrorism is countervailing force. That is no longer the universally accepted current view in international circles. Indeed, President Kumaratunga in her UN speech made that point. It was not a point that was particularly acceptable two or three years ago, namely, that one must look at the causes of terrorism. In certain quarters that was not an acceptable view. Today, I find that in those very quarters that view is gaining ground. It is the subject of discussion. It is no longer taboo. Democratic debate is often rough and tough. In mature democracies canons of civility save democratic debates from descending into brawls. Let me take an example. I watched the first Presidential debate between Senator Kerry and President Bush. It was devoted to foreign policy. I wish to make a few observations about that debate because they are relevant to our deliberations here. First, the spirit of cordiality that prevailed during the debate - somewhat contrived, no doubt, but in a democratic society one has to live with innocent contrivances of that kind because they help to oil the machinery of interaction. The two contenders came on stage from different angles and immediately shook hands in a friendly way. One of them said something to the other which made him laugh. And then the debate started. It was a hard hitting debate. It was a very important debate. At least for one candidate it was very important indeed. And no punches were pulled. Many subjects were seriously explored. Both candidates were articulate and firm in expressing their views. And when the debate was over, 90 minutes later, watched by millions of people, their two families came on stage. There was a lot of hugging and hand shaking. Now, what does that show? It shows to me that in a mature democracy people simply have to talk, they have to laugh together, they have to work together. Democracy is not only about constant acrimonious combat. It certainly involves combat but it is combat mitigated by civility. Sometimes, don't we all feel that we in Sri Lanka are lacking in that respect? Very often we don't treat each other well in our democracy. We say hard things, but in a democracy tough talk by itself is not particularly objectionable. Parliaments all over the world are very tough places. Indeed, it gives me some pleasure, when I am told by somebody abroad that our Parliament is raucous, to say that the other day I saw on television some members of the Japanese Parliament squeezing the throat of a colleague in full view of hundreds of millions of viewers. It gives me a certain degree of curious satisfaction to be able to say to our detractors that the behaviour of our Parliamentarians is by no means unique. In one Parliament, members may squeeze each others throats; in another, some other part of their anatomy. Rowdy behaviour in Parliament is certainly not to be condoned or forgiven or explained away as the antics of children at play. Democracy is sustained by vigorous debate. But civility is very important. In a democracy, nobody should say I am boycotting a discussion because I don't like the other participants, their faces, their manners, their politics, their views. The fulcrum of democracy is the arena of debate. If some parties arrange a dialogue on a national issue and invite others to join, they should do so, unless there are overwhelming reasons, not merely of a tactical nature, that prevent them from doing so. Different views With regard to our problem, there are many different views as to how to solve it. Some people say don't get involved in talks on a narrow basis. Those who say that are some of the ablest minds in our country. They are outstanding intellects. Their sincerity and commitment to the national welfare of Sri Lanka cannot be doubted. Their views must be heard with respect. There are others who say talk on a narrow basis, begin a conversation on a narrow basis. That view is not acceptable to many. But it must be heard with respect because it is a viable view, it is a view that must be discussed. It is a view that is held, at least for the moment, by one major party. So that view must be heard. Then there is the question of the substance of the final settlement. What kind of configuration of governance are we aiming for? There are different views on that. Surely, they must all be heard. They will all be well argued. There are many people in our country who have many good ideas about these matters. There is the Muslim question. Nobody can sensibly say that the Muslim question should be just swept aside. How can one possibly say that? It has to be addressed. It is vital to the future shape of our country. Where are we going to discuss it? We can discuss it secretly behind closed doors or, in a democracy, openly, as it ought to be. In this forum, that question will have to be discussed. Then there are questions of human rights, pluralism, democracy, freedom of the individual - those are very real matters in the world of today. We are no longer living in the dark ages. We have to face up to those questions. All democratic constitutions enshrine human rights and protect them. We cannot be different. We have those rights at the moment, and when we consider the final settlement of our national question, those rights have to be considered, they have to be discussed and argued. We cannot duck them anymore. Where do we do all that? In secret? That is of no use at all. Nobody will know who is saying what. It must be discussed in the open. It will be done here in this forum and in the ancillary bodies that have been set up. Civil society has a vital role to play in that process, and I have not the slightest doubt that civil society will do that, because civil society in our country is very well organized and represented. Some of our ablest people are there. They must be heard. And now they are going to have the opportunity of being heard. Only a few people take the position that dialogue is useless. Are we not agreed that the vast majority of our people, as polls have shown, as elections have shown, are in favour of discussion, dialogue and finally a negotiated settlement of the terrible problem we have faced. I think we can all confidently say to ourselves - that is the majority view. To talk about a problem does not mean that you agree in advance with all the possible solutions that are going to be addressed. It cannot possibly be so. A dialogue is open-ended. When one starts a dialogue, one is saying to everybody come and say what you have to say. Nobody is pre-empted. Nobody should say that just because we are going to talk about a subject everybody is going to agree on that subject. That is the very opposite of a dialogue. A negotiation is a dialogue. It has to be free of conditions. If it is to be meaningful and purposeful it must be free, it must be uncomplicated, it must be open, it must be transparent. To decline to enter a dialogue is, in my opinion, unhelpful. This evening, I would say with great respect to the United National Party and, in particular, to the former Prime Minister, with whom I shared many valuable moments in the last two years discussing the problems that we were facing, in an agreed effort with the President to have a dialogue - I would say it makes me sad that a party which has ruled this country for so long, and which has made very valuable contributions to the development of the country, seems to be taking the view that this dialogue is unnecessary or that it is premature. I do not think that is the correct view. And I would earnestly request my friend, the former Prime Minister, to think again, and to think again in the context of this fact, that having this dialogue does not preclude the opening of direct negotiations with the LTTE. The two processes are not mutually exclusive. Nobody should say so. In fact, I understand from my reading of the President's speech, that there is no question of this dialogue excluding the recommencement of negotiations with the LTTE. That would be a contradiction in terms - to say, on the one hand, that you are going to have a dialogue among many parties and, on the other, that you won't open negotiations directly with the LTTE. No, I think the two dialogues are meant to be complementary. They are meant to be mutually reinforcing. I don't see for the moment any validity in the argument that the government should first start talking to the LTTE, after which the UNP will join the wider dialogue. Why waste time? Why should one process follow the other? That will merely lengthen the proceedings, rather than shorten them to reach the goal of finality early. I do hope that the United National Party and its leadership will think again. It is not to the benefit of anybody to denigrate a dialogue or make it less useful than it could very well be. Here the curse of our politics shows from time to time. There is no loss of face involved, there is no climbing down in saying, well, there is a dialogue being started, let us all join it. Nobody loses by joining a dialogue; everybody gains; no positions are compromised; everything is open. One could join the dialogue, talk and walk out later. But there is no argument, really, for not coming in the first place. Negotiated settlement I must also say, it is only right to say, that the very fact that we have a ceasefire, is a great blessing - the fact that there are no deaths in battle taking place. How can anybody argue against that? There are violations of the ceasefire, we all know that. The document that brought the ceasefire into effect is flawed in many ways. There was no consultative process before it was signed. All that is true. But the mere fact that there is a ceasefire is a great blessing for the country, and it is an essential foundation on which to build a durable peace. We must now, therefore, obviously move from a ceasefire to a negotiated settlement. And in that process, all the options are available. What kind of settlement? What kind of durable solution do we want? How do we accommodate with dignity and respect the reasonable aspirations of all the communities that inhabit our land? Those are questions that have to be dealt with openly while every precaution is taken to maintain the ceasefire. Goodwill We have many, many friends in the world. A large number of countries big and small, rich and poor, when they meet me naturally ask at some stage of the conversation about the situation in our country. They say we hear there is peace, and I have to say - no, not yet - there is a ceasefire, there is no war, no war is very important, it is a necessary prelude to peace but we do not yet have peace. The reactions are always of friendship and concern, and wishing us well. And this comes from countries across the board. I was speaking to the Foreign Minister of Iceland, a country that is so far away from us. They are a small nation of only 300,000 people. But he showed a keen and sincere interest in our problem. It is very important for us to realize that there is a great deal of goodwill for us all over the world. I would say everybody wants to see this nice, hospitable country - many people have come here - they want to see this country whole again. It is one thing to say we do not want our conflict internationalized. What that means is we do not want people meddling in areas in which they need not meddle, where, they are not welcome. But when you have goodwill so generously offered, we must use it because all these people have something to contribute and most of them come from democracies. And what they keep on saying is do not worry about the fact that you have coalitions and you have dissent and you have discordant voices and so on. In all our countries we have that. In the European Union, they cannot agree on a major question in a hurry. It takes time. There is no agreement on the common currency or a constitution, but people are working towards that end and the hallmark of the process is dialogue, and that is what the President is encouraging by setting up this forum today. International opinion I made a reference a moment ago to international opinion. I would like to say that in the course of the explanations of our political scene that I am called upon to give abroad, I have recently been saying that in our Parliament we have a rather unique composition of parties. We now have a party of venerable monks. We have a party which has hitherto been against the parliamentary system and has now come fully into it. We have communal parties. We have national parties. And when I explain this to people abroad their comment is - what a marvellous state of affairs; you have a Parliament that is so representative. It is a textbook case of a mature democracy. I have to restrain their enthusiasm by saying that I do not think we have gone that far. But, certainly, the answer to anybody who says that representational politics means that only certain kinds of people should be actually represented while others should only in theory be represented is that the sovereign right of the people to elect whom they want is a right that has to be preserved and respected. Otherwise, what kind of democracy are we talking about? And in Sri Lanka when we get depressed, as we do from time to time, about the difficulties of forming effective governments, let us remember that when our people speak they may not speak clearly in order to give one party or another a clear run at government, but they certainly indicate their wish to have various views and parties represented in Parliament. That is their sovereign wish. The political parties have no right to complain. On that principle I will defend the right of the people to speak as they wish. That is very fundamental. The diverse composition of our present Parliament reinforces the need for dialogue because if you say, on the one hand, that the people must be allowed to speak as they wish then you must immediately say "yes, of course, their representatives must get together and have a dialogue on the most important problem of our time". The case for dialogue is unanswerable. JVP reaction I was very happy to hear what Wimal Weerawansa just said on behalf of the JVP. Two days ago, I was asked at the United States State Department, at a very high level, about the JVP's reaction to these major problems. There is a degree of misapprehension, and lack of understanding, in various parts of the world on the nature of our politics. That is totally forgivable. Addressing these superficial impressions I was able to say that they were wrong. We have a situation here where the JVP is openly and committedly involved in the process of finding solutions to problems. And I said that that is something our democracy has produced, something that we are very proud of, and I relish saying to people who have these rather sharp views on the JVP - are they a responsible party, and so on - that they are not only responsible, they are competent, they know what they are about, they are committed to the welfare of the nation, and as far as our national problem is concerned they will play a constructive role. And I was very happy to hear Weerawansa substantially confirm what I had said about the JVP in Washington a few days ago. Finally, I wish to say that without a single exception members of the international community in the broadest sense - and I do not mean by international community just a few affluent States - strongly support our territorial integrity, unity and sovereignty. They wish us well, they say that our problem should be resolved by our own people working it out together within the parameters of one Sri Lanka, united, its territorial integrity assured, its sovereignty assured, and its people living together peacefully with dignity and self-respect. That is very important because it is known all over the world that the Tamil people were badly treated at a certain time. But today, I get the feeling that internationally people are saying we should move ahead and reconstruct our society. That is the message I am able to give you this afternoon, as I come back from a rather long sojourn abroad where I have been involved in explaining some of the problems I have referred to in this address. |
|
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
| Produced by Lake House |
This is an historic event. I would say it is an historic event for the
reason that it marks the redemption of a pledge that President Kumaratunga
gave to the people of Sri Lanka, not once, but many times, over the last
few years.
