The Guardian published an article on Sri Lanka's post-election future that I find quite depressing. The article itself is not depressing, on the contrary, it suggests that Sri Lanka has a unique opportunity for peace and development and that it is time to give it some more carrot and some less stick. I do agree that there is an opportunity for peace and that these don't come around so often, however Sri Lanka is a country that has had its decent share of opportunities for peace and growth in the past and has systematically wasted them through a combination of unwise decisions and jinxed turns.
I also agree that the country needs 'more carrot', but this should be a lesson that the government should learn and not one that we should be expecting the EU and other countries to enact. There is a clear need for tolerance and open hands, but it is the country's leadership who should understand this and not the international community who should have gestures of approval towards the current administration. After all, the world silently approved of the slaughtering of the Tamil population in the last couple of years by turning its back to the country. Perhaps it wouldn't hurt to finally put some pressure on a government that wants to smilingly get away with it.
The article is depressing after all, because it tones down the violence the country is facing from its own leaders and suggests that 'all they need is a little more support from the West.' Granted that some external help wouldn't hurt at all, it seems rather naive at best, cynical I'd choose, to think that a little money would quiet the demands for peace and democracy that are systematically let down. To think that this is a question of 'buying out' disenfranchised oppositions, is to repeat the same strategy and fall in the same mistakes the country has addictively incurred in since Independence.
Democracy can be tricky at times. Especially when it is confused with electoral politics. Whoever thinks that Sri Lanka is a democratic country because it has periodically sustained elections needs to review their definition of what democracy is. Even if the day on which people go to the polls is a 'celebration of civility' and fraud is ruled out as it has been in the last elections, democracy can hardly be considered a green light to whoever gets more votes until the next election year comes around. A democratically elected government is far from being a democratic government, especially when politics are not cut across ideologies and parties but across religious and ethnic lines.
Opportunities for development are necessary, this is evident everywhere in the world, but Sri Lanka needs more than economic progress to move ahead from the last three decades of violence and frustration. Now, it is not that Sri Lanka needs more because of its complexity, because its values are so unique and different from those of the west, it is simply that any country that undergoes the kind of violence that Sri Lanka suffers will not be fixed with money.
I also agree that the country needs 'more carrot', but this should be a lesson that the government should learn and not one that we should be expecting the EU and other countries to enact. There is a clear need for tolerance and open hands, but it is the country's leadership who should understand this and not the international community who should have gestures of approval towards the current administration. After all, the world silently approved of the slaughtering of the Tamil population in the last couple of years by turning its back to the country. Perhaps it wouldn't hurt to finally put some pressure on a government that wants to smilingly get away with it.
The article is depressing after all, because it tones down the violence the country is facing from its own leaders and suggests that 'all they need is a little more support from the West.' Granted that some external help wouldn't hurt at all, it seems rather naive at best, cynical I'd choose, to think that a little money would quiet the demands for peace and democracy that are systematically let down. To think that this is a question of 'buying out' disenfranchised oppositions, is to repeat the same strategy and fall in the same mistakes the country has addictively incurred in since Independence.
Democracy can be tricky at times. Especially when it is confused with electoral politics. Whoever thinks that Sri Lanka is a democratic country because it has periodically sustained elections needs to review their definition of what democracy is. Even if the day on which people go to the polls is a 'celebration of civility' and fraud is ruled out as it has been in the last elections, democracy can hardly be considered a green light to whoever gets more votes until the next election year comes around. A democratically elected government is far from being a democratic government, especially when politics are not cut across ideologies and parties but across religious and ethnic lines.
Opportunities for development are necessary, this is evident everywhere in the world, but Sri Lanka needs more than economic progress to move ahead from the last three decades of violence and frustration. Now, it is not that Sri Lanka needs more because of its complexity, because its values are so unique and different from those of the west, it is simply that any country that undergoes the kind of violence that Sri Lanka suffers will not be fixed with money.
