President's new people-based approach to peace process

The demand from civil society for an inclusive peace process has been a longstanding one. It reached a peak in the aftermath of the Ceasefire Agreement signed by the former UNP government and the LTTE in February 2002.

The standard view of experts on conflict resolution is that people's participation in the peace process is essential for its long term success. A major shortcoming in the peace process undertaken by the former UNF government was the absence of such people's participation.

The launch of the National Advisory Council on Peace and Reconciliation at the initiative of President Chandrika Kumaratunga marks a watershed in the peace process.

At its inception, the earlier top down strategy followed by the UNF government headed by former Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe brought very positive results to the country. The Ceasefire Agreement that ended the war was signed by the Prime Minister and the LTTE leader without consultation with the President or with the people. The same was true of the lifting of the ban on the LTTE, and the lifting of security barriers and the economic embargo of the LTTE-controlled areas.

The UNF government's decisions in this regard were top down because they were not done in consultation with the people. But they brought the war to an end, and with it the era of mass killings and mass destruction also to an end.

While the strength of the top-down approach is the rapidity with which it can bring change, its weakness is that it can run out of steam or be toppled by political opposition at the highest levels. With the passage of a year, the top down approach to the peace process initiated by the UNF government ran into trouble.

The LTTE suspended its participation in the peace talks. When these problems began to surface, the lack of public involvement in the peace process began to take its toll. Rumours and stories began to spread without the government being able to counter them.

There was also little or no strong pressure from the people to revive the peace talks. Instead political opponents of the peace process took the upper hand. They sowed fear and doubt among the people.

Today, due to the continuing deadlock in the peace process, the situation at the ground level is unfavourable to the peace process. The LTTE's intolerant attitude towards its opponents, whom it kills in an unrelenting manner is weakening people's support for the peace process.

In any situation in which there is no visible progress, people's attention tends to get focused on the negative aspects rather than on an appreciation of the positive. An example would be the role of the Norwegian facilitation in the peace process. Different groups, including sections of the state media, are attacking them for not doing enough to rein in the LTTE. There is little public appreciation of the contribution of the Norwegians to the stopping of war. A negative spiral of mistrust and demoralisation is set in motion.

Direct contribution

In the context of the lack of progress in the peace process, the President's summoning of the National Advisory Council has re-energised civil society. People who have been working for peace without involvement in partisan politics now see an opportunity to make a direct contribution to the peace process.

The President's pledge to conduct a broad-based and transparent peace process with the full participation of the people can be seen as a validation of the claims made by civil society groups for many years.

If the process of discussion is conducted in a positive manner and reported on comprehensively by the mass media, there is the possibility of a total re-education of society as a whole on the essentials of a peaceful and long term settlement of the ethnic conflict.

Given the positive potential of the National Advisory Council the decision on the part of the UNP, TNA and other important political parties not to participate in the opening session is a disappointment.

It deprives the Council of the different points of view that constitute the plural society of Sri Lanka. They appear to be mistrustful of the President's intentions as a ploy to delay peace talks and to put the responsibility on the representatives of political and civil society to reach a consensus amongst themselves as a first step.

However, the UNP has stated its intention to join the Council as soon as the government recommences negotiations with the LTTE. The UNP's consistent stand has been that the government should recommence peace talks with the LTTE on the basis of the LTTE's proposals for an Interim Self Governing Authority.

As of now, the LTTE has been insisting that peace talks can only resume on the basis of its ISGA proposals. Perhaps the LTTE will modify their views in the coming weeks.

At present a senior team of LTTE political wing leaders are in Europe where they will be meeting with constitutional experts drawn from both the expatriate Tamil and international communities. Implicit in the UNP's position is the requirement that the government should demonstrate the political will to recommence peace talks with the LTTE on mutually acceptable terms.
Therefore, the responsibility for deciding whether to negotiate with the LTTE, and the basis on which such talks takes place, lies with the government, which has to make the political judgment as to what is right or wrong. This responsibility is not one that can, or should, be shifted onto the people.

The people do not understand what the LTTE's ISGA proposals mean. Neither do they know what federalism means. This is understandable because the people have lived their lives in a highly centralised society and do not have direct experience, or even intellectual experience, of what life in a different type of society entails.

It is the government that has to take the responsibility for the terms on which such peace talks will start.


Government's responsibility

In this context it is important that the government should not seek to link the discussions within the National Advisory Council to the resumption of peace talks. Such a move will likely end up in delaying the resumption of peace talks.

Those who are invited to be members of the Council represent political, religious and civil society, and in particular those from the Sinhalese community. Most Sinhalese people, at this point of time, view the LTTE's ISGA proposals with deep suspicion. In fact they are likely to view any LTTE proposal with suspicion.

Therefore, it can be anticipated that the deliberations at the National Advisory Council are unlikely to reach any sort of consensus as to peace talks on the basis of the ISGA proposals. The TNA, which seeks to represent the LTTE's position in Parliament and in national politics, is clearly apprehensive about this possibility.

As a forum that is representative of the people it is to be expected that the National Advisory Council will contain within itself many of the doubts and fears of the people. Therefore, the answer as to the next step forward in the peace process cannot be left to the Council.

It needs to be a decision that is taken at the political level. President Chandrika Kumaratunga needs to be supported and applauded for formally recognising the importance of civil society and setting up a broad-based National Advisory Council to dialogue on the peace process.

But she has to take on herself and her government the responsibility of deciding whether or not to talk to the LTTE and the terms on which those negotiations will take place.

The President would do well to look at the positive and negatives examples of peacemaking in the recent past. Former Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe lifted the ban on the LTTE and signed the Ceasefire Agreement without obtaining a consensus with the other political parties.

Most of the opposition parties, and also the people, had serious reservations about what he was doing. But the former Prime Minister's actions put a stop to the war, and the people appreciated the new found peace.

The mistake the former Prime Minister made came later in the peace process. He failed to see the need to build a wider political and civil consensus after the peace process got under way.

If the lesson of the past is to be learnt, it is that the President should use the advantages of the present moment to restart the peace process without delay. This would give a forward momentum to the government, which has been lacking ever since they came to power.