A nurturing leadership needed
to counter ethnic polarisation
in Sri Lanka
At the mid term of his period in office, President Rajapaksa and his government appear to be prevailing over both the LTTE and the democratic opposition. But the political polarisation that exists and the alienation of the ethnic minorities suggests that this dominance is not going to be sustainable. The hope is that the pragmatism that the president has demonstrated throughout his long years in politics will cause a change of approach that brings respect for human
rights, media freedom and respect for life back to the centre stage of politics,
writes Jehan Perera from Colombo
PRESIDENT Mahinda Rajapaksa will soon be celebrating his third year in office this month. Despite the precarious situation in the country, where an unpredictable war drags on and global economic collapse threatens, the president has been successful in maintaining his level of popularity, especially amongst the Sinhalese majority. However, the popularity of the president is accompanied by considerable alienation of the Tamil ethnic minority and other ethnic minority groups. There are reasons for this growing ethnic polarisation.
The intensity of the war effort in the north, the aerial bombardment that accompanies it and the sufferings of the displaced civilian population is horrifying to the victims and their kin. But it is not directly felt outside of the north. This is only partly due to the severity of the informal censorship that is being stepped up by the government. The most recent control being imposed on the media is a new licensing regulation that takes national security considerations into account. In the face of governmental determination to tackle the LTTE’s violent challenge through the military option, most of society has been adopting a survival approach.
Those of Tamil ethnicity keep their best to keep out of trouble by keeping their opinions to themselves or tailoring them to what the government wishes to hear. Those in the business sector may also be wishing to keep their businesses going, and to obtain whatever concessions and contracts they can get from the government. This may explain the call by the three main chambers of commerce to support the president and his government who, according to their public statement, are proceeding on the correct track to solve the country’s problems.
However, the stringent security measures taken by the government to limit the spill over of the war outside of the north has had its own costs. Government spokespersons are repeatedly stating that there is no war in the country, only military operations to end terrorism. There is a growing callousness in society to the language and reality of killing, as it is projected by the government to be a temporary phenomenon to rid the country of terrorism. It has also meant that Tamils living everywhere are viewed with a measure of suspicion, as being possible terrorists or collaborators.
Sectarian support
The problem is that President Rajapaksa and those who advise him appear to be giving their first priority to bolstering their Sinhalese ethnic base. Doing so would secure their Parliamentary majority, even at the cost of the alienating the ethnic minorities. The desire to remain in power with the sectarian support of extremist Sinhalese groups is preventing the president from giving constructive leadership to all sections of Sri Lanka’s multiethnic and plural society. At present civil society groups are the only ones performing those symbolic actions that are necessary for reconciliation and rebuilding relationships in the country.
Last week there were two events organised by civil society groups that showed the possibilities for ethnic and national harmony if and when the war comes to an end. One was the annual general meeting of the Business for Peace Alliance. This alliance is based on a network of district-based business leaders, including those from the north and east. The ability of the alliance to bring together medium and small business people from different districts, and keep them together in a spirit of amity indicates the potential that lies ahead.
To give an example, some of the business leaders from the east had formed a joint Tamil, Muslim and Sinhalese owned company to cope with the challenges and opportunities of that multiethnic province. The manifestation of positive inter-ethnic relations at the BPA indicates that there is no ethnic conflict at the level of the people where it concerns social, business and personal matters. The unresolved ethnic conflict is about political matters and inter-ethnic power sharing, which would enable people who are a majority in their own local areas to make decisions pertaining to their own lives.
Nurturing all
The second event that took place last week, and gives hope for the future, was the national delegates conference on power sharing organised by the National Peace Council. Over two hundred delegates from seven of the country’s nine provinces, including the east, met in Colombo. At their conference they unanimously approved a manifesto on power sharing. This document was handed over to government minister, Professor Tissa Vitarana, who also is chairman of the All-Party Representatives Committee, which President Rajapaksa has tasked with working out a political solution to the ethnic conflict.
The government’s position so far is that the political solution has to be within the framework of the present 13th amendment to the constitution that established the existing system of provincial councils. The government claims to be implementing the law, but the reality is different. All governments, including the present one, have for the past 21 years held back powers over police and land, and diluted other powers that ought to vest with the provincial councils. The provincial councils have also been starved of economic resources, making them white elephants.
On the other hand, the people’s manifesto on power sharing went beyond the 13th amendment. It called for the setting up of a second chamber of parliament, drawn from the provinces, which would decide on the dissolution of provincial councils along with the Supreme Court. It called for the devolution of powers over police, land, health and education in order to bring effective administration to the people of the provinces. It also called for safeguards to uphold the supremacy of the constitution.
At the mid term of his period in office, President Rajapaksa and his government appear to be prevailing over both the LTTE and the democratic opposition. But the political polarisation that exists and the alienation of the ethnic minorities suggests that this dominance is not going to be sustainable. The hope is that the pragmatism that the president has demonstrated throughout his long years in politics will cause a change of approach that brings respect for human rights, media freedom and respect for life back to the centre stage of politics. What the country needs is a political leadership that nurtures the people as a whole, and not just the ethnic majority segment of it.
Jehan Perera is media director of the National Peace Council in Colombo, Sri Lanka. jehanpc@sltnet.lk
Five questions about America
this election may answer
While Obama’s lead, between three and seven percentage points in most national polls, is big enough to make him the favourite going into Tuesday, the other big questions of the election are all too close to call, writes Peter S Canellos
WHILE Barack Obama enters the final days of the presidential campaign with a clear lead in the polls – but not so big as to rule out a surprise victory for John McCain – the impact of the 2008 presidential campaign will depend not only on who wins but also on whether the results signify a deeper realignment in American politics.
‘We like to tell the election story through the candidates,’ said Thomas Patterson, a professor at Harvard’s John F Kennedy School of Government. ‘But this time there are larger forces in play.’
And while Obama’s lead, between three and seven percentage points in most national polls, is big enough to make him the favourite going into Tuesday, the other big questions of the election are all too close to call.
Is the ‘Reagan Revolution’ over?
Going down the stretch, McCain is campaigning heavily on Obama’s comment that he wants to ‘spread the wealth’. And McCain has even discovered a seven-year-old radio interview suggesting that Obama may believe in ‘redistributive’ economics.
During the heyday of the Democrats’ New Deal coalition, which dominated politics from 1932 until 1980, the idea of spreading the wealth around was hardly political poison – it was the backbone of the party’s economic philosophy. Since 1980 and the ‘Reagan Revolution’, however, using tax policies to redistribute income has been widely viewed as an outmoded approach that chokes off economic growth.
Obama hasn’t fully embraced ’60s-style tax-and-spend liberalism, but he hasn’t run away from it as much as other Democratic presidential nominees since 1984 have done. Bill Clinton, the most successful Democratic vote-getter of that period, went out of his way to declare that ‘the era of big government is over,’ and assure voters that he is a ‘pro-growth’ Democrat who favours ‘third way’ policies.
Obama also touts his policies as pro-growth, but has emphasised that he believes people earning more than $250,000 should bear the brunt of tax increases to cover social initiatives that would disproportionately benefit lower-income people. To the extent that such a mechanism ‘spreads the wealth,’ he’s in favour of it.
Many observers have noted that Americans want more economic security in their lives, including guaranteed healthcare, pensions, disaster relief, and improvements to public infrastructure. And the McCain campaign, in a break with Ronald Reagan’s creed of smaller government, has called for the government to pay up to $300 billion to buy up home mortgages and chop the monthly payments to reflect diminished home values.
In addition, the McCain proposal that follows the Reagan creed most closely – his call for extending the Bush tax cuts and adding new cuts of business taxes – seems to be falling on deaf ears; in recent weeks, the GOP nominee has concentrated more on warning of tax hikes under Obama than touting the benefits of his own tax-cut plan.
David Brooks, the conservative New York Times columnist, has predicted that the economic uncertainty will lead to a Democratic sweep followed by an intensive return to tax-and-spend liberalism. ‘What we’re going to see, in short, is the Gingrich revolution in reverse and on steroids,’ Brooks wrote last month.
McCain believes that voters still fear the kind of overreach that Brooks predicts. A modest victory for Obama could easily be ascribed to a simple desire for a change, benefiting a candidate who tried to present his policies in modest terms.
A big Obama win, however, could be read as a mandate for just the kind of liberalism that Brooks fears. And it could signal a much longer-term political realignment. The New Deal era and the Reagan Revolution each followed failed presidencies that, fairly or not, are still invoked as cautionary tales – the Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter administrations. George W Bush’s administration, with record-low approval ratings, may join the list.
Is America prepared to move beyond its racial divisions?
On the day of Obama’s Democratic nomination acceptance speech, tens of thousands of African-Americans, most with children in tow, waited for hours in security lines to enter Denver’s football stadium to celebrate the crowning of the nation’s first black presidential nominee.
Despite the football setting, it was more of a church crowd – uplifted, generous, and full of faith. While some black voters would express concerns for Obama’s safety and nervousness about his campaign, many others have remained quietly confident, even when polls narrowed and other Democrats worried that Obama wasn’t as far ahead as he should be, given the country’s problems.
Much of black voters’ faith is in Obama himself. But there is also a quiet recognition among many that, whatever the extent of racial divisions, they don’t preclude a majority-white country from electing a black president.
That by itself could change racial pathologies that have existed throughout American history.
Since George Washington, the president has been the symbol of the nation, as much as European monarchs once embodied their nations’ identity. Having a black president just four decades after the end of legal segregation would force a reconsideration of almost all assumptions about race relations in America.
But if Obama were to lose – and if white resistance to a black nominee were cited as a major factor – black hopes would be dashed in a way that could increase racial tensions, at least in the short term.
Still, the legacy of the Obama campaign, win or lose, on race relations probably won’t be clear until long after Tuesday.
Are young people becoming a driving force in American politics?
Back in the ’60s, the emerging Baby Boom generation pushed American politics leftward. But through the ’80s and ’90s, voters under 30 see-sawed between backing Democrats and Republicans, while turning out in smaller numbers overall. Their strongest sentiment seemed to be their indifference.
In the 2000 race between Al Gore and George W Bush, only 40 per cent of registered voters from ages 18 to 29 bothered to vote, compared with 65 per cent of voters over 30, according to a survey by the non-partisan Pew Research Centre.
In 2004, the turnout of voters under 30 jumped by nine percentage points, to 49 per cent, while that of older voters increased by only three. And those younger voters supported Democrat John Kerry over Bush by a seven-point margin, 48 to 41 per cent.
This year, voters between 18 and 29 are backing Obama by a whopping 29 points – 61 to 32, according to a Pew survey. And while more young voters showed up for this year’s Democratic primaries than in 2004, no one is sure whether turnout of young voters will take another big leap in the general election.
‘We’re expecting them to at least match their turnout level of 2004, if not increase it,’ said Scott Keeter, Pew’s director of survey research. ‘Given the enormous lead Obama has among young voters, they’ll be a key to whether he wins or not.’
How much do Americans care about their image in the world?
Arguably, the opinions of foreigners have never counted for anything in US politics. Some of the most unpopular American presidents in the outside world – such as Reagan – were hugely popular at home, while those most concerned with the world – like Hoover and Carter – were domestic flops.
But the latest plunge in America’s standing in the world, spurred by the policies of the Bush administration, has gotten some political attention at home, especially when linked to the administration’s failure to persuade enough allies to share the costs of intervention in Iraq.
Obama has cited his own racial background and time spent in Indonesia as a reason why ‘the world will look at America differently when I’m president.’
That argument drew voters to Obama during his primary race against Hillary Clinton. And he reinforced just how much his election could do to improve relations with US allies by staging a campaign-style rally in Berlin, attended by hundreds of thousands of adoring Germans.
Elsewhere in the world, from Europe to Asia, there has been intense scrutiny of the American election – and excitement over the Obama campaign. The global interest suggests that millions of foreigners might be prepared to change their opinions of the United States under a President Obama.
But in recent weeks, foreign policy has taken a backseat in the election, so it will be hard to judge how much an Obama victory would be a mandate to be more attentive to US allies. And it remains to be seen whether a President Obama would be able to meet the high expectations that American allies seem to have for him.
What does it mean to be a conservative?
The Republican coalition has been compared to a stool with three legs – strong national defence, low taxes, and conservative social values. It’s never been a secret that many Republicans buy into only one or another of the three legs, but they’ve bought in strongly enough that their disagreements with the others haven’t mattered. Recently, though, the stool has been wobbling.
Back in Easter of 2005, the president and both houses of Congress rushed back to Washington to intervene in the case of Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged woman whose husband had chosen to remove her from a respirator. Polls showed vast majorities of Americans opposed to government intervention, but Bush and GOP congressional leaders pushed legislation through anyway.
That weekend was a triumph for abortion foes, but may have driven other Republicans away. Likewise, the unexpected toll in Iraq has sparked concerns among evangelicals, and the recent Wall Street meltdown has made many middle-class Republicans question their party’s economic policies.
McCain is mostly aligned with the defence wing, but also has credibility as a budget cutter. He has tried to hold together all three conservative constituencies, even wooing social conservatives – who have long resisted him – with his pick of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential nominee.
Still, his presidency, compared with Bush’s, would probably reduce the impact of the religious right. And if McCain is defeated, the three branches of the GOP will have to decide whether to hang together – or go their own ways.
‘They may choose to dampen down the role of social conservatives, a bit like the Democrats after the ’80s really pushed down as much as they could on the African-American agenda,’ says Patterson. But in the short term, he said, much will depend on events outside the party’s control, like the economy.
‘If the economy’s weak, they’ll gain seats in Congress in two years,’ assuming that Democrats, as expected, maintain control of the House and the Senate, Patterson said. ‘They’ll declare that the party’s back.’
But in what form will remain to be seen.
The Boston Globe, November 2.
US election race enters
final phase
I am keeping my fingers crossed – I would genuinely like to see ‘John George Bush McCain’ elected as the US President for a ‘third consecutive’ term.
This world needs at least 16 more years of rotten garbage in Washington DC. Only these Neocons and Zionists are capable of turning down and destroying the US. Hopefully after two decades from now Necocons, Zionists and Israel will perish and the citizens of the world will remake the US and turn it into a better and peaceful place.
Syed
Old DOHS, Dhaka
* * *
Obama, we are all behind you. It will be a historical moment to see the USA led by African blood. Obama will make it. This victory will open up a historical chapter — Martin Luther King’s ‘dream’.
Sabrina Ahmed
USA
* * *
I hope that sanity will prevail and Obama will be elected. Can America afford another president ready to shoot first and ask questions later, if at all?
In the past years, the Republicans led the country on a path of war towards destruction. McCain government will keep thundering down that same road towards total annihilation.
Now is the time to concentrate on getting the country out of the hole it is currently in. I think Obama has enough energy for the job.
Tuhin
Via SMS
* * *
I am voting for Obama. He does carefully craft the self he presents. Still he’s charming and appreciative of beauty as is evident from his eloquence, which takes away some of his negative factors.
Rashid Haider
New York, USA
* * *
Obama is an immensely powerful leader. A huge change from George Bush.
To start, he can speak coherently, think without looking scared and smile without smirking, these all make him a better role model.
Tribedi
JU, Via SMS
Fund for IT development
India says nuclear deal will ensure its economic future. And here in Bangladesh, we are not serious even in IT, leaving aside the nuclear technology. It is not that we cannot afford the development in IT sector. We are misusing whatever fund we have.
We should immediately dismantle the madrassah education system and the madrassah board and divert all the fund that is getting misused in an unproductive destructive system to IT development. We do not need a parallel British system for religious teachings. In the Middle Eastern Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Oman there is only one education system. They call it school in English and madrassah in Arabic. We have to be decisive and take decisions boldly. If we still show hesitation for petty personal political gains, we will be left behind and our future generations will never forgive us this idiocy and cowardliness.
MH Khan
Via e-mail
|
Next on Quick Comments
| |
a. Govt to lift all bars on political activities (New Age, November 3)
b. No army interference in politics, UN chief assured (New Age, November 3)
c. MELAMINE IN MILK: Expert body receives test reports, keeps mum (New Age, November 3)
d. Poll spending to fuel inflation: BB report (New Age, November 3)
e. US rivals in final dash for votes
|
‘Quick Comments’, (01713-065-354, letters@newagebd.com, quickcomments@gmail.com ) seeks the readers’ instant reaction ondifferent national and international issues. Comments should be brief, not exceeding 150 words. Submissions should mention ‘Quick Comments’ and will be subject to editing for quality and clarity..
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
