Focus on Rights

The bitter sweet ironies of 'people power' and constitutional governance
Reflections in this column last week on the nature of civil society in the context of Sri Lanka's debilitated constitutional and legal systems is now underscored by bitter sweet irony in contemplation of the 'people's power' victory in Nepal during the past few days.

A relatively fledging Nepali civil society and its barely literate people appear to have won a considerable democratic victory through years of bitter and determined struggle against a totalitarian and widely despised monarch. Sri Lanka, of course, has been unable to accomplish any kind of democratic victory for the past many decades. And for those who would prefer to dismiss the Nepali victory in one way or another, let me enlighten these skeptics in no uncertain terms.

I was in Kathmandu during the first half of January this year on a brief visiting fellowship which, (fortunately or unfortunately as the case may be), ended just a day before the Marxists rebels first blockaded the city, taking their campaign from the rural areas to higher levels of intensity. In truth, I would have infinitely preferred to stay on thereafter to witness the clash between people power and authoritarianism rather than return to Colombo's bland and detestably hypocritical circles of discussion. But that dangerously tense pre-conflict period in Kathmandu was also a good learning experience. The grim determination of people, at all levels, to strive for a democratic system of government putting both the monarchy and the Marxists on democratic inquiry, was obvious. Men and women alike, professionals and housewives, engineers, lawyers and doctors were willing to risk personal securities in this struggle.

Their commitment was amply tested thereafter. Just a month before King Gynanendra conceded defeat and agreed to summon Nepal's parliament, the most drastic crackdown saw hundreds thrown into jail. Among these were prominent and elite members of civil society, routinely educated abroad and who could have easily opted for the luxuries of life in New York, London and Paris. But the contrary was the case. Rubbing shoulders with angry trade unionists, workers and journalists, they vociferously demanded that the monarchy should yield to democratic governance.

Obviously, this week's victorious summoning of Parliament should not minimise serious challenges ahead in Nepal's road to democracy. Neither should the resurgence of serious corruption within the country's political parties, (cited to justify the King's takeover of the democratic process in February 2005), be discounted. However, there is no doubt that the recent years have demonstrated a collective strength that the Nepali people ought to be justly proud of.

And again, this is not to romanticise the Nepali struggle or to say that democratic institutions in that country are perfect. On the contrary, the Nepali judiciary is noted for their strategic withdrawals whenever the authority of the King or military excesses is in issue. However, what distinguishes the process is the fierce dedication of its activists and its people at every turn.

In itself, Nepali civil society is far from being ideal. There are the usual outlaws - the head of an old and well known Kathmandu based NGO, for example, continues to hold office despite allegations of serious financial misappropriation. But rules of accountability do apply; he is being moved out of the civil society process slowly but inexorably. In other ways, normal frictions, personal and professional, are evidenced among members of Nepali civil society. But generally, there is no doubt that the passion that moves them is lacking in greater rather than lesser measure in Sri Lanka.

Civil society debates in Sri Lanka are premised on quite a different level altogether. Sri Lankan NGOs are, of course the favourite demon of many who have their own closets full of extremely dubious skeletons. I remember an instance, some years back, when one mediocre legal professional, (now drawing a lucrative salary from a ministry as a 'consultant'), was emboldened enough to question the propriety of NGO interventions in regard to safeguarding the judicial process. Another legal professional, (now his colleague consultant and also drawing a lucrative salary), was, at one time, in the centre of an unsavoury dispute in regard to using the resources of that ministry for personal gain when he was a 'consultant' to another ministry. Both were unashamed supporters, at one time, of an insidiously internalised politicisation of the country's judicial process. Now, their interventions are understandably more cautious.

Needless to say, these persons are monumentally ill qualified to discourse on the inadequacies or otherwise of this country's civil society. I also cannot help wondering, quite irresistibly, as to what exactly they are 'consulted' on, given the rudimentary inability of their ministers to grasp the fundamentals of constitutional governance.

But, (and disregarding other rabid criticisms emerging from racially motivated chauvinists who see an NGO behind every bush), the critique in respect of many of Colombo's NGO's emanates from other soberly motivated sources that cannot be dismissed so easily. At its most significant level, it emerges from within civil society itself, as manifested most spectacularly in the contempt openly articulated by grassroots level activists working with victims of human rights abuses at the first point of contact, against what they term as "Colombo based elites." These grassroots groups and community based networks have, for several years, been conducting frontline defence campaigns against police torture and brutality.

They directly refute the "NGO" culture subsuming the obscenity of five star conferences, (on multifarious themes including human rights, constitutionalism, poverty and the ethnic conflict), with little participation of actual victims. Scorn is rightly expressed in relation to such conferences conducted in a language that a large part of the majorities and the minorities of this country cannot understand and involving abstruse intellectual discussions that have no practical impact.

I, for one, (and I know a number of others as well), now emphatically decline attendance at conference discussons that do not actively involve Sinhala or Tamil speaking participants and which do not allow them space to voice their perspectives. Such dysfunctionalities are evident in many other instances which cannot be discussed due to lack of space. Suffice to say that a thorough analytical study, as opposed to a newspaper column, should be the appropriate forum for this.

Insofar as Sri Lankan civil society itself is concerned, the time has come for serious account to be taken of such criticisms. While external regulation is to be abhorred for obvious reasons, internal regulatory mechanisms should be examined more closely. Such regulation should also be extended to government affiliated foundations and commissions drawing massive amounts of money from UN agencies, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank.

Throughout however, it is the issue of language that predominates. It is a matter for the most absolute amazement that so many decades after independence, language remains such a strong instrument of divisiveness in Sri Lanka. In contrast, what I found in Nepal was a refreshing closeness of the Nepali elites with the Nepali language, manifested in the workings of civil society as well as the media. Conferences or discussions conducted wholly in English for example, is very much the exception rather than the norm. Research and writings on topics such as the law, rights and the Constitution are produced in greater numbers in Nepali rather than in English, constituting an important bond in bringing together all those genuinely committed towards systemic change. In contrast, Sri Lanka is quite peculiar in South Asia in terms of this extreme dysfunction in language as well as the extreme gap between the city based and the rural based. This dysfunction is also not evidenced in India, Pakistan or Bangladesh, as any activist working in the region will testify to.

If other examples are to be cited, South Africa will do very well. Here too, the new constitutional contract in post apartheid South Africa was forged by a vigorous involvement of the South African people. Contrarily, in Sri Lanka, a poorly conceptualised Draft Constitution of 2000 merely patched together various provisions from other constitutions without embodying a rigorous domestic constitutional philosophy. It was no wonder that constitutional reforms under Kumaratunga failed so miserably. An ill thought out 17th Amendment to the Constitution is now suffering the same fate. Indeed, any constitutional process taken forward by the old discredited voices that steered the reforms into disaster at that time will undoubtedly be doomed from the start.

Instead, what Sri Lanka needs are apolitical, collective and spontaneous interventions from its cities and villages, generating their own dynamic. We have had quite enough of strategic input of the civil society elites into the constitutional/peace process based on political choices. Like the Nepali 'people power' that came to a zenith this week, Sri Lankans should be willing to put their personal liberties at stake for a decently democratic system. There is no gainsaying after all that, until the South is at peace with its own standard of constitutional dignity, stability in the North-East will not be reachable, even at any far distant point in time.

Back to Columns