Centre for Policy Alternatives on 22 June, 2016

Seven Years Since

Seven Years Since.

Dr Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu

It is now seven years since the end of the war and the onset of a post-war situation.  In that time the roots of conflict were not addressed but sustained and even reproduced. In the North and East, people observed that things may have looked better, but felt worse.  There and throughout the country, rights were at best irrelevant and at worst subversive.  Then, sixteen months ago there was an election that promised to change everything.  In order to do that though, some things had to be put on the backburner if those things were to be ever addressed at all.  The overarching priority was to win the election and irrespective of ethnicity and religion, people voted for change, hitherto considered impossible.

Are we now on the road to reconciliation, to a post-conflict world in which the sources of conflict are not sustained and reproduced?  Yes, No, Perhaps, Maybe?

The trajectory of developments, are in general, in the right direction, albeit with shortcomings in respect of the pace of change and the communication thereof.  A not altogether easy paradigm shift to complete, perhaps, for a coalition of historic rivals in government navigating differences within and challenges without, not to mention the plethora of promises made on a number of other fronts.  Yet, as far as the people of the North and East are concerned, they did their best and more for change and in the context of democratic politics, it is still overdue and insufficient payback in the currency of rights and equal citizenship.   As the supreme law of the land is to be changed and submitted to the country at large for approval, this acquires a political salience that cannot be ignored.  A result amongst the majority community that is too close will once again require the voter from the North and East to come to the rescue in full force.  They will likely stay at home if that supreme law is not convincingly founded on their equal citizenship, in this their home and country.

As the anniversary is marked, Geneva approaches, the constitution is to be written and GSP Plus applied for, the “low hanging fruit” argument in respect of corruption is relevant to reconciliation and national unity as well. Land has been returned, but there is more to be returned and without a convincing explanation for delay.  It appears that the government is keen to show demonstrable progress in respect of the promised mechanisms for reconciliation by bringing legislation to parliament on an Office for Missing Persons before the Geneva Human Rights Council sessions commence.  It is under criticism however regarding process, since the all- island public consultations have not commenced and no proper consultations with victims’ families in particular on this mechanism have been held.  There is time to rectify this and dispel the perception that the commitment to transitional justice and reconciliation is more than about ticking boxes to meet pre-determined deadlines.

The PTA is to be repealed and replaced with new legislation.  Whilst that is being done, it is surely incumbent on the government to communicate to the security forces and police at ground –level, the procedures that apply to arrest and in doing so emphasise the paradigm shift effected in January 2016 and the crucial importance of its practical demonstration on the ground.  Were the attention this important issue requires paid to it, the directives of the Kumaratunga government on this score adhered to for example, the concern and fear about a return to the “white van” era could have been avoided.

At the same time, the Office for National Unity and Reconciliation is working on a National Policy for Reconciliation. As to why this is being attempted now, some sixteen months after the new dispensation is not at all clear; that it is being attempted at al holds out some hope that beyond retrospection, premature perrhaps – quite a few policy initiatives having commenced – it will bring some strategic coherence to bear on how best to move to a post-conflict Sri Lanka.

Above all else though, the substantive and material issues aside, the spirit of reconciliation needs to be prioritized and projected.  Reconciliation is after all about mutual acknowledgement of pain and loss, the shared responsibility for a broken relationship and the felt need for repair born out of interdependence, recognition and commitment to a common destiny.  We have yet to have a commemoration, a simple ceremony, of the loss of life and livelihood of all Sri Lankans, combatant and non-combatant, citizens and soldier, who perished in the 30- year conflict. March -pasts, victory parades, private commemorations to the extent possible, do not bring together the peoples of the country.  This columnist suggested this at the end of the war and repeats the call to the government to take the lead in convening such a ceremony – perhaps an inter-religious one at Independence Square?

Constitutional reform and transitional justice are going to test the reconciliatory potential in the polity to the full.  Whilst lamenting the time and opportunities lost in the last seven years and even in the last 16 months of it to bolster and expand this potential, we must not loose hope and thereby lend credence to the thesis that nothing has really changed – only the parties and the people at the helm of affairs.

Maybe the president and the prime minister will mark this seventh anniversary of the war with the people in the north and thereby unite the private and the official in a simple, significant display of unity of all the peoples of Sri Lanka?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 22 June, 2016

Reconciliation and Unity: Warnings

Reconciliation and Unity: Warnings

 Dr.Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu

Recent developments in the north and east have raised concerns on the one hand of a purported LTTE revival and on the other about the continued use of the PTA to arrest Tamil citizens and of the modalities of the arrests being reminiscent of the Rajapaksa era.  Some 23 Tamil civilians have been arrested in connection with the discovery of explosives and the suicide jacket in Chavakachcheri.  Three arrests, in particular, by the Terrorism Investigation Division (TID) of former LTTE cadre of ranking who have undergone rehabilitation after 2009, namely Ram, Nagulan and Thalayan, have aroused media attention. Sivakaran, who was Secretary of the Youth Wing of the ITAK and suspended from that post in the run-up to the 2015 Presidential election on account of his public opposition to the TNA’s support for the Sirisena candidacy, has been released on bail.  He was arrested for allegedly assisting the others to leave the country.

Media reports further state that the Police Media Spokesman, ASP Ruwan Gunasekera acknowledged that the three were the most senior LTTE cadres arrested at the end of the war in May 2009. ASP Gunasekera has also stated that the three were not rehabilitated for the minimum stipulated period of a year and that they have been working with military intelligence.  In the Nation newspaper of 30th April 2016, he is quoted as saying:

We do not know why they were released prior to serving one year minimum in rehabilitation. They have been working together with Army intelligence.

Serious questions invariably arise from this.

The Prime Minister has announced that the PTA will be replaced with legislation along the lines of the British anti-terrorism legislation.  The pros and cons of that model aside, the issue of the continued use of the PTA for mass arrests of Tamil citizens in the meanwhile, raises serious concerns about either the change of heart of the government in respect of demonstrating its commitment to governance and reconciliation on the ground, or, with regard to its ability to communicate effectively and thereby ensure the implementation of policy and attitudinal change at the ground level.  Perceptions, as has repeatedly been pointed out, matter in politics.  The arrests impact them, with at least one person making the point to this columnist that the objective of the arrests is to deter people from engaging in commemorative activities in the week marking the anniversary of the end of the war.  Fear is once again being seen as the key in a renewed interest in keeping a population in check, to assuage the fears and prejudices abroad in the politics of the south.

Questions also arise into the stated association with military intelligence of some of those arrested. What is the nature of the association?  Was it voluntary, did they have a choice?  Is this what was meant by “rehabilitation?  Why were they released before they served the minimum period of one year in rehabilitation? Whilst the national security argument in matters of military intelligence can be acknowledged, so too must the public interest in practices employed that risk undermining both.

Importantly, this begs the question about the discovery of explosives and the suicide jacket in Chavakachcheri.  Does the available information in the public realm, not provide the basis for asking the question as to whether the whole thing was manufactured to embarrass the government and to redound to the political benefit of other actors?

All should be revealed and Tamil civilians should not have to worry anymore about being used as hapless pawns in any sordid political power struggle, largely in the south.

The Northern Provincial Council’s passage of a resolution on constitutional reform, embodying the proposals of the Tamil Political Council, has also aroused a debate about the reemergence of secessionist political claims, the real import of an argument for federalism and the merger of the northern and eastern provinces.  Clearly, putting the political and constitutional settlement of the ethnic conflict on the back burner in the January 2015 Presidential election was politic from the point of view of winning majority community votes.  The fear of the “F” word seems to be back again.   Any mention of it is being labeled at best as an unnecessary and at worst, suspect effort to disturb the political peace and societal comfort delivered unto us by that election result.  The issue however will, cannot and must not go away.  The Federal Party or ITAK espousing federalism is surely unsurprising; they have been doing so since their inception.  As to why it should give rise to such concern, real or imagined, is to this columnist, the real concern.

Were the next four to five months to constitute the unique, indispensable opportunity for a new constitution, they also constitute the unique, indispensable opportunity to resolve this question.  The nature of politics being such, all sides will have to recognize that this cannot be done without honourable compromise in terms of optimal demands or by delegitimizing core  proposals of key stakeholders.  Whilst political rhetoric may well hold political constituencies as intended, the process will require debate and discussion of details, of substantive, meaningful power- sharing, with labels in mind no doubt, but not predominating.

The most recent survey of public opinion by the Centre for Policy Alternatives indicates that there is still a politically significant segment of the population, which is undecided on the issues of a constitutional settlement of the ethnic conflict and transitional justice.  In terms of winning public opinion, there is much to play for – easily accessible information and argument and government championing of the reform agenda.

The President has been quoted as having promised major decisions and action in the national interest after May Day.  No better place to start than on issues such as these.

 

 

 

 

 

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 22 June, 2016

A Matter of Trust and Confidence

A Matter of Trust and Confidence

Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu

 In the transition from the populist authoritarian recent past to government conducted with governance, public trust and confidence in institutions and processes of government is pivotal.  That trust and confidence is what provides the oxygen for the transition and the reform it entails  – a diminution of it constituting a warning sign of displeasure and disquiet and therefore one to be taken seriously. At the same time, an increase underpins and sustains optimism.

The recent survey by the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) where I work is in this regard revealing.  The following responses have been thrown up in the recent (late February – March) CPA Democracy Survey on public perceptions and expectations of democracy.  True enough, survey results shift and are not carved in stone. Furthermore, the public can be notoriously fickle. Surveys do however provide an indication at least of trends in opinion and enduring concerns.  Sign posts in the storm, perhaps…..?

The recent Democracy Survey reveals amongst other responses that:

  1. Nearly 45% of respondents believe that the current economic situation is bad and of them 62.4% believe that the policies of the current government account for the situation.
  2. In October 2015, 49.6% felt that the government was committed to eradicating corruption. In February 2016, the figure dropped to 34.5. Skepticism is highest in the Sinhala community – 47.4% believing that the government is not committed to the eradication of corruption.
  3. The top three institutions that citizens have a “great deal of trust” in are the Army (46.7%), the Courts (40.1%) and the Civil Service (22.9%). When the figures for “ some trust” are added to these, the totals are approximately 80% for each institution whilst the figure for the Central Government is almost 70%– this constitutes a drop from responses in 2013 and 2015 of 84.2% and 74.5% respectively with regard to the Central Government.
  4. Nationally the figure for trust in Provincial Government is approximately 65%, with the highest figure of 80% registered with the Tamil community and the lowest figure of 61% with the Sinhala community.
  5. The Tamil community’s trust in the Army has undergone considerable change – in 2011, 32.8% from the Tamil community and 27.3% from the Up-Country Tamil community stated that they had no trust in the Army. This figure increased to 52% among the Tamil community and 47% among the Up-Country Tamil community in March 2015.  A year later, the figure is 35.7% for the Tamil community, and 13.8% for the Up-Country Tamil community.
  6. Across ethnic lines, on average some 80% of Sri Lankans repose trust in the Courts and 48% in Parliament. Some 41.5% of the Sinhala community has “no trust” in Parliament and 50.8%, likewise in respect of political parties.  Only 36.7% of Sri Lankans trust political parties.

Public perceptions of, faith, trust and confidence in politicians and political parties should be better since they are key players in ensuring the reinstitution of governance in our government.  No doubt, the experience of coalition government over the last 15 months and the fight over the heart and soul of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) has had its toll on public perception and opinion. The point may well be made too, that this is a global problem, even one peculiar to long established electoral democracies, as the debate in the US presidential election attests to.  As is the case in that election, there needs to be a public debate here too as to the structure and functioning of political parties, their funding and the caliber of candidates they nominate for election.  Neither the March 12 Movement or the Speaker’s attempt to institute a Code of Conduct for MPs will necessarily succeed without the parties themselves recognizing the importance of the issue for the wellbeing of electoral democracy in the country. This is something that must follow constitutional reform.

Public perception of the government’s commitment to eradicating corruption is worrying since this is the issue that feeds and fuels the erosion of faith and trust in the institutions of electoral democracy.  Following on from my theme about communication a fortnight ago, the government must indicate the situation in respect of a number of cases on this score.  A website dedicated to this, charting progress or the lack thereof with reasons is surely possible and not detrimental to ongoing investigations? The refrain of tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow in respect of decisive action on corruption will seize to have any traction with a public that is now being fed on allegations of dicey deals on bonds and housing with all the allegations that will surely attend Megapolis when it gets going, waiting to happen.

Clear movement away from populist authoritarianism towards governance will only come if transformative change comes to be welcomed, supported and institutionalized in the popular mind.  It would indeed be a tragedy if the perception of the public is to be that of change only in form and of continuity, more or less, in the content of public affairs.

 

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 22 June, 2016

Let’s talk in the New Year; the Government to the People

Let’s talk in the New Year; the Government to the People

Dr.Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu

It has been some years since I wrote a column for a mainstream newspaper.  Looking back on it, I gave up writing for a combination of reasons, which oscillated from being bored and tired of saying the same thing to focusing on more practical action to effect change.   The change happened in that in those two decisive national elections of 2015, we came out of the darkness of impunity, profligacy and loot to a new dawn of hope and expectation that we could function yet again, at least, as a formal democracy, albeit flawed and not the populist majoritarian autocracy the previous regime had cowed the most of us into.  It is now some fifteen months since that dawn.  The mist has yet to clear and clear it must to reveal the broad sunlit uplands of the promised and expected governance, reconciliation and unity.

The yahapalanaya coalition government is having more than a bad press; it is in danger of being handed an unpromising prognosis in public perception and this far, far too early in the day.  The indictments of Rajapaksa apparatchiks and residual hangers –on notwithstanding, what the current dispensation needs to be concerned about is the perception amongst others that they cannot cope, coordinate, make policy with a reasonable shelf life and sing from the same hymn sheet.  A lack of focus seems to be a popular verdict – a president more concerned about the leadership of his party, a prime minister who seems to be firefighting on a number of fronts and with ministers in between of varying degrees of competence and a loquacity approaching the biblical Tower of Babel.

Public perception, it must be noted and one freed from the grubby clutches of the greed, fear and loathing of yore can be exaggerated.  The liberty to criticize can be confused with the license to do so.  Public perception in a democratic polity likewise can be harsh – often lost in a focus on the immediate as the immediate past recedes in public memory.  Were Harold Wilson’s point about a week in politics being a long time to be true , 15 months may seem eons ago.  No point made or purpose served however, complaining about the amnesia that affects the polity – that is part and parcel of politics and has to be dealt with.

 

We are in the throes of constitutional reform, transitional justice and an IMF stand by agreement.  The government needs to sustain the public dialogue it profited from in 2015 with a clear and coherent message of what is being done and why, as well as why, what should be done will take time to do.  As the public return to their homes in preparation and celebration of the New Year, conversation will turn to politics, the ridiculous and the sublime.  The government, I fear, has deprived itself of this opportunity to score points, to send to the country at large a message in its favour that it is unquestionably in charge and that whilst all that should or could have happened has not, the trajectory of change and democratic reform has not been reversed.

 

Communication is the key and it could turn out to be the Achilles Heel of this government like that of 2001-4.  A continuous, sustained dialogue with the public is necessary to keep them in the loop in respect of the magnitude of challenges produced by a decade of plunder, loot and impunity.  Public expectations, with regard to action on corruption have not been met. The public continues to be fed on an almost daily diet of allegations of corruption without a single major conviction to date. This feeds public cynicism and erodes the democratic legitimacy of the government.  The public needs to be told as to why there are delays and as to why for example under this dispensation, the CCTV footage in the Thajudeen murder case was not sent abroad for over a month, as instructed by the courts. They need to be told as to why it takes inordinate time to marshal the hard evidence on financial crimes that would stand up in a court of law; it needs to be told and constantly reminded in an easy accessible and understandable way that the financial crisis is largely the making of the Rajapaksas and what the costs of recovery are.

Communication does not relate to exposing the crimes and misdemeanours of predecessors alone but also to the rationale for change and reform.  Here there need to be champions of change and reform who can provide the reasons for it. The report of the public representations commission on constitutional reform may well provide the basis for this on constitutional reform, but it needs to be augmented with the raising of awareness of the party rank and file that will extend to the community at large, as to why a new constitution is needed.  The latter includes transitional justice – an issue, which is still shrouded in apprehension and misunderstanding and yet so pivotal to reconciliation and unity.  Megapolis, the flagship development project of the government is no exception either.  Does one laugh or cry when it is confused with the police as one politician on a public chat show, did?

It would indeed be a tragedy in this day and age of an impending right to information regime and overarching “yahapalanaya” to boot, if the undoing of the government was its inability and/or unwillingness to communicate, inform and educate the people of its challenges and plans to surmount them.  There are multiple tools and media for doing this.  There always have and will be.

In 2016 Sri Lanka, where is our local equivalent of Franklin Roosevelt’s fireside chats in the USA of the 1930s?  Or indeed of Chandrika Kumaratunga’s 1990s Sudhu Nelum movement?

Let’s talk in the New Year; the government to the people.

 

 

 

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 15 June, 2016

Politics and Foreign Policy – A Presidential Event at the BMICH

Politics and Foreign Policy – A Presidential Event at the BMICH

by Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu.

On the 13th of June, the Policy Evaluation Unit of the Presidential Secretariat and the Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies with the distinguished participation of President MaithripalaSirisena hosted a dialogue on, “Sri Lanka in Global Affairs: The Journey since January 2015.” The dialogue began with a short film on the President on the international stage, followed by a keynote address by Dr. Ram Manikkalingam and a stellar panel of Dr. Dayan Jayatilleke, Dr. Jayadeva Uyangoda and Eastern Province Governor Austin Fernando. The panel discussion that followed was moderated by Ambassador Palihakkara, the former Governor of the Northern Province.

Presentations were generous in praise, even mildly hagiographic of the President’s “middle path”, “realism” and “Asia centric” foreign policy orientation, of his ability to build coalitions and make friends. Dr. Jayatilleka gave an impassioned critique of the Government’s policy vis-a-vis the Human Rights Council, suggesting that if the President’s realism and “Asia centrism” won the day there would have been no co-sponsorship of the 2015 resolution providing for an accountability mechanism with the participation of international judges. The point was made that Dr. Jayatilleke could make his critique now without risking dire consequences because of the salubrious changes the President has ushered in since  assuming office. Dr. Uyangoda made the points that he was not going to praise the President in his speech and that he did not represent any political interest and was not an “insider”. He also pointed out that the government had a non-ideological approach to foreign policy, that flexibility in policy was not a weakness and appealed to the President not to forget the coalitions that brought him to power. Governor Fernando detailed the progress made by the government on reconciliation. The President in his brief address laid out his understanding of foreign policy and the needs of the country.

In all, it was a fascinating event, not least because it begged the question of the politics underlying it.   This is a coalition government and collective cabinet responsibility in this day and age anywhere could be problematic even sans a coalition. Was there a special reason for the President’s Office to convene a meeting on foreign policy since January 2015 into the future, without the participation of the Foreign Ministry? Especially intriguing in this instance was that there was no one from the ministry charged with the responsibility for foreign policy to respond to the critique of the policy on Geneva, in particular, on the eve of yet another session of the Human Rights Council. The head of the executive, the President, nevertheless was present and participating. Given Dr. Jayatilleke’s well -publicized views on Geneva, his association with the Rajapaksa regime in office and out, the organizers, presumably, and the President included, would surely have had an idea on what to expect.Was the intention to give Dr. Jayatilleke’s critique a public airing in the presidential presence – diplomats too -and allow space for the interpretation that it has presidential sanction and endorsement?

Were this interpretation correct, are we to assume that the government has two foreign policies and that if it is to be one as indeed it should be, the President has now signaled that he will be in charge of it? This columnist certainly got the impression, given what transpired, that he wasn’t too impressed with the current foreign policy of his government on the key issue of the Geneva resolution.

Reconciliation seems is in order within government over policy and reform, the paradigm shift from the darkness of yore to the diffident dawn of the present streaked with dissent and disagreement as far as foreign policy is concerned. What will the Foreign Minister’s brief be for Geneva when he speaks to the UN Human Rights Council? Second thoughts on the resolution or ringing endorsement of it and the progress the government has made and intends to make with respect to its implementation? And what of the mechanism in respect of accountability? Media reports state that both the President and the Prime Minister have ruled out the participation of international judges. In any event, won’t the Supreme Court of the country have the last word on any convictions?   Is it the case that as far as reconciliation is concerned, it is the order of the day within the Sri Lanka Freedom Party? Has the attempt to reconcile its main factions under one roof resulted in the fight over the heart and soul of the party also publicly exposing intra-governmental differences over foreign policy?

It is the case that Sri Lanka enjoys greater international goodwill since January 2015 than it did under the Rajapaksa regime. In this respect the national interest has been served and served well by those who designed and executed foreign policy. Into the future, the government cannot take for granted international goodwill in such measure, were it to fudge or forsake commitments made. It should also not be forgotten that the international goodwill enjoyed today is in considerable measure on account of the commitments made in Geneva, at the Human Rights Council and the pragmatism in relations with friends and protectors of the previous regime.

Oftentimes the textbooks tell us that many a foreign policy is about muddling through. Perhaps. But, it does not have to be the case. And as for foreign policy in a coalition government in a country in transition and the recipient of considerable goodwill, public debate and criticism of that policy is surely in order, but surely not at the instigation and in the service of insalubrious internal politics, as appeared to be the case in this instance at the BMICH?

Originally published here.

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 27 May, 2016

STATEMENT ON ANUSHA PALPITA’S APPOINTMENT

27th May 2016, Colombo, Sri Lanka: News reports indicate that the former Director General of the Telecommunication Regulatory Commission Anusha Palpita has been appointed as an Additional Secretary of the Home Affairs Ministry. As widely reported, Mr. Palpita is indicted before the High Court of Colombo in terms of the offences against the Public Property act and the Sri Lanka Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (SLTRC) act. He is due to stand trial for allegedly misappropriating Rs 600 million of funds belonging to the SLTRC during 30st October 2014 and the 5th January 2015.

Although Mr. Palpita as any other accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence, this does not justify him being appointed to an important government office. He is not merely being investigated. As noted above, he has been indicted before the High Court by the Attorney General.

The Procedure to be followed when a Court of Law or a Statutory Authority proceeds against a public officer is provided in paragraph 27 of Chapter XLVII of the Establishment Code. As already pointed out by several civil society organisations, Paragraph 27:10 provides that where legal proceedings are taken against a public office for a criminal offence or bribery or corruption the relevant officer should be immediately interdicted by the appropriate authority. It has to be emphasised that several decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal have stated that the procedures laid down in the Establishment Code in general and paragraph 27:10 (of Chapter XLVII) in particular are mandatory and cannot be superseded or disregarded without due legal authority.

This decision runs counter to the basic precepts of good governance and the rule of law. It creates the perception that the government is not serious about pursuing investigations into past corruption and is comfortable having individuals accused of large-scale corruption exercising public authority.

Good governance was a key issue in the electoral campaigns of President Maithripala Sirisena and the United National Front for Good Governance. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the government to exhibit the attributes of good governance in all aspects of its conduct. The failure to do so and engaging in ‘business as usual’ will only help promote cynicism within society and strengthen those opposing the reform agenda.  CPA has previously cautioned the government that unless it demonstrates its previously stated commitment to good governance and declared “zero” tolerance of corruption, the democratic gains of January and August 2015 risk fatal compromise and reforms in general needlessly de-railed.

It appears the government is yet to take heed.

###

Download as a PDF here. Download this press release in Sinhala here.