|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 6 July 2003 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Sri Lanka : What went right? by Basil Fernando Sri Lanka: What Went Wrong is the title of a forthcoming book. One might well ask, "Has anything gone wrong with Sri Lanka?" What maybe seen as what went wrong may well be only the contradictions that have come together with what is really going right in the country. To illustrate this point, let us recall some of those who thought that something was really going wrong in the country. Among these people, the leaders of the 1962 coup need to be mentioned first as they not only thought that things were going wrong but they were also ready to do something radical to alter the situation hence, the attempted coup. Later many of these leaders explained their motives and stated that the country was changing for the worse, for their families were losing their privileged positions in society. It was this trend that they saw as "what was wrong". Now they faced competition for positions in society that were previously theirs without any contest. Concentrated power A similar perspective was behind the drafting of the 1978 Constitution in which an attempt was made to deviate the liberal democratic form of government towards an authoritarian form of government. The very foundation of the previous constitutions was regarded as something that "went wrong in the country". Some form of authoritarianism, and not democracy, was thought of as the most suitable form of government for Sri Lanka. While the attempt was camouflaged by references to introducing aspects of the French system into Sri Lanka's Constitution, the changes were, in fact, as Dr. Colvin R. De Silva has pointed out, borrowed more from Emperor Bokassa of the Central African Republic than from the French. (In 1966, Jean-Bedel Bokassa of the Central African Republic overthrew his cousin, David Dacko, in a bloodless coup that was said to be backed by the French. He abolished the 1959 Constitution, dissolved the National Assembly and concentrated power in the presidency). Thus, there has been a section of society which believes that something is going wrong in Sri Lanka. What do they see as being "wrong", however? It is the deepening of the sense of equality among the ordinary folk in the country of all communities Sinhalese, Tamil and Muslim. The ordinary folk, the common people as they also are called, had not experienced a sense of equality throughout their history. Prior to colonialism, local rule, both among the Sinhalese and Tamils, was based on caste. The sections of society with privileges and those without them were clearly demarcated. Colonial rule reinforced these demarcations with another privilege added: the use of the English language. Though doors were opened to some to enter the privileged sections of society despite the caste barriers, the clear distinction between the privileged and the others was made to persist. These barriers began to break down around the 1950s. There were two major reasons for such a break to occur: the spread of education and the use of local languages. Both of these changes in society contributed to greater enlightenment among the ordinary folk of all communities. In other words, the sons and daughters of the soil were gaining an advantage over the elite in their struggle for equality. What enlightenment means for the sons and daughters of the soil is like the sun to the soil, said the great 18th century Danish thinker N. F. S. Grundtvig. In a society where sons and daughters of the soil and the elites have been well separated throughout their history, the former folk of all communities managed to achieve a great transformation during the 20th century. This transformation though became a source of confusion for the country's systems of authority, both in the localities and in the government. The elite were not able to adjust to this new situation. They did all they could to retain their authority in the same manner as before. They still have not come to terms with a society that has so completely changed in favour of equality as the shared basis of society. Ready for democracy The country now has a people that are desperately in need of, and are ready for, democracy in the real sense of the word. How the old coercion-intensive and authoritarian form of rule can be replaced by a democratic system that an enlightened people can accept is the core question faced by society today. The current system of administration in the country seems meaningless to the present-day enlightened people who have a greater sense of what is taking place in the country and who are no longer fearful as they were in the past. There is a new sensitivity among the majority of people in all communities, a new sensitivity in which everyone feels that they are not inferior to anyone. The only type of respect they wish to have towards others is mutual respect. Relationships that are not based on mutual respect wound their sensitivity. This sensitivity also has been extended to gender relationships. Attitudes based on superior-inferior relationship are now viewed as offensive. A political system that does not adjust to these changed sensitivities undermines itself. To those who look at it from a democratic perspective, one important thing has gone right in the country: the people the ordinary folk of all communities are now ready for democracy. These people have fundamentally and irrevocably been transformed. This very transformation, however, has generated tensions and has become the source of violence in the country. This violence is initiated by social groups who feel they have lost their power in this new environment. Some may even have thought of erasing these changes, but it is difficult to believe that anyone would seriously think that they can undo these political and social shifts in society and return to the past. Consequently, all that can now be done in their eyes is to keep postponing the transformation to democracy as much as possible. It is the contradiction between a backward political system and an outdated civil administration, on one hand, and the call by a more enlightened people for recognition of themselves and for resolution of their inequality, on the other, that is at work in Sri Lanka today. This contradiction is the source of the country's many tensions. These tensions are not something that have "gone wrong in the country" but are something that have been produced by "what has gone right". To try to attribute today's tensions to the mistakes of early leaders after independence in 1948 is to attribute to them an importance that they do not deserve. Products of colonialism and inheritors of the former feudal prejudices and attitudes, these leaders could not have had the imagination to understand the social transformation that was taking place in the country or to lead such a society. They were socially retarded. Digging into what they did or said may be useful to understanding how they saw society, but such an exercise is only of limited value, if at all. Examining history Rather, it is necessary to see history in its evolution, an approach to history in which one must see how many things that have happened in the real life of people have contributed to real social changes. This way of examining history does not view history as the good or bad deeds of the "big guys". All of the actions of the families that took the trouble to educate their children and all social exchanges among all people have had a cumulative effect in changing the mentalities of the people. They have lost the old habits of submission. They have sought equality. Such is the mood of the majority in the country today, be they Sinhalese, Tamils or Muslims. It is what has gone right in Sri Lanka today. Basil Fernando, lawyer and human rights activist, is currently Secretary General of the Hong-Kong based Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
