Autonomy and Armed Separatism in South and Southeast Asia

9. Unitarianism, Separatism and Federalism: Competing Goals and Problems of Compromise in Sri Lanka

162 9 unitarianism, separatism anD FeDeralism: competing goals anD problems oF compromise in sri lanka P. Sahadevan Negotiating peace in an armed separatist conflict centres on finding an autonomy solution under which ethnic contestants are granted wide-ranging powers to control their affairs within an ethnically defined region (Lapidoth 1996; Ghai 2000). For both the state and the separatists, such a solution denotes compromise on their extreme positions. Realizing the futility of using violence in pursuit of their ethnic goals they participate as stakeholders in autonomy talks — an indication of change in their perception, attitudes and goals. Yet the road to peace tends to be bumpy and tortuous. Difficulties arise not only in initiating a peace process but also making it a success. In reaching a peace accord, both contestants work towards overcoming their structural constraints so that their decision to compromise on their original goals is acceptable to their constituencies. Concluding an ethnic peace accord does not guarantee resolution of conflict. It is possible that a peace process breaks down even while a negotiated political settlement is implemented, leading to the resumption of violence aimed at achieving the original goals of the warring parties. This marks the beginning of a new cycle in the conflict process (Sahadevan 2006). Competing Goals and Problems of Compromise in Sri Lanka 163 This latter phenomenon typified Sri Lanka’s secessionist conflict involving the Sri Lankan Tamil minority and the Sinhalese dominated Sri Lankan state. It began in 1956 when Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism triumphed and consequently a sense of alienation among the minorities grew due to the electoral interest-driven chauvinistic policies of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP)-led government of S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike. Since then, the dynamics have changed to make the conflict in Sri Lanka one of the most protracted in South Asia. Importantly, the history of peace-overtures is as old as the conflict. However, permanent peace remains elusive despite the military success in May 2009 of the government against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The Sri Lankan civil war involved two protagonists who had shown great resoluteness in employing violence in pursuit of their goals and, at the same time, displayed stiff resistance to a negotiated solution. The protracted nature of the conflict has produced three distinct forces with strong competing ethnic interests; they are the unitarianists, the separatists and the federalists. The unitarianists are those Sinhalese nationalists who are committed to the principle of the centralized unitary state system; separatists who represent Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism advocate an Eelam (Tamil name for envisaged state in north-east Sri Lanka); federalists are those who, cutting across the country’s ethnic divide, firmly believe in a compromise solution based on autonomy and power-sharing. While centralization, in a historical sense, has created the separatists, the extreme positions and uncompromising attitude of both the unitarianists and separatists alike in the wake of death and destruction, has paved the way for the emergence of federalists as a potential force for moderation. The pattern and nature of relations between all three groups are determined by their mutually competing goals. Though the unitarianists and the separatists consider themselves as ethnic enemies, they share in common an opposition to the federalists who advocate an autonomy solution. Thus, while the ethnic enemies seek to annihilate each other, they jointly seek to destroy their common adversary, the federalists. The competing goals in Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict raise some questions that this chapter seeks to address. What are the ideological bases of these competing forces and how are they sustained to deny lasting peace and frustrate conflict resolution efforts? What are the problems in reaching a compromise solution among all the competing forces? I argue that an entrenched ethnic ideological position influencing the goals and behavior of the unitarianists and the separatists tends to attain greater salience if it is backed by their relative capabilities defined in terms of their power to exert political and military pressure. The assumption is that the greater the ideological entrenchment in unitarianism or separatism in a deeply ethnicized polity like Sri Lanka, the 164 P. Sahadevan stronger is its resistance to any political compromise. Three critical factors that emerge for discussion from this hypothesis are ideology, power and politics. Compromise requires moderation in the ideological positions of the competitors, changes to their power bases and capabilities and, finally, ending of the politics of ethnic outbidding...