The recent Parliamentary debates centering on the emergency and on the votes of the Defence Ministry, have once again laid bare the dire but unfulfilled need for a consensual approach to ending the National Question on the part of our principal political parties. If it is conceded that a meeting of minds or the establishment of broad agreement among these political actors on resolving the conflict in a fashion that would win the support of the majority of Sri Lankans is the ideal way out of the tenaciously persisting crisis, then, such a development does not seem to be imminent, if we are to base ourselves on what we are hearing in Parliament. The Lankan polity seems to be as divided as it used to be 25 years ago.

Quite understandably, the expectation is growing among some local sections that the country’s biggest problem would be resolved for good, once the security forces complete their tasks in the North and the last of the Tiger strongholds are seized by these agencies of the state. This is as it should be because the authority of the state should be established over the length and breadth of Sri Lanka, before other questions of importance are re-examined and resolved. However, the challenge before the state and the people does not end there and no less a person than President Mahinda Rajapaksa is on record that a military solution should be bolstered by a political one.

Such pronouncements by government leaders square perfectly with the best of international political thought and practice because nowhere in the world have problems of this nature been resolved entirely by military means. Peace and stability in the truest senses of these terms have been realized only when political solutions have been made to follow military ones.

However, one of the biggest problems to doggedly burden Sri Lanka over the years is the lack of broad agreement among its political players on ending the conflict on terms which would meet the legitimate expectations of all its communities. To the extent to which consensual agreement on this issue eludes Sri Lanka, to the same degree would Sri Lanka remain troubled, because continuing social discontent is the surest means to instability.

Unfortunately, some sections of our polity seem to be finding this truth to be quite unpalatable and we believe a duty is cast on the state to disabuse these minds of any lingering misconceptions on this score. The agonizingly slow APRC process too needs to be speeded-up if a real meeting of minds on the conflict is to be effected and consensuality reached on the political component of the solution. Besides, the voices of all our major political parties need to be heard in this forum. Our hope is that the APRC process would not be another time-buying exercise.

Reactions to the speech made in Parliament by UNP MP K.N. Choksy, during the recent emergency debate, would be a sound pointer to the lingering unresolved differences in our polity on what should constitute a political solution. True, the term ‘federalism’is continuing to be anathema in some ears but ‘devolution’ has come to be accepted as almost a fact of political life by many. One would be naïve in the extreme to believe that a national consensus on a political solution could be achieved in double quick time, but the common ground achieved in the form of devolved power could be steadily built-on. After all, there is no going back on devolution, whatever the opinions expressed on the subject over the years. Besides, there seems to be considerable popular acceptance of political solutions based on devolved power which respect Sri Lanka’s unitary and undivided status.

The recognition that a political component is an indivisible part of a solution to the conflict needs to give rise to the realization that forward movement towards a fair, nationally-acceptable resolution is not possible without the steady democratization of our polity. To be sure, Sri Lanka has eulogized itself on its ‘democratic development’ over the years but it is all too obvious that democratic freedoms in their totality are yet to be achieved. As regards democratization, it needs to be conceded we have had a chequered history at most. If this were not so, the popular call for ‘Independent Commissions’ would not have reached its present pitch, nor would our political parties have reached consensuality on the need for these ‘Commissions’.

If it is conceded that a democratically-evolved solution, which has inputs from all sections of our national polity is best for this country, then there is no getting away from the need to instal constitutional checks and balances against the arbitrary exercise of power, at all levels of the state. There need to be strong constitutional safeguards against the perpetration of state repression which curtails the exercise of fundamental freedoms, such as those pertaining to speech and conscience. It is for these reasons that our major political actors need to reach quick consensus on the appointment of the Constitutional Council and connected questions. To the degree to which this mechanism is put in place and the ‘Independent Commissions’ brought into being, to that degree would the polity be democratized and the public empowered to participate in the decision-making process, particularly in relation to bringing about a fair solution to our conflict which would be acceptable to the majority of our people. Any short-comings in these mechanisms could be ctified as we go along, but first, they need to be put in place.

As we see it, the government needs to guard against thrusting on the people a solution which would not have the acceptance and backing of the majority of the public. This tendency could gain in strength to the degree to which the military component of the solution is emphasized to the total exclusion of the political dimension. Unfortunately, this belief seems to be taking hold among some small political parties in the ruling coalition which seem to be wielding power and clout which are totally at variance with the little support they command among the public. The thinking of the government on the National Question would be skewed and undemocratic to the extent to which it gives ear to these lightweights in its ranks and glosses over the need to evolve a truly participatory process to bringing about a solution.