On conflict and consensus

by Gnana Moonesinghe

Often differences of opinion erupts into conflict. There is no society where differences of opinion leading to confrontation does not exist. This is no cause for despair as there are as many solutions as there are problems. But steps need to be taken to resolve the problem and prevent it from growing into one that is difficult to resolve. Conflict situations have to be fully understood in all their different aspects without fear or resentment.

People come together for a variety of reasons. One is to get together for the task of nation building. How is a nation built? On the principles or basis on which a nation rests and our commitments to the concept of a nation. These are questions that require answers. An analysis of such issues may indicate clearly that certain rules and a regulatory mandate are the basis on which a nation is built; also our commitment to work together be clearly defined and understood.

In any country problems arise; the important feature in such a situation is to resolve them without letting them ferment and become unsolvable; at the least it should be possible to reach a consensual agreement. Otherwise the problem can become intransigent and transform into a confrontational issue.

To resolve problems as and when they arise there has to be in place a reference document to be followed; one which contains the rules and regulatory mandate to be followed. In the case of a nation the document will be the constitution and the by laws that have been legislated as and when necessary for the country.

Armed with a constitution, it is necessary to be flexible in order to accommodate and respect the views and opinions of those with contrary views and are in opposition so that at least a consensual agreement can be reached when all else fails.

In seeking resolution of problems it will be helpful if ideas and individuals expressing them are kept distinct so that controversial opinions will be based on ideas and not on those expressing them. In the case of SriLanka, the distinction between the abuse of the system by corruption and the person so incriminated was not distinguished. President Gotabaya was held responsible for the financial crisis; identified as the culprit and demands for his expulsion were vociferous.

As the protests became loud and clear it became impossible for the President to continue in office . He was compelled to vacate his position and in his place he appointed an alternative following refusals from two or three other political leaders to serve the remaining years of his tenure. This was a constitutional requirement.

The protest movement linked the economic crisis and the political turmoil together – hence the demand for the removal of the President, a system change and the formation of an all party administration.

With the passage of a month or two of the protest movement persons with political agendas different from that of the original protesters entered the fray and the process became increasingly intransigent and more prone to violence. Some of those in the fray wanted President Gotabaya removed so that no room will be available for any from the Rajapaksa clan to enter the political system. Compromise was ruled out and a nonviolent stance became difficult if not impossible.

Based on the constitutional requirement for the election of the successor to the incumbent, a vote was taken from among the MPs and a new President was elected comfortably with Ranil Wickremesinghe polling 182 votes against his opponents’ 53 and three votes respectively.

Democratic election by peaceful means should have eliminated confrontation. However confrontation continued as this was the tool chosen by the dissenting groups to continue their protest.

For any agreement to be binding in the democratic process it has to be offered in a spirit of cooperation. This was perhaps the shortcoming in the Sri Lankan case as this spirit did not exist. A spirit of triumph over the departure of the President from office was evident without any spirit of cooperation in the process that followed.

A blame element persisted; such a stance is expected to lead to violence, guilt consciousness and a feeling of alienation which detracts from the ability to resolve conflict. This is what happened in Sri Lanka. Although President Wickremesinghe was elected in accordance with the constitution, wide sections of the nation convinced he was not entitled to hold the post remained alienated, angry and outside the consensual agreement.

Although it is said that Interplay of ideas produce solutions , in the Sri Lankan context this failed. The problem here was that opposing parties wanted to blame the other without any desire to compromise and develop better understanding. It was a matter of all or nothing. The opposition wants to eliminate the new President and offers no compromise. There is no attempt to reach a solution together and sort out the problem. An all party administration is sought but the dissenting groups will not join.

The President has gone to the IMF for assistance as a last resort and we are compelled to follow what they prescribe. The opposition groups are opposed to the electricity tariff hike which they say will drive SMEs to the ground. In that case, the SMEs must find an alternative method to survive.

The press has reported that the World Food Program (WFP) says that over six million Lankans will face starvation. Even prior to this crisis the poor were short of food. Why did not the WFP assist before the situation got this bad?

The situation gets more confusing with the  passage of time. Harsha de Silva announced recently that while he will not join the government his economic plan to revive the national economy can be used by President Wickremesinghe’s government. The question that arises is that if the success of the plan is assured why not be associated with its implementation?

Ideas are being thrown about without responsibility. Harsha de Silva like many others want a general election. Since there is constitutional provision to continue the present government for another two years, why not follow the procedure suggested?

In addition it is clear that we cannot afford another election at present. We do not have the funds to pay for it, the Commissioner of Elections has said. It must not be forgotten that elections will not alleviate peoples’ hunger; perhaps politicians’ hunger for power may be satiated if the people once again vote in a group with no answers to the country’s problems; or elect a hung parliament.

Eran Wickremaratne claims that solutions are not possible based on the funds provided by the multilateral agencies providing assistance. That we are faced with an economic crisis need not be reiterated by anyone. Wickremaratne says that under no circumstances should we agree to debt restructuring. But the IMF assistance was on the basis that we produce a debt restructuring plan.

We hired legal and financial experts to prepare a strategy and present it to the IMF Board and once it is passed the four year plan for Sri Lankan economic revival will be formulated. Already the stock exchange has gained, tourism has improved a little, inflation is not galloping as fast as it did, petrol and diesel are more easily available and the gas problem seems to have been resolved for the time being. Plans are being made to get fertilizer to the farmers. Once cultivation get underway, the food shortage will ease.Experts in the country instead of presenting individual plans should in the interests of the nation join hands to work out a common strategy for the administration to deliver a lasting solution.