Compacts of trust and expediency - the hour's need

Private agendas, benefit, profit undermine morality

Oxonian Susil Sirivardana in an interview with Sunday Observer staffer Afreeha Jawad examines Sri Lankan social pathologies that keep us off compacts of trust and expediency.

In interpreting socio/political reality in crisis gripped states, resorting to differentiation depending on the conflicts' nature is more likely to facilitate attempts into peace.

For instance Nepal's 'grand coalition' comprising the Maoists rebels, the seven party alliance and the Nepalese people from all walks of life in ostracizing king Gayanendra displayed their vehement distaste towards monarchical, feudal power and hegemonic control.

Nepal's problem was one of class and despite the ordinary Nepali's traditional regard for their monarchy they were convinced into thinking that the overbearing monarchy should be repudiated and to this end - work they did in putting their act together regardless of inter-fractional differences.

Across Nepal's broad spectrum the collaborative force moved - a bottom up approach as it were and would not go unheeded - a people's power. Needless to mention the power of the leadership impacting it.

The Sri Lankan crisis however is one of ethnicity - certainly not of recent origin with an overwhelmingly powerful majoritarian based political centre most unwilling to recognise pluralism, refusing to move one inch from that stronghold - needless to say the equally overwhelming clarion call to its communal kindred in the vast Sinhala Buddhist majority to maintain their claim over what they believe is a land 'rightfully their sole legacy." Throughout Sri Lanka's political freedom of over half a century, the Sinhala Buddhist cry was decisive point in electioneering and political consolidation.

A shift towards liberalism in entertaining pluralism and whatever was multi-cultural was experienced only for a while until the emergence again of ultra-nationalist forces that influenced a power mindset that was more pro-liberal than a warring kind. Their audience grew in numbers among the populists which invariably is proof of how the top could mould majority opinion - a top down flow unlike what warranted Nepal's socio/political economic dynamics culminating in common deprivation against an all too powerful apex or top.

The Sri Lankan problem is one of building consensus among the people on the dangers of ethnocentricity and ultra-nationalism - these alone being supportive of separation. Those that advise the power apex into military refuge will, when separation sets in, blame the same agency for such separation. These sources then are seen politically as not well meaning. Consensus building towards power devolution to prevent separation is the hour's need and towards this end, galvanising the people's power becomes imperative. The only agency to make this endeavour a reality are the decision makers.

Aligning himself with this writer's thoughts was Oxonion Susil Sirivardana. "If Prachanda and Koirala were permanently distrustful there could not have been any conclusion. Transcending enmity and their old pre-negotiation egos was the compact of trust. For a win, win compromise that is for the Maoist and seven party alliance, victory over the king is certainly Nepali national interest. Talking in terms of military conquest is useless. Its only in trust you will find the values, spiritual, moral dimensions and a sense of responsibility to the people. Nepalese were sick of war and violence. The seven party and the rebels had the moral stature to realise what the people wanted which was peace and democracy. This enabled them to transcend petty political agendas to become change agents.

"Even for a bottom/up approach it was these change agents that mobilised society. The Nepali people not even half as educated as us had a concept of citizenship and wanted democracy," said Sirivardana. Commenting on this writer's belief that it was far easier to build consensus among the uneducated he said,

"You see, when you are educated, what I mean is the text book type, that society is most likely to be fragmented and divided. The Nepalese had a kind of 'innocence' which acted as a positive political capital in resolving the crisis there. So they all teamed up to strengthen democracy and get a new constitutional democratic deal. That was their strength."

Sirivardana examining our social pathologies did not hesitate to explain what prevented us from building up a compact of trust.

"We Sri Lankans suffer from political and social expediency. This is not something new but built up through the decades following independence.

We allow ourselves to benefit by private expediency which is self beneficial at the expense of everything else. In this scene we are incapable of morality and spirituality, right and wrong and substitute it with moral negotiability, manipulation, money making and personal profit.

Everything is measured from private benefit and profit cutting across equity, justice and principles. Every rule is negotiable for personal profit. While Nepalese face guns we are filled with private agendas. We are for private benefit - the implication being short term again. We are quite unconcerned about peace and democracy, norms and values. We basically are a country of atomized individuals.

Its so easy to divide us. The moment you appeal to personal benefit you are through."

As an example he cited a very different kind of trade unionism found today. "Politicians buy over the union leaders and who cares of workers' rights," he asked.

With political and social expediency we undermine national interest. So how can we arrive at a compact of trust? But the Nepalese agreed to disagree."

The obsession with stateism was the other pathology Sirivardana drew attention to. "We criticise the concept of state yet the whole time we uphold it uncritically."

Also we do not have any centres of excellence unlike in India. Take for instance Harvard university and the Indian Institute of Technology. Why do people like to enter these places? Here there are no such centres of excellence. We only generalise mediocrity," he lamented.

Sirivardana's next concern was violence and power monopoly. Sustained violence over the decades prevents people from taking to the streets to protest on a large scale. "It was monopoly of power that made the 13th amendment dysfunctional. In fact we resent devolution due to this monopoly. While denouncing 'Thanhaava' or greed, there is this urge to cling on to many things and this includes power.

While reciting 'Siyalu Sathwayo Niduk Waywaa' before you could say Jack Johnson we eat into some innocent animals flesh-fish, goat or fowl. Institutional violence coming off t he bureaucracy, private or public sector has heightened mediocrity. Credit is given not for production but for consumption. So there is heavy borrowing and we get no where. Certainly this is a form of violence against poverty. Then there is institutional violence against women and children as well.

The Nepalese he informed in their primitivism have a moral code. "We have dumped ours. Still worse is the absence of role models. So there is widespread mediocrity, expediency and opportunism gripping the entire social gamut that prevents us from achieving national goals."

[email protected]