|
Democracy, Sri Lankan Style,
1985
Nadesan Satyendra
15 May 1985
"Sri Lanka is an open,
working, multiparty democracy. Citizens elect their
president, members of parliament, and local government
officials by universal adult suffrage. All laws
including acts extending the state of emergency, must
be approved by the Parliament... The Constitution
guarantees the independence of the judiciary, and
lawyers and judges are held in high esteem." (U.S.
State Department's Annual Human Rights Report to
Congress released February 1985)
"....The democracy of
Sri Lanka has been described in the following terms,
terms which are a fair and accurate description: 'The
reluctance to hold general elections, the muzzling of
the opposition press, the continued reliance on
extraordinary powers unknown to a free democracy,
arbitrary detention without access to lawyers or
relations, torture of detainees on a systematic basis,
the intimidation of the judiciary by the executive, the
disenfranchisement of the opposition, an executive
President who holds undated letters of resignation from
members of the legislature, an elected President who
publicly declares his lack of care for the lives or
opinion of a section of his electorate, and the
continued subjugation of the Tamil people by a
permanent Sinhala majority, within the confines of an
unitary constitutional frame, constitute the reality of
'democracy', Sri Lankan style.'" - Senator A.L.Missen, Chairman, Australian
Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International,
Australian Senate Hansard, 13 March 1986
Contents
The 1977 election pledge
that was not honoured...
It was with the departure of the British that the
organic growth of nations gathered momentum in the Indian
region. In Sri Lanka, the growth of a separate Tamil
national identity was accelerated by the practice of
'democracy' within the confines of an unitary
constitution - a 'democracy' which resulted in rule by a
permanent Sinhala majority. It was a Sri Lankan
'democracy' which failed to structure a constitutional
frame within which both the Sinhala people and the Tamil
people may share power fairly and equitably.
At the general elections in 1977, President
Jayawardene's United National Party, polled around 50% of
the votes, and secured five sixths of the seats in
Parliament on the basis of an electoral process where the
'first past the post' was the winner in each
constituency. Many Tamils resident amongst the Sinhala
people in the South of Sri Lanka voted for the United
National Party on the basis of its election manifesto
which declared:
- "The United National Party accepts the position
that there are numerous problems confronting the Tamil
speaking people. The lack of a solution to their
problems has made the Tamil speaking people support
even a movement for the creation of a separate state.
In the interest of a national integration and unity so
necessary for the economic development of the whole
country, the Party feels such problems should be solved
without loss of time. The party when it comes to power
will take all possible steps to remedy their grievances
in such field as (1) Education (2) Colonisation (3) Use
of Tamil Language (4) Employment in Public and
Semi-Public Corporations. We shall summon an All-Party
Conference as stated earlier and implement its
decisions."
But President Jayawardene failed to honour the pledge
that his party had given and the All-Party Conference was
not summoned.
Instead, a
constitution which concentrated power in an executive
President...
Instead, the Constitution was amended so that in
future, elections would be on the basis of proportional
representation and that members of Parliament would be
elected from a slate presented by registered political
parties at the general election. It was contended that in
the case of such proportional representation, it was
appropriate that where a member is expelled or resigns
from his political party, he should automatically lose
his seat, and the Constitution made provision
accordingly. The Constitution further provided that the
vacancy shall be filled, not by a bye election but by
nomination by the party to which such member belonged.
These provisions were however extended retrospectively to
members of the Parliament elected in 1977 as well but
subject however to a refinement - the decision to expel
shall be taken by Parliament itself.
In the result, since 1978, in Sri Lanka's 'democracy',
where a member of Parliament belonging to the opposition
crossed the floor, President Jayawardene's ruling party
ensured that such member retained his seat. But where a
member of the ruling party was expelled, President
Jayawardene's majority in Parliament ensured that such
member lost his seat and that the vacancy was filled by a
person nominated by the ruling party i.e. by President
Jayawardene. It was a Sri Lankan style 'democracy' which
ensured the tight hold of the President on the members of
Parliament. It was a 'democracy' where members of
Parliament of the ruling party depended for their
survival, not on the people, but on the President.
A
'democracy' where the executive President secured
undated letters of resignation from members of the
legislature...
It was a hold which President Jayawardene further
strengthened in 1982 by obtaining undated letters of
resignations from all members of Parliament of the ruling
party including Ministers. He cheerfully admitted in an
interview reported in the Sri Lankan Daily, the Island,
on the 5th of February 1984: 'Yes, I have heard that some
people call it my atomic bomb'.
Urmilla Phadinis, Associate Professor of International
Relations, at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi,
commented in July 1984:
"...In view of the President being also the chief of
the UNP, (United National Party), the ruling party MPs
have had little leeway in effect for autonomy and
independence within the legislature. The very fact that
soon after the preponed Presidential election in
October 1982...the President had undated letters of
resignation of all his party MPs, reflected the
untrammelled powers at his disposal for a 'made to
order' Parliament.
This was particularly so due to (the provisions)
...of the new constitution under which, in the event of
resignation (or expulsion) of an MP, his party has the
right to nominate his successor...(also) about half the
government MPs are Ministers of one sort or another,
i.e. cabinet ministers, deputy ministers, ministers
without portfolio, project ministers and district
ministers...Under such a situation (with the over
arching powers of the President to hire and fire any
MP), Parliament despite its so called sovereign powers,
has become an appendage of the executive..." (Ethnic
Conflict in Sri Lanka: Urmilla Phadinis, Gandhi Peace
Foundation, July 1984)
A 'democracy'
where general elections were postponed in 1982 for a
period of six years...
The life of the 1977 Parliament was due to come to an
end in July 1983 and it would have then become necessary
to hold a general election on the basis of proportional
representation. But, President Jayawardene was clearly
not unmindful, to use the words of the U.S. State
Department Annual Human Rights Report of 1984, that ' in
all but one general election, the party in power had been
defeated'.
Again, on the basis of proportional representation,
his five sixths majority in Parliament was clearly
threatened. The two thirds majority that was required to
amend the constitution may not have been forthcoming and
the totalitarian control that the ruling party had
acquired may have been eroded.
So, in 1982, President Jayawardene, broke with a long
standing democratic tradition and sought to extend the
life of Parliament by resort to a referendum. This was a
Sri Lanka 'democracy', which sought to foist on the
people for an additional six years, members of Parliament
who had been elected in 1977 for a six year period. And
this was to be done, not by seeking a mandate from each
constituency but by a general, island wide
referendum.
A simple majority in the referendum would secure for
President Jayawardene's party a continued five sixths
majority in Parliament. The intention was clear. The
ruling party's commitment to democracy did not extend to
facing a general election. The referendum was intended to
secure the perpetuation of the party's control of the
legislature by other means .
By resort to a referendum
which was neither 'free nor fair'...
As to the conduct of the referendum which was held on
the 22nd of December 1982, the
International Commission of Jurists Report of June 1983
stated:
"The Civil Rights Movement of Sri Lanka has
published a critique of the referendum questioning
whether it was in fact fair and free. This analysis,
released in January 1983, in summary, alleges that
there were serious defects both prior to the poll and
on polling day. The Movement also draws attention to
some statistical analyses in selected electoral
districts that would appear, prima facie, to raise some
grave questions as to the accuracy of the count
returned from these districts...the Civil Rights
Movement instances the following five factors as
militating against the peoples freedom of choice -
(1) the continuance throughout the campaign of a
state of emergency
(2) the banning of two important opposition
newspapers and the sealing of selected presses under
emergency regulations. Leaflets advocating a 'No' vote
were seized and the publication of an appeal by Srima
Bandaranaike, leader of the main opposition Sri Lanka
Freedom Party (SLFP) was prevented
(3) detention under emergency regulations of a
number of SLFP organisers, raid on SLFP headquarters
and the seizure of party documents including membership
registers
(4) detention, short term arrests or repeated
interrogations of opposition organisers, and
(5) the blatant disregard of the law relating to the
display of posters. There were massive displays of the
'Lamp' (ie Yes vote') posters and symbols all over the
island throughout the campaign, including just outside
police stations, whereas section 50 of the Referendum
Law permitted such displays only at meeting places on
the day of the meeting... The Civil Rights Movement
reported events which concerned it relating to polling
day, under the following heads: (1) illegal symbol
display (2) intimidation of voters and prevention of
access to polling stations (3) intimidation and
harassment of polling elsewhere (4) intimidation of
polling officers (5) impersonation."
"The matters detailed in these criticisms would
be such as to cause serious concern as to the fairness
of the polling...The author shares the concern
expressed by the Secretary General of the International
Commission of Jurists about the desirability of the use
of a referendum to extend the term of parliament and
also is deeply concerned as to whether the referendum,
in fact, was conducted freely or fairly and could be
taken as representing an expression of opinion of the
people of Sri Lanka." (Ethnic and Communal Violence:
The Independence of the Judiciary: Protection of
Fundamental Rights and the Rule of Law in Sri Lanka -
Fragile Freedoms? - Report of an ICJ
Mission to Sri Lanka in June 1983 - Timothy
J.Moore)
Comments of a Dutch
working group and Lawasia Human
Rights...
A Dutch Working Group commented in December 1983:
"..the reason given for the referendum was the
'discovery' by the President of a threat to his life
and a plot to overthrow the government, by a group of
'naxalites' - a group within the main opposition party,
the SLFP. These persons were taken into custody and a
state of emergency was declared. The referendum was
then held, with a state of emergency prevailing; with
the main organisers of the opposition party behind
bars; and the Presidents main opponent,
Mrs.Bandaranaike prevented from taking part (because
she had been deprived of her civic rights).
Once the referendum was held, the threat to the
government seems to have disappeared as mysteriously as
it had emerged. A police inquiry into the alleged
conspiracy could come up with no evidence against the
accused...The referendum was held in an atmosphere of
violence, corrupt practices and intimidation of the
opposition unprecedented in Sri Lanka's electoral
history.
The Civil Rights Movement of Sri Lanka has issued a
statement documenting serious abuses of power by the
ruling party during the referendum. The whole shameful
charade calls into question the legitimacy of the UNP's
present term of office...It is worth recalling that
Hitler too, used the stratagem of referenda, maintained
a climate of anti semitism and anti communism
reinforced by political thuggery to suspend 'guaranteed
civil liberties', to create an awesome dictatorship.."
(Memorandum on Human Rights Violations and Ethnic
Violence in Sri Lanka: The Netherlands, December
1983)
Patricia Hyndman, Secretary, of the prestigious
Lawasia Human Rights Standing Committee commented in
March 1985:
"...The referendum to extend the life of the
Parliament was held under strictures which severely
hampered the opposition campaign. Some opposition
politicians were detained under emergency regulations,
some had been stripped of their civic rights, some
opposition papers were banned and some opposition
presses were sealed, while the polling itself was
marred by the harassment of electoral officers,
candidates and voters..." (Patricia Hyndman: Sri
Lanka - Escalating Violence and Erosions of Democracy:
Interim Report to Lawasia Human Rights Standing
Committee March 1985)
Attack on the
judiciary...
The referendum of December 1982 called into serious
question the claim of Sri Lanka to be a third world
'democracy'. It was not only the legitimacy of the Sri
Lankan parliament that was in issue. The independence of
the judiciary was also under attack. Paul Sieghart, Q.C.,
Chairman of Justice, the British Section of the
International Commission of Jurists reported in April
1984:
"During the campaign for the December 1982
referendum to extend the life of Parliament without a
general election, a Superintendent of Police seized
20,000 pamphlets of 'Voice of the Clergy' opposing the
referendum proposal. A Buddhist monk, the secretary of
the organisation concerned, complained to the Supreme
Court, under Article 126 of the Constitution, that this
act had infringed his fundamental right to freedom of
speech and expression. On 28th February 1983, the
Supreme Court held in his favour, and awarded 10,000
rupees damages against the Superintendent personally,
together with costs.
On the 2nd March 1983, the Government announced that
the Superintendent would be promoted, and that the
state would pay the damages and costs "That history
soon repeated itself. On 8th March 1983, a former M.P.,
together with some others, went to deliver a letter of
protest to the American Embassy in Colombo, where she
was received courteously... On their way back, some
police officers took away their banners...soon after
(she) found herself under arrest, thrown to the floor
and kicked. She too complained to the Supreme Court
under Article 126 about an infringement of her
fundamental rights...it (the Supreme Court) found that
the arrest was unlawful and directed the Inspector
General of Police to conduct further inquiries...
That judgment was delivered on the 8th of June 1983.
On the following day, the Acting Inspector General of
Police announced the promotion of the sub-inspector who
arrested her.. "Two days after that, two of the Judges
of the Supreme Court who had heard this case found
their private houses surrounded by unruly mobs,
shouting obscenities at them...It was a frightening
experience, and no policemen was in sight. They tried
to telephone the police , but found the lines
mysteriously out of order ...and although the mobs
arrived in public service buses and the disorders had
clearly been organised in a concerted fashion, no one
seems to have managed to this day to unearth anyone
responsible: apparently, the relevant records of the
bus station concerned have somehow been lost."
"Such events are hardly calculated to encourage the
judiciary to remain independent, or to enhance public
respect for its members, their judgments, or the rule
of law...The President freely con ceded that he had
personally ordered the promotion of the two police
officers (in June 1983), and the payment out of public
funds of the damages and costs. This he said had been
necessary to maintain police morale...at a time when he
found the Supreme Court a hindrance to some of his
policies.
The conclusion is inescapable that he was
deliberately seeking to teach the Judges a lesson in
order to make them more pliable to the Executive's
wishes. If that is so, these were grossly improper
acts; but for the immunity from all suit which the
President enjoys under article 35(1) of the
Constitution, they might well have been criminal
offences..." (Sri Lanka - A Mounting
Tragedy of Errors - Paul Sieghart - International
Commission of Justice Report April 1984)
But, in February 1984, the State Department of the
United States was content to report:
"...The government (of Sri Lanka) pointed out
that any person who claims there have been
irregularities or unfair practises in the referendum
campaign is free to take his case to the courts, but
that no person has done so. Sri Lanka is a multiparty
democracy..." (Extract from U.S.State
Department's Annual Human Rights Report to Congress
released February 1984)
The claim of the government that those dissatisfied
with the referendum may have recourse to the Courts, must
necessarily ring hollow in the context of that which must
now be regarded as President Jayawardene's self confessed
attempts ' to teach the Judges a lesson'.
A
'democracy' which relied on repressive legislation
unknown to 'any other free democracy'...
The intimidation of the judiciary was coupled with
an increasing reliance on repressive legislation unknown
to any working democracy. The International
Commission of Jurists commented:
"These provisions (of the Prevention of Terrorism
Act of July 1979) are quite extraordinarily wide. No
legislation conferring even remotely comparable powers
is in force in any other free democracy operating under
the Rule of Law, however troubled it may be by
politically motivated violence. Indeed there is only
one known precedent for the power to impose restriction
orders under section 11 of the Sri Lankan PTA and that
is the comparable legislation currently in force in
South Africa...Such a provision is an ugly blot on the
statute book of any civilised country..." (Sri Lanka - A Mounting
Tragedy of Errors - Paul Sieghart - International
Commission of Justice Report April 1984)
Lawasia, pointed out that the Sri Lankan government
had acted in violation of its obligations under
international law:
"...The present government has enacted both
permanent preventive detention legislation and
temporary emergency legislation...some of the terms and
utilisation of which bring Sri Lanka, a signatory to
the International Covenant and Political Rights and the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, into conflict with her obligations under
international law.." (Patricia Hyndman: Sri Lanka -
Escalating Violence and Erosions of Democracy: Interim
Report to Lawasia Human Rights Standing Committee March
1985)
Arbitrary arrest and
detention without access to lawyers or
relations...
Arbitrary arrest and detention without trial had
become endemic
"...From time to time, opposition parties have been
proscribed and some of their members imprisoned.
Sometimes those detainees have, for periods, been held
incommunicado, without access to either lawyers or
relatives, amidst government allegations of the parties
complicity in various suspected plots. So far no
substantive evidence to substantiate such allegations,
and no charges have been laid..." (Patricia Hyndman:
Sri Lanka - Escalating Violence and Erosions of
Democracy: Interim Report to Lawasia Human Rights
Standing Committee March 1985)
Mr.Timothy J.Moore, M.P. from the Australian Section
of the International Commission of Jurists reported in
June 1983:
"There is no formal notification to the next of kin
of a detainee that the person has been taken into
detention...Even after the habeas corpus application
has been heard, and an order made by the court for
access to the detainee by his legal representatives,
further obstacles are placed in the way of the legal
representatives...Often when the legal representatives
attended at the nominated location, they would be
informed that the detainee had been moved and that
their order for access had no validity with respect to
the place of detention..." (Ethnic and Communal
Violence: The Independence of the Judiciary: Protection
of Fundamental Rights and the Rule of Law in Sri Lanka
- Fragile Freedoms? - Report of an ICJ
Mission to Sri Lanka in June 1983 - Timothy
J.Moore)
Amnesty International reported in June 1984:
"Detainees...have been held for long periods, some
for more than a year and a half and several for a
longtime in solitaryconfinement. They have been held
for many months before being brought before a judge.
These practises contravene Article 9 of the
International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights
which state that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary
arrest and detention ...Minimum safeguards prescribed
in the Sri Lanka Prisons Ordinance and in subsidiary
legislation are denied to political detainees." (Sri
Lanka: Current Human Rights Concerns and Evidence of
Extra Judicial Killings - Amnesty International Report,
1 June 1984)
And torture on a
'systematic basis'...
It was almost the universal practise for the
military authorities to physically assault and mistreat
those persons who were in their custody
"...the author accepts that it is the almost
universal practice of the military authorities to
physically assault and mistreat these persons who have
been in their custody with the principal locations for
that assault being the Elephant Pass army camp and the
Panagoda army camp in Colombo...the author finds that
this treatment is not only in breach of Article 11 of
the Sri Lankan Constitution which states that 'no
person shall be subject to torture or to cruel,
inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment' but
(that it) is also carried out on a systematic
basis.
This treatment is also in breach of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to
which Sri Lanka is a State Party after having ratified
the Covenant. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka has not ratified
the Optional Protocol to permit individuals, other than
other States Party to the Covenant, to complain and
proceed against Sri Lanka for breaches of the
Covenant." (Ethnic and Communal Violence: The
Independence of the Judiciary: Protection of
Fundamental Rights and the Rule of Law in Sri Lanka -
Fragile Freedoms? - Report of an ICJ
Mission to Sri Lanka in June 1983 - Timothy
J.Moore)
Mr.Timothy J. Moore's conclusions were supported by
the comments of Amnesty International:
"...The testimonies taken by the Amnesty
International mission (in January and February 1982),
confirm other reports received by the organisation that
torture was regularly inflicted in 1981 and at least up
until the time of the mission..." (Sri Lanka:
Current Human Rights Concerns and Evidence of Extra
Judicial Killings - Amnesty International Report, 1
June 1984)
A
'democracy' that was no longer concerned with the
lives or opinion of the Tamil people...
On 11 July 1983, President Jayawardene spoke about a
section of his electorate:
"...I am not worried about the opinion of the Tamil
people now. Now, we cannot think of them. Not about
their lives or of their opinion about us..." (Daily
Telegraph: 11th July 1983)
It was a declaration which was in accord with the
statement made by President Jayawardene some 25 years
earlier, in 1957, when he was the Leader of the
Opposition:
"...The time has come for the whole Sinhala race
which has existed for 2500 years, jealously
safeguarding their language and religion, to fight
without giving any quarter to save their birthright...I
will lead the campaign..." (Sri Lanka Tribune: 30th
August 1957)
Sri Lanka was a 'democracy' where the elected
President was no longer concerned with the lives, leave
alone the opinions, of a significant section of his
electorate. It was a 'democracy' which was engaged in a
racist fight, 'without giving any quarter' - a fight
intended to subjugate the Tamils in the island of Sri
Lanka and bend them to the will of the Sinhala
majority.
A 'democracy'
where the Tamil electorate was effectively
disenfranchised...
In August 1983, the Sri Lankan government rushed
through Parliament the 6th Amendment to the Constitution
which effectively disenfranchised the Tamil electorate.
Paul Sieghart, Q.C., Chairman of Justice commented:
"...The key to its effect is paragraph (1) which
runs as follows:- 'No person shall directly or
indirectly, in or outside Sri Lanka, support, espouse,
promote, finance, encourage or advocate the
establishment of a separate State within the territory
of Sri Lanka'. "Anyone who contravenes that provision
becomes liable to the imposition of civic disability
for upto 7 years, the forfeiture of his movable and
immovable property... the loss of his passport... the
right to engage in any trade or profession. In addition
if he is a Member of Parliament, he loses his seat"
"The freedom to express political opinions, to seek
to persuade others of their merits, to seek to have
them represented in Parliament, and thereafter seek
Parliament to give effect to them, are all fundamental
to democracy itself. These are precisely the freedoms
which Article 25 (of the International Covenant of
Civil and Political Rights) recognises and guarantees -
and in respect of advocacy for the establishment of an
independent Tamil State in Sri Lanka, those which the
6th Amendment is designed to outlaw. It therefore
appears to me plain that this enactment constitutes a
clear violation by Sri Lanka of its obligations in
international law under the Covenant"
"...before the 6th Amendment was passed, the Tamil
United Liberation Front was the largest opposition
party in Parliament, and its effect has therefore been
to increase the (ruling) United National Party's
majority from the previous 83% to 93%.. Accordingly,
the President can now hardly be surprised if his
opponents, both within the country and outside, regard
the 6th Amendment as nothing more than a piece of
political chicanery, designed to move Sri Lanka even
further towards a one party State..." (Sri Lanka - A Mounting
Tragedy of Errors - Paul Sieghart - International
Commission of Justice Report April 1984)
A
'democracy' where the rights to life and freedom of
expression have been subject to 'gross and continued
violations'...
Sri Lanka was a democracy, in respect of which the
independent Minority Rights Group whose sponsors included
Lady Butler, Dr.Robert Gardiner, Lord Goodman, Rt.Hon Jo
Grimond, Gunmar Myrdal and Dr. Joseph Needham were moved
to comment in September 1983:
"...the present conflict has transcended the issue
of special consideration of minority rights and has
reached the point where the basic human rights of the
Tamil community - the rights to life and property,
freedom of speech and self expression and freedom from
arbitrary arrest have in fact and in law been subject
to gross and continued violations..." (Tamils of Sri
Lanka: Minority Rights Group Report, Revised 1983
Edition)
Reality of
Democracy, Sri Lanka style...
The reluctance to hold general elections, the banning
of the opposition press, the continued reliance on
extraordinary powers unknown to a free democracy,
arbitrary detention without access to lawyers or
relations, torture of detainees on a systematic basis,
the intimidation of the judiciary by the executive,
disenfranchisement of the opposition, an executive
President who holds undated letters of resignation from
members of the legislature, an elected President who
publicly declares his lack of care for the lives or
opinion of a section of his electorate, and the continued
subjugation of the Tamil people by a permanent Sinhala
majority, within the confines of an unitary
constitutional frame, constitute the reality of
'democracy', Sri Lankan style.
But to the US
State Department Sri Lanka is an 'open, working multi
party democracy'...
But in the face of the reports of independent
observers such as the International Commission of Jurists
and Lawasia, the State Department of the United States
continued to assert, in February 1985:
"Sri Lanka is an open, working, multiparty
democracy. Citizens elect their president, members of
parliament, and local government officials by universal
adult suffrage. All laws including acts extending the
state of emergency, must be approved by the
Parliament... The Constitution guarantees the
independence of the judiciary, and lawyers and judges
are held in high esteem." (U.S. State Department's
Annual Human Rights Report to Congress released
February 1985)
To Christopher Dobson and Ronald Payne, of the Daily
Telegraph "...for whatever its shortcomings, Sri Lanka, a
loyal Commonwealth member, is a decent republic where
democracy prevails despite the troubles..." (Daily
Telegraph: April 9, 1985)
Again, to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher,
'it is a democracy in Sri Lanka' and 'problems must be
solved through democracy'. (Guardian: 13th April
1985)
Geopolitics may
have clouded the vision of the US State Department
and some of the other defenders of Sri
Lanka...
It appears that geopolitics may have clouded the
vision of the State Department, and the other defenders
of the actions of the Sri Lankan government. But,
hopefully, they may yet be persuaded that even
geopolitical interests are best served by supporting the
truth - because, apart from anything else, truth has an
awkward way of prevailing in the end. Nothing is gained
by encouraging the acts of an oppressor.
On the contrary, that is a policy which can have only
one result - it will serve to identify the United States
and some Western governments both with the oppressor and
the oppression. And, in any event, it would be somewhat
naive to assume that the geopolitical interests of the
United States and the Western world in the Indian region
will be advanced by a policy which served to prop up a
Sinhala Government which increasingly depended on
repression to survive - a policy which at the same time
served to alienate the sentiments of fifty million Tamil
people in the Indian region.
But not the
perception of Councilman Noach Dear...
The words of Councilman Noach Dear, of the Council of
the City of New York at the Congressional Hearings in
August 1984, help to bring truth and real politik
together. His words may also persuade some of his
countrymen as well as his cousins across the Atlantic
Ocean:
"...Sri Lanka is not the democratic jewel of the
Indian Ocean. The systematic exclusion of Tamils from
opportunity proves that. Some forms of seemingly
democratic activity go on but in their definition,
democracy is majority rule, and to hell with anyone
else. In our definition, majority rules but also
guarantees the rights of minorities, a guarantee that
might have made the difference for hundreds of murdered
Tamils over the years.
Yes, I believe that innocent Tamils have been
murdered with government acting at the very, very least
as a not so innocent bystander. Yes, I believe Amnesty
International's conclusions that there have been extra
judicial killings in Sri Lanka; that the government's
anti terrorism laws are brutal, repressive and
inherently anti democratic; and yes, I believe that the
process of disenfranchising anyone who believes in a
potential solution that is not consistent with the
majority view is completely anti democratic. ...and, so
I come before you today,... and tell you that our
country's policy toward Sri Lanka is wrong and to urge
you to exert your influence on the administration and
the State Department to change their views.
The United States cannot simply write off murder
and systematic discrimination as an 'internal matter'
when the country happens to be non aligned and is
willing to say nice things about our country. We
should be putting pressure on President Jayawardene to
move to resolve the terrible, terrible divisions within
his country...We must let the Sri Lanka government know
that we will not tolerate a government that is in any
way complicit in the killing of its own citizens.."
Deepening economic
crisis...
The fact is that the Sri Lankan government seeks to
perpetuate itself in power in the face of a deepening
economic crisis which has separated the government from
its own Sinhala constituency. The country's external debt
rose from Rs.13,000 million in 1977 to a massive
Rs.42,000 million in 1982 - an increase of more than
200%. Its terms of trade deteriorated sharply by 64%
during the same period.
The purchasing power of its exports saw a marked
decline and it became increasingly dependent on foreign
aid and support. Again, the government was compelled to
introduce harsh expenditure cuts in not only welfare
budgets but also in capital projects. Fixed income
employees were hardest hit by rising inflation and in
1980 a nationwide strike had resulted in 40,000 employees
losing their jobs. It is a government which has signally
failed to manage the plantations and the state
corporations and it has sought to govern amidst
allegations of widespread inefficiency and increasing
corruption.
The disturbing question is
'whether President Jayawardene's government can survive
if Sri Lanka was a democracy?'...
It is therefore, not altogether surprising that the
Sri Lankan government has come to rely more and more on
racism to secure its own survival. It has sought to
nurture a racist mythology around the latent fear of the
Sinhala people of the Tamils of Tamil Nadu - a mythology
intended to bridge the ever widening gap between itself
and its own Sinhala electorate, a gap which compelled
President Jayawardene to postpone the general elections
scheduled for 1983.
In Sri Lanka, today, it is democracy that is in
crisis. It is in crisis because the Sri Lankan
government seeks to hang on to power, by whatever means,
and if necessary, by a naked and open appeal to Sinhala
chauvinism - a chauvinism which refuses at every turn to
recognise the existence of two nations in Sri Lanka and
the consequent need to structure a polity where both
nations may live together in equality, in freedom and
with self respect, a chauvinism which seeks to subjugate
the Tamils in the island of Sri Lanka and bend them to
the will of a permanent Sinhala majority. The
disturbing question is whether President Jayawardene's
government can survive in any other way - whether it can
survive, if Sri Lanka was a democracy.
|
