Compiled by SLDF

Third World Sovereignty, Conflicts and Democratization

Today more than ever, there is a need to think through political questions. The apathy, cynicism and the culture of fear produced by the resumption of another cycle of brutal war, acts of terror and indiscriminate bombings that target civilians, further militarization of state and society, as well as the continuing polarization of the different communities, calls for greater engagement on political questions. At a time when the democratic space is shutting down, where the fascism of the LTTE has decimated the Tamil community and the authoritarianism of the Rajapakse regime is silencing the South, raising political questions forms an important function of dissent.

Conflicts
I would like to shift to a discussion of the dimensions of our conflicts, which are perhaps the internal conditions of sovereignty, which evolved over our history. I say conflicts plural, because we should not allow the war, the military conflict between the security forces and the LTTE to hegemonize the range of conflicts that have been tearing apart this country, whether it is of class, caste, gender, ethnic or religious in character. A singular view of conflict, that too a distorted view as one between Sinhalese and Tamils, is what perhaps led to the marginalization of Muslims during the Norwegian peace process, and any attempt to address a political solution should hopefully address these conflicts, in the plural sense, in the interests of coexistence, pluralism and a sustainable and just future.

Democratization
Many of us believe the only way forward is through the political process, that is through the political resolution of our conflicts. It would entail a political solution, and it has to be a political solution built on the foundation of democratization, as a way of engaging the internal contradictions that have produced and continue to aggravate conflicts. And democratization may question the Sovereign state’s monopoly and ‘legitimate’ use of violence; that is wiping out ‘terrorism’ at any cost, including abuses against the civilian population. A call for democratization would then also question the emphasis on sovereignty, national security and territorial integrity as well as the idea of a military solution.

Let me spell what democratization and its relationship to internal conflicts means to me before I return to the need for a critique of Third World sovereignty and its relationship to political manoeuvres, and the attempts to address our political conflicts. Democratization will entail participation, pluralism, inclusion, struggle and solidarity.

This participation is not only in terms of elections and representation, and the limited nature of bourgeois democracy. It has to be something more that captures the bourgeois public sphere as well. It is in participation and engendering a national debate on the national question that we can understand our conflicts.

It has to be plural and nurture coexistence; it has to challenge the current onslaught of war and culture of fear which creates polarization. Without a plural political culture, conflicts are bound to escalate.

It has to be inclusive at all levels of society. We in SLDF supported the APRC process, because for one, it attempted to be an inclusive process both in bringing together a broad Panel of Experts (whose outcome was the Majority Report) and provided room for the various political parties to engage on the contours of a political solution (out of which a consensus has been attempted). Now that inclusive approach at the level of the political parties is facing attack by the President and the SLFP, as well as the JVP and JHU. While we will see the outcome of the APRC in the weeks ahead, the political manoeuvre of the APRC chairman Tissa Vitarana, have been one that worked with those concerned about sovereignty, while recognizing the causes of conflicts that challenge sovereignty and pushing it to be inclusive of minority concerns.

Finally, democratization will necessarily involve struggle and solidarities for struggles even beyond the borders of the nation state. There is a growing movement in the diaspora that is willing to think in terms of solidarity, that increasingly opposes the role of the diaspora as one supporting war and separation, and that is a small glimmer of hope to move away from the escalation of conflict.

The way forward then can not be through sovereignty, national security and territorial integrity, rather it has to be through the political process, democratization and political solutions to the conflicts that plague us today. As we reach sixty years of independence, it might be an apt moment to look at the legacy of our sovereignty and to develop an internal critique of it in opposition to the external critiques of those of the likes of Jackson. Such an internal critique may look at our history and attempt to understand the conflicts and injustices against all our peoples, and may look for manoeuvres not for the power of the elite, but for a democratic political solution.

The following is an excerpt of Ahilan Kadirgamar’s speech. To view the complete text please visit www.lankademocracy.org