15 December, 2019

Blog

Middle Level Leaders: The Centre Of Gravity In The Reconciliation Process

By Dinesh D. Dodamgoda

Dinesh Dodamgoda

Dinesh Dodamgoda

Words of appreciation came from the Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera who introduced the key note speaker, the former Prime Minister of the UK, Tony Blair who shared his experiences of fostering reconciliation in Northern Ireland, on the occasion of the Lakshman Kadirgamar Memorial Lecture held at the Kadirgamar Institute, a few days ago. Mr. Samaraweera said“However, at times Lakshman (Kadiragamar) has been misunderstood by some who claim that he believed in a military solution. This is far from the truth. Having had the honour of knowing him and working closely with him I can confidently say that Lakshman did not believe that there was a military solution to the crisis that this country faced.” 

It is interesting to note that Mr. Samaraweera who is now appreciating a non-military approach to the War had once, in the 2004, successfully derailed the non-military approach to the war that was initiated in 2001 by then the Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe led UNF government. In 2004, Mr. Samaraweera was a key figure in the opposition political group that toppled Mr. Wickramasinghe’s 2001 UNF government that signed the Norway brokered Cease-fire agreement with the LTTE. I do not call Mr. Samaraweera a hypocrite, because I do not wish to adopt a normative approach to politics. Instead, I would like to perceive this as the reality in Sri Lankan politics which we all will face when initiating the proposed reconciliation process.

Mangala BlairIt is a pity that we live in a country where we have politicians that tend to use even nationally sensitive issues to gain political power in a less civilised way. Here is the danger; as the recently concluded Parliamentary election shows, a ‘kind of hostile politics of the enemy-friend bi-polarity’ has been created in terms of intended socio-political reforms and the proposed reconciliation agenda of the new government. An analysis of the election results would show that a little over 50% of voters are for reforms and a little less than 50% of voters are against reforms. Hence, there is a great danger; there can be a serious ideological resistance to political reforms and to the proposed reconciliation agenda by almost half of the population that voted for former President Mahinda Rajapaksa led United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA). How should we move forward?

Professor John Paul Lederach who worked with peace building initiatives in Northern Ireland, Somalia, Colombia, Nicaragua, the Philippines, and the Basque region of Spain has developed a model for ‘sustainable reconciliation in divided societies’ from ‘the standpoint of a practitioner rather than a theorist’. In his model he divides the society into three major leadership groups, namely, Top Leadership, Middle-Range Leadership, and Grassroots Leaderships.

The Top Leadership comprises political, military, religious leaders with high visibility that focus on high-level negotiations. The Middle-Range Leadership comprises leaders respect in sectors that they represent such as ethnic / religious leaders, academics / professionals / intellectuals, and civil society leaders that include NGOs who can influence grassroots as well as the top leadership. The Middle-Range leaders have the capacity in shaping opinions in the grassroots as well as the top leadership. The Grassroots Leadership comprises local level socio-political and religious leaders, leaders of indigenous NGOs, community developers, local health officials etc.

If we believe in initiating the reconciliation process through the Top Leadership, the approach is called the ‘top-down’ approach to peace building. If we believe in initiating the reconciliation process through the Middle-Range Leadership, the approach is called a ‘middle-out’ approach to peace building. If we believe in initiating the reconciliation process through the Grassroots Leadership, the approach is called a ‘bottom-up’ approach to peace building.

The ‘top-down’ approach would mainly rely on the Top Leadership in successfully implementing the reconciliation process. The ‘middle-out’ approach would mainly rely on the Middle-Range Leadership in successfully implementing the reconciliation process. The ‘bottom-up’ approach would mainly rely on the Grassroots Leadership in successfully implementing the reconciliation process. Yet, which level of leadership is the most reliable and instrumental in successfully implementing the reconciliation process in Sri Lanka?

Let me change the order in evaluating the three approaches. First, let me focus on the ‘bottom-up’ approach that mainly rely on Grassroots Leadership in initiating the reconciliation process. Second, let me focus on the ‘top-down’ approach that mainly rely on Top Leadership and finally, let me focus on the ‘middle-out’ approach that mainly rely on Middle-Range Leadership in initiating the reconciliation process.

It can be noticed that most of the time groups that claim themselves as ‘practical’ people are eager to have a so called ‘bottom-up’ approach or as they called it “practical” approach) in promoting reconciliation. Their belief is that we need to have grassroots community level engagement programs (such as sports events, north-south exchange programs etc.) in promoting reconciliation. However, they are sceptical about things that start from anywhere else. I agree, taking the ‘bottom-up’ approach at its face value is somewhat convincing. However, as ample evidence derived from international experience suggests that a mere ‘bottom-up’ approach is too linear and doesn’t work in promoting reconciliation at least due to the following empirical realities the peace builders have experienced globally.

1. The grassroots refers to a massive number of people. Hence, more often those programs and activities we intend to carryout will not reach grassroots unless those programs and activities do represent points of contacts with the masses. In fact, it is a huge, complex and a difficult task to identify points of contacts that represent and comprehensively cover grassroots. Furthermore, this task warrants a huge infrastructure which we cannot afford. Unless one has such a comprehensive approach aiming at the grassroots actors, a bunch of isolated activities will not make an impact in reconciling the society, although those programs may generate some kind of publicity.


2. The grassroots people are in a daily struggle for survival in terms of finding food, shelter and safety. The ‘ground reality’ is that ideas of reconciliation and peace are seen at this level as an unaffordable luxury, although they want a peaceful context. In fact, it is a paradox.

3. The intensity, sincerity and effectiveness of engagements in grassroots level communities are indirectly but effectively controlled by their ‘own’ middle-range and top-level leaders’ opinions and attitudes towards reconciliation approaches and activities. My own experience as a former MP suggests that communities have their ‘own’ (ethnic, caste, religious or regional)
middle-range and top-level leaders  and those leaders are decisive in shaping positive or negative opinions, despite the ‘good’ or ‘bad’ direct work one would have done for ‘grassroots’ communities. In fact, they would ultimately start avoiding you unless you are ‘sanctioned’ by their ‘own’ leaders. Therefore, grassroots community is a very ‘unreliable’ social segment to mainly rely on even in promoting reconciliation.

Therefore, my opinion is that a linear ‘bottom-up’ approach will not deliver ‘serious’ results in reconciling the post-conflict Sri-Lankan society. However, I am not for the ‘top-down’ approach as well at least due to the following two reasons.


1. This approach is evidently futile as it costs a government in 2004 to then Premier Ranil Wickremasinghe. The top-level agreements those leaders reached were not relevant as well as was incapable of convincing people into converts at the local levels. It proved that top-level leaders are not the exclusive power holders of the society and power is more diffused and fractioned than generally perceived.


2. Top-level leaders are generally ‘locked into’ politically popular opinions and thus, do not have a much of freedom of manoeuvre in challenging the status quo that fuels ethno-social polarisation. In fact, more often they are the maintainers of the status quo as their political survival is very much depend on the status quo. Therefore, top-level leaders and approaches are unreliable in promoting reconciliation and may not challenge the status quo they try to maintain in terms of their own survival. Foreign Minister Mr. Mangala Samaraweera’s changing stances that I mentioned in the beginning of this article on two different context is a classic example to my claim.

Therefore, my proposition is to have a ‘middle-out’ approach as the Middle-Range leadership is the best medium to reach grassroots and the top-level at least for the following reasons.

1. The middle-range leaders are positioned so that they are connected to both top and the grassroots levels.

2. Although the Middle-Range Leaders have contacts with the Top Leadership, they are not bound by the political rationales that control actions and decisions made at the Top Leadership.

3. Moreover, Middle-Range Leaders understand the situation at grassroots level and are sensitive enough to grassroots experiences. Unlike the grassroots communities, the middle range leaders are not disturbed by the day to day survival mentality and grassroots’ emotional urgencies.

4. The middle-range leaders often have already established relationships with their opposing counterparts, for example, through intellectual, professional and civil society organisations that they represent.

Therefore, with regard to an appropriate approach, my proposition is that
the UNF government should have a Middle-Range approach and need to build Middle-Range
Leaders’ capacity to carry out reconciliation process and messages to the grassroots, because as successfully theorised, the lines of group identity in contemporary divided societies are more often drawn vertically than horizontally within the pyramid.

The Middle-Range Leaders are the Centre of Gravity (COG) in Clausewitzian terms in the proposed reconciliation process in Sri Lanka. Hence, the UNF government should identify and build relationships with Middle-Range Leaders in various ideological populations as contact points to reach the respective grassroots and the Top Leadership and to shape their attitudes.

As noted in the beginning of the article a little over 50% of voters are for reforms and a little less than 50% of voters are against reforms. Hence, there is a great danger; there can be a serious ideological resistance to political reforms and to the proposed reconciliation agenda by almost half of the population that voted for former President Mahinda Rajapaksa led United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA). The question that I tried to answer in this article was ‘how should we move forward?’ in terms of finding an approach to tackle/handle former President Rajapaksa led ideological opposition.

In my opinion, both opposing groups, UNF Government and the former President Rajapaksa led group, should create a context of political and personal co-existence for both groups that would guarantee UNFG’s smooth functionality at least in terms of proposed political reforms and the reconciliation agenda. However, it will not be so easy to achieve this context of political and personal co-existence for both groups unless both sides work hard, strategically and patiently. There are a few things to note. Since the hostile attitude in both sides is relatively high, a middle ground should be created to facilitate initiating a constructive dialogue. The best way is to utilise proxy groups or ‘behind the scene strategists’ in both sides to open up a dialogue. This is the Centre of Gravity or the Middle-Range Leaders that can initiate the reconciliation process. Hence, the most important task would be to reach an agreement between Middle-Range Leaders in the UNF government and the former President Rajapaksa led groups to be constructive and then to bring the level of hostilities in political actors of both sides at least to a less destructive point. This is the starting point. If this is possible, we can have a hope at least in terms of bringing intended political reforms into reality and implementing a reconciliation process successfully.

*Dinesh D. Dodamgoda, a Fulbright scholar and a lawyer, has a M.Sc. degree from the British Royal Military College of Science, Shrivenham (Cranfield University) on Defence Management and Global Security. He was also an MP from 1995-2000.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 0
    0

    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our Comment policy.For more detail see our Comment policy https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/comments-policy-2/

  • 3
    2

    Mangala is a fraud and and a bluff.

    That famous WMD Tony Blair who was on a freebee is the biggest LIAR on earth.

    Wonder how the SL Muslims tolerated him on our soil ???
    Where was the Al Qaeda… ISIS… LeT… Wahabis… The Sunnis ???

    • 3
      0

      Indeed WMD Blair delivering the lecture is an insult to Mr. L Kadirgamar.
      Wonder what his children thought they were up to- getting Tony Blair of all people to deliver the lecture and insult their father?!

      • 0
        0

        I was wondering the same thing. What were Kadirgamar’s children thinking when they invited this criminal to deliver this address.
        I can’t think of any one more inappropriate to advise us about reconciliation.
        Go to Iraq and check your handiwork, Blair

    • 0
      3

      You are sick!

  • 1
    2

    Mr. Dodamgoda, I know of no other President in the world who after defeat contested to be an member of Parliament. This was Mahinda Jarapassa’s strategy to avoid being held ACCOUNTABLE for his corruption and crimes. Now that strategy has back fired and he wants to cut a deal with Sirisena for immunity. Jarapassa will use his Sinhla Buddhist majority racism card to try to get immunity but this must be stopped because he must be taught a lesson that RACISM DOES NOT PAY in Sri Lanka anymore.

    Jarapassa is still playing racial and ethnic politics in order to get impunity for his crimes by cultivating a Buddhist militia in temples. This pollution and destruction of Buddhism and what the Buddha Tught must end. Jarapassa in PUBLIC ENEMY number 1 and must be locked up as an example of criminal politician who uses racism to DIVIDE, DISTRACT and RULE the SInhala Majority.

    But I am worried because Sri Lankan politicians of the Ranil-Sirisena-Jarapassa generation are shameless. They want to monopolized power, cling to their “parliamentary Privileges” that Ranil loves to talk about, and never hand over to the next generation or next best person.

    Politicians today are a CORRUPT CASTE that are wining and dinning and having a great time at the Diyawenna Oya Parliament on tax payers funds. This game must stop. Civil society need to find and EXIT Strategy for this generation of corrupt politicians if we want a new political culture in Sri Lanka.

    Finally, Sri Lanka needs a top down reform and clean up of corrupt political parties which have the dregs of society and the worst corrupt criminals. There needs to be a Chapter on reform of Political Parties ad Good governance in political parties in the new constitution, including term limits on party leadership and committee posts.
    There needs to be a Chapter on reform of Political Parties ad Good governance in political parties in the new constitution, including term limits on party leadership and committee posts.

  • 2
    0

    D. Dodamgoda

    An unconventional concept of ‘Middle Level Leaders’ as policy influencers is convincingly presented.

  • 3
    0

    “Mr. Dodamgoda, I know of no other President in the world who after defeat contested to be an member of Parliament.”
    I cannot think of such a President either. But I can think of several prime ministers who have after defeat sat in parliament as a MP. Mr W Churchill, Mr Harold Wilson, Mrs I Ghandi and closer to home, Mr D Senanayake, Mr W. Dahanayake, Mr R. W (more than once). And why not? Comfortable chairs to sit on, subsidised meals, fully ac premises, business class travel perks and decent remuneration.

  • 0
    1

    Professor John Paul Lederach who worked with peace building initiatives in Northern Ireland, Somalia, Colombia, Nicaragua, the Philippines, and the Basque region of Spain has developed a model for ‘sustainable reconciliation in divided societies’ from ‘the standpoint of a practitioner rather than a theorist’. In his model he divides the society into three major leadership groups, namely, Top Leadership, Middle-Range Leadership, and Grassroots Leaderships

    Just Crap.

    Why don’t they talk they themselves bashing and killing of Blacks and latinos.

    This guy is also writing fore the money he is getting.

  • 0
    0

    A good analysis and explanation, although a short cut that is available to achieve faster results has not been mentioned. That short cut is to exorcise the evil elements of the previous regime from the body politic.

    Such politicians have declared they will not rest until the present governement is destroyed, and displayed their serious intent by sabotaging the progressive legislations proposed in the last Parliament.

    Fortunately for Mother Lanka they are now marooned, and it behoves on the People to ensure the evil do not swim back to shore.

    The investigations into the financial frauds, corruption, torture, abductions and murders should be expedited, those found guilty should be punished, their ill gotten wealth taken away, and civic rights forfeited. These measures will generate an atmosphere which will give the necessary space to “the middle range leaders” to do their work in peace, and achieve better and faster results.

    It is too much to expect President Maithripala Sirisena to be an effective leader in this Project, as he is constrained by divided loyalty to friends from the devil’s camp, his Party, and Country. For example can he explain why he made Dilan Perera an MP through the National List? See Blue Brigade Brigand story in Lankaenews.

    It is the Prime Minister, Ranil Wickremasinghe, who should direct the cleanup for best results.

  • 2
    0

    Another good analysis Mr. D. Dodamgoda. Thought provoking, sharp, intellectually sound, and a context oriented analysis. I hope policy makers would read it.

  • 0
    0

    Inviting Former Prime Minster of the Untied Kingdom, Mr Tony Blair by the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister, Mr Mangala Samaraweera to speak at the Kadirgamar Insittute is in itself shows the attitude of the Sri Lankan Government. Tony Blair is another person who is accused of war crimes in Iraq. To invite him to speak at the Institute and to give him that privilege shows the criminality of the Sri Lankan Government. The war against Iraq was unwarranted and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian were murdered by both US and United Kingdom forces. They even used chemical weapons. In Sri Lankan the armed forces used chemical weapons randomly on the civilians and many thousands lost their lives. There cannot be a reconciliation process as Mr.Samaraweera suggested until the Tamils are ready for it and their demands are met gradually for the reconciliation process to commence.

  • 1
    0

    How come a mass murderer like blair the bush lap dog come to the kadiragama lecture. shame shame.
    Sri Lanken leaders still have the brown sahib mentality. Blair with his pal bush should be in jail- for ever.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 300 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically shut off on articles after 10 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.