Constitutional misgivings hindered ethnic and economic pluralism

Sunday Observer staffer Afreeha Jawad examines how constitutional inadequacies that denied plurality led to national disaster.

Examining past constitutional making, outstandingly, the leaning towards power and hegemonic control and of intense authority centralisation are very evident.

Power within the ambit of dispensing justice, equality and recognition of human dignity is reflective of a just power wielder.

Yet, the constraints of narrow vision and playing to majority wishes debares the broader perspective which in turn denies social development goals.

Power is decisive of majority will. However, statesmanship is attainable only when minority aspirations are fulfilled while explaining to the majority community of accrued injustice and the need to redress all of minority grievances. Hence, the importance of political strategies to arrive at power sharing in conflict resolution is the concern of astute leadership in the course of which spoilers would invariably be relegated to backseat however useful their assistance into party consolidation.

Retrospective constitutional features are evident particularly in the 1972 and '78 Constitutions which display State dominance in governance where power was enshrined fully within the State.

If the '72 Constitution was intense in this regard still worse was the 1978 constitutional arrangement with State authority in the hands of one single executive president who was always from the Sinhala Buddhist community. India then could surely boast of ethno/religious pluralism.

Ethnic, economic pluralism

The '72 Constitution heavily emphasised a unitary system of governance in which economic and ethnic pluralism was not to be. An import substitution policy with complete State control of the country's economic activities was to boost local industries during which course high cost of purchases followed.

Hegemonic control of the country's economy denied the entry of the private sector into the market which sector in later years was heightened and even seen as the engine of growth.

The existence of limited players in the market and the lack of foreign competitors resulted in the escalation of prices which in other times saw a reversal following the 78 liberal market environment.

The economic pluralism of 1978 brought in an exodus of foreign goods into the market followed by slumping prices much to the detriment of local industries.

Economic pluralism was anathema to the highly state centred economy of 1972 not to forget the denial of ethnic pluralism as well.

The extent of aversion to ethnic diversity was evident in the '72 Constitution in the removal of section 29.6 - a separate clause as regards minority safeguards and the initiation of a unitary state where concentration of state power was solely in the hands of the majority Sinhala Buddhist community.

Constitutional arrogance

The 1956 Sinhala only Bill followed by the unique unitary state and thereafter, the 1978 executive presidency is a revelation of progressive elimination of democratic ideals, diversity, plurality and the non recognition of human wholesomeness, of integrity, human dignity and equality. In the ensuing battle of might over right, the ever rising ethnocentric leanings became increasingly conspicuous. The aversion to pluralism was initially evident in the negative response to G.G. Ponnambalam's fifty-fifty appeal despite him allaying Sinhala fear by suggesting, the general seats to be solely for the majority Sinhalese. The denial of the fifty-fifty demand displays largely the lack of statesmanship among Sinhala politicians which continued into the constitutional arrangements that followed which truly were endeavours into nitpicking while missing out on the broader perspective. Had there been an expanded vision the crisis of ethnicity itself would not have arisen.

Majority centredness be it a closed economy, closed culture, ethnic racial environment stems off when narrow political vision sets in and past constitutional impact in this regard is not without its bearing on the part of the social whole. For instance the half educated urban middle class is into intense ethnocentric leanings compared with the so called uneducated poorer segment. The latter's mind power to absorb reality - to be more precise - to know the benefits of a power sharing mechanism is far greater than those of the middle class who due to being 'book bound' only see technicalities and miss out on the broader perspective.

Middle class notion

Currently, middle class notion is all about having voted for a government that promised to uphold the unitary state - a framework within which a solution to the ongoing conflict is even far from remote. They view the present political authority as aligning themselves with those that uphold a unified state - this term itself having come on in what appears to be a high degree of resentment towards even the mere mention of the word 'federalism.'

This status quo is not what fell off the sky but a steady and progressive development of rigid constitutional affirmation of a unitary state with a powerful centre where power rested solely in majority Sinhala Buddhist hands with its accompanying hostility towards varied ethno/religious identity.

Little do those that promote unity in diversity realise the highly centralised system it suggests unlike for instance if one was to speak of diversity in unity. The recognition of what is diverse in unity speaks volumes for what is to be accommodated as plurality. The two different expressions reminded this writer of a clenched fist and a relaxed one with fingers outstretched.

Unity in diversity is akin to that clenched fist where control and domination is more likely to be operative than in a relaxed fist with fingers having free movement - the acceptance of diversity in unity.

Historical fact

The Sri Lankan constitutional embodiment has always been one of centralised state power which in turn is non-recognition of the full play in diversity.

In fact historical evidence to the contrary cannot be overlooked. In times of the Sinhala monarchy the administrative framework included a separate Jaffna kingdom with Tamil kings such as Pararajasingham and Sankili administering the North. In fact Sri Wickramarajasingha (the letter 'm' at name's end being dropped for obvious reasons) - the Tamil king ruled over Kandy until British deportation of him.

Sinhala kings married South Indian Tamil women of similar social standing by way of caste.

This then speaks much of plurality and diversity in Ceylon's glorious past. However, it was the British centralised state followed by the '72 and '78 Constitutions bereft of minority safeguards that dumped the very elastic and broader concept of plurality.

[email protected]