By Jehan Perera –

Jehan Perera

There is a high level of political polarisation in the country today. Specific manifestations of this polarisation can be seen in the criticism of the government’s proposed educational reforms. There is reluctance on the part of the opposition to give the government any credit for what it is doing. Even what it is doing well, such as keeping the economy stable, is downplayed due to a simple following of the policies of former president Ranil Wickremesinghe. Criminal and drug-related violence that  have existed in the past, and was worse in the past, is being blamed on the government’s ineffectiveness.

However, more objective  authorities such as the IMF appear to be satisfied with the government’s performance both with respect to meeting economic targets and governance in general. Their position is that the government is delivering  on its targets in relation to the agreement it has with the IMF, and this reflects commitment and genuineness in relation to both economic and governance reform. In fact, the IMF has opined that Sri Lanka’s economic  turnaround, and the discipline of the government, is an  example to  other countries.

While political rivalry is not new to the country, what distinguishes the present moment is the sharp rupture in relationships at the highest levels of government and opposition. This is an estrangement that can undermine efforts to solve problems that demand unity of purpose. The  main cause of the acute polarisation in the polity at this time is likely to be the unprecedented manner in which the government has been pursuing those  guilty of economic  corruption and abuse of power in the past. The past several months have seen  a spate of corruption cases being filed in the courts against political figures once thought to be beyond the reach of the law.

Unlike in the past when the cases were filed in a half-hearted manner, and seemingly designed to  fail, this time they are being  filed in earnest, which is seen in the high conviction rate and the severe punishments being meted out to those who once strode the national political stage with impunity. The convictions secured and the punishments imposed have sent an unmistakable message that this time accountability is for real. This  would be very anxiety provoking  to virtually anyone who has held government office in the past. However, corruption and abuse of power need to be rooted out if the country is to progress.

Celebrating Chandrika

A  recent public event that once again highlighted the polarisation in society was the celebration of the 20th anniversary of the Bandaranaike Memorial National Foundation and the 80th birthday of former president Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga. The event was not merely a celebration of a former head of state. It was a reminder of a time when the government leadership sought to build consensus across party lines to address national problems most notably the ethnic conflict. Former President Kumaratunga’s government initiated the most sustained effort yet to bring Sri Lanka’s civil war to a peaceful conclusion through political reform. Her attempts to forge a national consensus spanned all levels of society, from grassroots to parliament.

The main feature at the event was a video presentation of the highlights of the life of the former  president, from the days of her childhood, to her academic pursuits, personal tragedies and rise to the presidency. At the centre of its message was the former president’s effort to bring the ethnic conflict and war that was then raging to a peaceful conclusion through political  reform. However, lack of political consensus ultimately derailed President Kumaratunga’s efforts.

This celebratory event 20 years after the end of her presidency saw several hundreds of the country’s most distinguished personalities in attendance, including  those who have held high political office, diplomats, artistes, academics and civil society activists. However, members of the government  were conspicuous by their absence. What is missing more than ever is the spirit of inclusion and what prevails is that of exclusion.

Unfortunately, 16 years after the war’s end, the ethnic conflict that the former president tried so hard to resolve continues to be an unresolved problem though most of  the country acts as if the problem no longer exists. As there is no overt violence, the existence of the problem is no longer in  the consciousness of the population at large. But the problem  exists in full force in  members of the ethnic and religious minorities who may not speak about it publicly and even downplay its existence when questioned about it. The ethnic conflict remains  an unhealed wound in the body politic.

Need Consensus

The reality is that resolving deep-rooted identity-based grievances is too large a task for any single party or government acting alone. Issues such as the implementation of the 13th Amendment and the restoration of the provincial council system which has been defunct for over seven years without elections being held, are politically fraught and require broad consensus. Successive governments have avoided tackling them, fearing political backlash. The present government’s reluctance to even broach these topics publicly is a measure of the challenge they pose. It is a problem  that needs to be addressed collectively and with political consensus  that spans the government and opposition.

The government’s determination to ensure accountability for past abuses appears to have widened the gulf between itself and the opposition, eroding the space for engagement at the highest levels. The challenge is to find a way forward that upholds the rule of law without closing the door to political dialogue. At the same time, the path to resolving the country’s most intractable challenges lies not in division, but in the ability to build consensus across political lines, for no single party can heal the country alone.

Against this backdrop, the collapse of lines of engagement between the government and opposition is troubling. National problem solving cannot be done by one political party or even the government by itself. The kind of statesmanship and political acumen that Nelson Mandela showed in South Africa is necessary. He spent 27 years in prison without compromising with oppressive government and when he won the presidency and formed his own government he left power after one term in office having set the country on the right path. What Sri Lanka needs is a similar statesmanship to suit its context and to be inclusive in governance.