In this December 2002 opinion piece published in Business Today, Victor Ivan examines the necessary conditions for true democratization in Sri Lanka amidst the Liberation Tigers’ shift toward a federalist solution. He argues that the country’s political framework must be restructured to guarantee minority groups—defined not only by ethnicity but also by caste and class—a meaningful voice in the decision-making process. Highlighting how past armed struggles by figures like Prabhakaran and Wijeweera were rooted in resistance against both racial and caste-based dominance, Ivan concludes that a new, flexible constitution is essential to protect marginalized communities and prevent the majority from suppressing justice.
The Liberation Tigers have given up their demand for a separate state and have shifted to a position of asking for a federal system that guarantees internal autonomy. Although this may be considered a granting of a more convenient basis for settling the blood shed and the protracted dispute, the Sinhala response to it is not clear as yet.
In the process of decision-making, a fundamental characteristic that should be present in a democratic political system is a guaranteed and reasonable space for large or small groups subjected to the effects of those decisions, to join that process directly or through their representatives.
However, it is the will of the majority that finally becomes the decision. If the majority continues to disregard the reasonable rights of the minorities, those minorities might be forced to fight for a state of their own. It is in that light that the tendency for separation among the Tamil people should be understood. In such a situation it would be essential to recognize the state in such a way as to guarantee that the majority would not be able to act in a way that disregards the reasonable rights of the minorities.
Such a recognization may be interpreted as a democratization of the country in a broad sense. In a course of action for the democratization of the country in a way that can win the confidence of the minorities, there might be occasions in which it can be accomplished within the existing political framework, and there can also be occasions in which such a new political framework has to be created.
What Nehru did when Tamil separatist demands were rising powerfully in India, was to redefine the frontiers of the Madras Province and to create a provincial state of Tamilnadu with certain rights of self rule. Although India has a flexible form of Government which can offer suitable solutions to crises that arise from time to time, our framework of Government lacks such flexibility. Consequently we have to move towards a new political framework and a new constitution for the purpose of offering solutions to the grievances of the Tamil people.
We must also not forget that it is not only the Tamil community who are dissatisfied with the state structure. When Prabhakaran was fighting with weapons in hand for a separate state, Wijeweera took to arms for the purpose of capturing state power. This shows that there is dissatisfaction and obtaining justice through joining the process of taking decisions in the state structure exists not only among minor ethnic groups but also among minor caste groups. In the same way that there is a feeling among non-Sinhala communities that there is a dominance of the majority race, there is a feeling among non-Govigama and non-Vellala Sinhala and Tamil caste groups that there is a Govigama and Vellala caste dominance.
Prabhakaran’s struggle was not only a struggle against the dominance of the majority race. It was simultaneously a struggle against the Vellala dominance that exists in Tamil society. The struggle launched by Rohana Wijeweera was a struggle against Govigama dominance in the Sinhala society in addition to being a struggle for socialist aims.
Both these leaders who chose the path of arms struggle to fight against political dominance in the country belong to the same caste group (Wijeweera – Karawa, Prabhakaran – Karayar), and it was the young men and women of castes that may be considered oppressed in the Sinhala and Tamil caste hierarchy who functioned as the backbone of the arms struggle launched by those two persons. A feeling that in a future independent Lanka they would be discriminated against existed not only among minority race groups but also among oppressed caste groups.
When the Tamil and Muslim people expressed before the Donoughmore and Soulbury Commissions fears about a possible Sinhala dominance, the oppressed caste groups expressed fears about possible Govigama and Vellala dominance. The nationalization program of the Bandaranaike’s was viewed by the Karawa community as a ‘casteist’ step taken to weaken their economic strength. After SWRD Bandaranaike’s death C P de Silva could not become the leader of the SLFP not because he lacked education or experience but because he was a member of the Salagama caste. The only person outside the Govigama caste who attained the leadership of the state was R Premadasa. If not for the existence of a furious rebellion, the constitution might have been amended, and even Premadasa might have been deprived of the opportunity.
The main problem before the country today is how to effect a full democratization of the country in such a way as to ensure adequate space for all to join the process of decision-making without being deprived of that opportunity on the basis of factors like race, religion, caste and class, and how to democratize the country in such a manner as to prevent even the will of the majority, to suppress justice. That aim can be reached only if a constitution for a new system of Government, which can face any problem that exists or might arise in the future, can be achieved through a broad national discussion.