Editorial

Editorial

One year after the MoU

One year has passed since the government signed the Memorandum of Understanding with the LTTE. We have lived through one year sans bomb explosions in major cities. There has been a minimal loss of lives. We have enjoyed a barrier-less existence after a long time. Certainly cause enough to celebrate. And yet, although several rounds of talks have been held between the two parties in the Norwegian facilitated process to bring an end to the conflict through a process of peaceful negotiations, it is clear that it has been a rocky ride for the government so far. There is a widely held and empirically supported view that in the give-and-take implied in implementing confidence-building measures, there has been no "taking" on the part of the government. That the LTTE has violated the MoU on over two thousand occasions, continues to conscript children, smuggle in arms shipments and engage in numerous acts of provocation, has been well documented. This has made it very difficult for the government to market the idea that reason, goodwill and a commitment to peaceful resolution can be expected from the LTTE.

These transgressions have certainly not made the government’s task of winning over the people in the South to its efforts any easier. Not all the embarrassment can be laid at Prabhakaran’s door. So far the government, which claims to represent all communities, has not designed any mechanism to facilitate the representation of Sinhala interest in the negotiations. This omission is political blunder for it naturally feeds the allegations made by certain quarters that the government, hell bent on appeasing the LTTE, is showing scant regard to the interests of the majority community. Given its wafer-thin majority in parliament and given the President’s powers of dissolution, the government cannot afford to alienate itself from the people in this manner. At the end of the day, whatever solution is hammered out with the LTTE, Ranil Wickremesinghe has to get it ratified by parliament and for this he needs the backing of the masses.

It would be unfair to expect things to have gone smoothly. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe himself predicted that the path to peace would be agonizing and indeed slow. One cannot expect otherwise. At the same time, it is also true that the predictably slow character of the process necessarily impacts the wider political field. The stomachs of the ordinary people and the political hunger of those in the opposition are not typically given to patience. The economic turn around promised is yet to materialise. The government, not necessarily due to ineptitude on its part, has been unable to check the rising cost of living. That such things take time, is an argument which liberal economists might believe. Reason, however, does not always persuade those who are struggling to make ends meet to "grin and bear".

It would be a tragic mistake to read the massive outpouring of protest last Thursday over the way in which the negotiations are proceeding as a manifestation of the JVP’s organisational capacity and nothing else. This demonstration is the political expression of disillusionment that has been maturing over the past year, dissatisfaction and mistrust that the government has done precious little to alleviate. The anti-peace label, which some sections of the media have tried to stick to these objections, does not hold any longer. More seriously, even if that were the case, the violent reaction by the government seriously compromises the peace-loving, peace-wanting image it has tried to create. It only serves to strengthen the perception that the government will put up with all manner of insults and challenges to the writ of the Sri Lankan state if these emanate from those who are unwilling to lay down their arms, but is quick to use force to put down the peaceful protests of unarmed people in the South, the vast majority of whom are Sinhala Buddhists. Even if these people are considered the principal enemies of peace, as they are often branded, the government should understand that there is no logic in strengthening their hand.

The government cannot be blamed for the pathetic state of the economy. It was something that the government inherited. The government had nothing to do with the economic uncertainty created by the possibility of war erupting in Iraq. This government has not been pushed to its knees; it was on its knees from day one, and for no fault of their own. Nothing can be said of character when someone emerges as victor in a battle where all the factors are to his or her advantage. This government, then, is ideally positioned to show what character it may have. It has to begin with winning back the people.

The government requested that a lamp be lit in every house yesterday to commemorate one year of "peace". Interestingly, the Jathika Sangha Sammelanaya also requested that a lamp be lit in every house on the same day "in order that the rulers will see the damage done by the MoU with the LTTE". Lamps, literally and symbolically, are lit to dispel darkness. Not for "peace". Much light needs to be shed, certainly. The government has to make a more serious effort to allay the reservations of the Sinhalese and indeed rectify what mistakes that have been made with regard to the safeguarding of their interests. It has to come clean on what it has conceded and is planning to concede to the LTTE. More crucially, it has to engage in deep self-reflection for nothing can be achieved when self-delusion rules. Right now, the government is acting like a blind-folded man, bumping into things, stumbling from one crisis to another, unable to identify the problem because its contours and colours are invisible. Unhappily too, anyone who has eyes can see this pathetic performance and it is not funny.

At the same time, the general public and the opposition in particular has to accept the wisdom of the adage that politics is the art of the possible, and that this is the starting point from which that which is seemingly impossible can be eyed. The "possible" for now at least, might just be the ensuring of retaining that which through error, over generosity and naivetŽ has not been conceded. Both the government and its critiques might do well to work towards this goal, for total recovery is a proposition no one is in a position to take on at this point.

Your comments to the Editor