{"id":166199,"date":"2016-08-07T15:07:12","date_gmt":"2016-08-07T09:37:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/?p=166199"},"modified":"2016-08-14T12:24:02","modified_gmt":"2016-08-14T06:54:02","slug":"building-inter-ethnic-social-capital-for-reconciliation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/building-inter-ethnic-social-capital-for-reconciliation\/","title":{"rendered":"Building Inter-Ethnic \u2018Social Capital\u2019 For Reconciliation"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Laksiri Fernando<\/span><\/a> –<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Dr.<\/a>

Dr. Laksiri Fernando<\/p><\/div>\n

\u201cAn association unites the energies of divergent minds and vigorously direct them toward a clearly indicated goal.<\/em>\u201d \u2013 Alexis de Tocqueville<\/p>\n

The need is true even in the case of the recent student clash at the University of Jaffna<\/span><\/a>. Both Sinhala and Tamil students in the Science Faculty sat side by side, perhaps in two groups, in lecture halls and in science labs, interacting with their teachers vertically. But they hardly had horizontal connections among themselves. As Pratheep Kunarthnam writing on the subject asked<\/span><\/a>, \u201cCan any of the authorities explain why except in one or two faculties Tamil-Sinhala students do not even smile at each other even when they walk past one another?<\/em>\u201d (Colombo Telegraph<\/em>, 20 July 2016). He also raised the question of \u2018deteriorating relations between Tamil and Muslim students.\u2019<\/p>\n

It is normal when people enter school, college, university or workplace, they tend to interact with their \u2018own people,\u2019 unless one or two \u2018enlightened souls\u2019 take a special effort to break the ice. In the case of Sri Lanka, most of these places are mono-cultural (not multi-cultural) spaces, most often purposely created that way. Even then they find reasons to group with their village or caste people. I am not touching on the gender issue here because of its \u2018sex-complexity,\u2019 although for a healthy society, healthy gender relations are necessary beyond marriage or partnership.<\/p>\n

Even if we consider humans as utterly \u2018autonomous\u2019 individuals, they do need grouping, socialization, interaction and net-works. When this happens within their own group or \u2018in-group,\u2019 it is generally called \u2018bonding.\u2019 That is how a society builds up \u2018social capital\u2019 for its survival and beyond. But in a multi-ethnic and a multi-religious society, there is something necessary beyond \u2018bonding\u2019 and towards \u2018bridging.\u2019 I am here borrowing simplified terminology and a conceptual framework from Robert Putnam and others on \u2018social capital formation\u2019 (\u201cMaking Democracy Work<\/em>,\u201d 1993).<\/p>\n

A Conceptual Framework<\/strong><\/p>\n

How many \u2018mono-ethnic\u2019 societies or countries do we have today? The number is less than the number of our fingers. This is the reality in most countries that people have to face, whether you like it or not, and however much you argue about the predominance of your own group in your country or region. The building of \u2018social capital\u2019 is about networking for your personal and collective wellbeing, whether it is a funeral society, neighbourhood association, temple\/church organization, drama society or lending association. This is important as building physical capital, financial capital or human capital. At a higher level, you may have to build student associations, women\u2019s organizations, trade unions, human rights organizations, citizen\u2019s committees or even more politically overt social justice movements. These are important for an efficient and an effective democratic society. This may be accepted without much controversy.<\/p>\n

In general terms, the maturity of any democratic society could be judged or measured on the basis of the nature, the quality and the functions of these networks and associations which could also be called the civil society. If we wish a definition or an authoritative explanation on the matter, we can get it from Putnam, who was not the first to identify the phenomenon or process, but who was the first to elaborate, classify and use it as a criteria for assessing the maturity of democratic societies. As he said:<\/p>\n

\u201cOf all the dimensions along which forms of social capital vary, perhaps the most important is the distinction between bridging (or inclusive) and bonding (or exclusive). Some forms of social capital are, by choice or necessity, inward looking and tend to reinforce exclusive identities and homogeneous groups. Examples of bonding social capital include ethnic fraternal organizations, church-based women\u2019s reading groups, and fashionable country clubs. Other networks are outward looking and encompass people across diverse social cleavages. Examples of bridging social capital include the civil rights movement, many youth service groups, and ecumenical religious organizations.\u201d (\u201cBowling Alone<\/em>,\u201d 2000, p. 23).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In the above work, Putnam was talking about the American situation (\u2018The Collapse and Revival of American Community\u2019 as the sub-title), and his examples might not be the best for Sri Lanka. He did emphasise the importance of \u2018bridging\u2019 over \u2018bonding,\u2019 however the importance of \u2018bridging\u2019 is much more than he talked about, particularly in the case of Sri Lanka or any transitional or developing multi-cultural society. I am using the expressions \u2018transitional\u2019 and \u2018developing\u2019 both in economic and political terms.<\/p>\n

Present Context<\/strong><\/p>\n

As generally accepted, there has been a resurgence of the civil society organizations (or networking) in Sri Lanka that led to or accompanied by the democratic change in 2015. This was not exactly the case five ten years ago – first due to the bitter civil war and then the authoritarian regime that emerged after the end of the war defeating the LTTE. In heralding the authoritarian development, there was a different or a \u2018primitive\u2019 kind of social capital or networking that emerged based on the \u2018kith and kin,\u2019 \u2018friendship alliances,\u2019 \u2018provincialism\u2019 and \u2018patron-client relations\u2019 that in fact effectively overturned the democratic fabric. This is popularly called the Rajapaksa regime. Primitive kind of social capital emerging out of traditional sources is also something anticipated by the social capital theorists. There can be several other forms of \u2018social capital\u2019 that could be inimical to justice and fairness.<\/p>\n

What made the democratic system barely saved was the resurrection of the nearly moribund civil society organizations (of lawyers, academics, professionals, journalists, students, citizens) and the emergence of new ones inspired largely by the international influence and civic consciousness. Two of the key objectives of the political change and thus the civil society were (1) the resurrection of democracy and (2) reconciliation of the ethnic conflict. I am not undermining the role of the political leaders or the political parties in the change, but emphasising the importance of the civil society organizations for the purpose of this article.<\/p>\n

The above was possible because of the long standing traditions of civil society organizations and networks in Sri Lanka although they became disrupted and degenerated during the period of the war and even before. First to breakdown, due to the ethnic distancing and antagonisms of the post-1956 period, were the processes of \u2018bridging social capital\u2019 in the country. Then came the disruption of even \u2018bonding social capital\u2019 primarily due to political interventions, war and demoralization of the civil society actors since 1983. The new forms in fact had emerged. Jonathan Goodhand, Hulme and Lewer (2000) have investigated some of the transformations in different zones.<\/p>\n

Even if we now assume – based on the democratic changes of the last year (2015), and still the vibrant activities of some of the organizations – that \u2018bonding social capital\u2019 is on track again, this article argues that \u2018bridging social capital\u2019 is still lagging behind which is much more important for the objectives of both \u2018resurrection of democracy\u2019 and \u2018building reconciliation\u2019 in the country.
\nImportant Organizations<\/p>\n

It might not be too arbitrary to identify the following organizations playing a major role in the recent democratic change in the country. They are listed in the alphabetical order.<\/p>\n