From the Editor's Desk

Even among those who hailed the lifting of the state of emergency by the government on 25th August, there is lingering suspicion about the intentions of the government. That it happened just weeks before the 18th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva ?where alleged human rights violations and war crimes by the Sri Lankan state were likely to up for discussion? has made some see it as a publicity stunt to generate international goodwill.

The fears of the sceptics were justified by the introduction of new regulations to keep the Prevention of Terrorism Act and High Security Zones alive. Besides, the continuation and rise in politically driven authoritarian practices outside the scope of the PTA and Public Security Ordinance mean that authoritarian rule will not abate with the lifting of the state of emergency.

The country has, since the JVP insurrection of 1971, been under a state of emergency for long stretches. Although the UNP government elected in 1977 declared that it will rule the country without resorting to emergency regulations, it imposed emergency rule in the North in 1979 and the whole country later on. More importantly, the absence of a state of emergency in any part of the country did not mean democratic government. The SLFP, the left and later the JVP were victims of state sponsored unlawful violence which took a heavy toll on democratic and trade union rights, let alone the rights of the minority nationalities. War provided the pretext for extended and excessive use of emergency powers by the state. As a result, people were intimidated to the point of fearing to exercise their right to free speech and association.

Initially, emergency regulations in Sri Lanka were based on the Public Security Ordinance of 1947, designed and ratified by the British colonial rulers to suppress and control political dissent on the eve of transfer of power to a loyal government. More dangerous powers have since been assumed under the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1979? supposedly a temporary measure but in force to date. Thus, the lifting of the state of emergency while retaining and reinforcing existing repressive laws is pure sham.

The people suffered severe state repression under UNP rule, especially the seventeen years of darkness from 1977 to 2004. The SLFP-led regimes that followed continued with the policies of the UNP on the economic, foreign policy and other fronts, and relied as much as the UNP did on the now heavily reinforced police and military forces. The gradual depreciation of trust in the state was reversed, at least as far as the Sinhalese were concerned, following the defeat of the LTTE, which symbolised terrorism to them. Also the People’s Alliance government comprising the SLFP and its parliamentary left allies is still seen as sensitive to the aspirations of the common masses. But the violent attack in late May this year by the police on the Katunayake Free Trade Zone workers who protested against the proposed Pension Bill exposed once again the brutal nature of state power. The general assumption that the Sri Lankan state uses force only against the Tamils owing to distrust born of the civil war between the Government and the LTTE was reinforced by the state acting in ways that projected it as representative of the majority Sinhalese. Hence, the attack on Sinhalese workers in Katunayake was a shock, which it should not have been since the state has used brutal force against the Sinhalese in the South in 1971 and from the late 1980s to early 1990s.

In this context, one needs to challenge the general assumption that the defeat of the LTTE will lead to normalcy in the South and to the resolution of the national question. In reality, the end of the war has made the prospect of the resolving the national question even more remote. Prevailing conditions in the North East, especially among ‘resettled war refugees’, speak volumes about the attitude of the government towards the minority nationalities, especially the Tamils.

There is no sign of return to normalcy in any part of the country, and normalcy is unimaginable until the main impediments to it are removed. The dictatorial executive presidency which has acquired more power for itself since its institution in 1978, the continuing rise in man power and might of the armed forces and the police, and the survival of repressive legislation, besides obstructing return to normalcy, will only add to public resentment and protest, to which the state is bound to respond with even more repression.
The unresolved national question remains the main contradiction in the country. Keeping it unresolved helps the government to divert attention from additional burdens heaped on the people as a result of the country getting indebted to foreign powers and thereby becoming a fully fledged neo-colony. Thus imperialism and foreign hegemony have a vested interest in sustaining a repressive regime in Sri Lanka.

The task facing the left, progressive and democratic forces in the country is to unify the struggle for the restoration of democracy and a just solution for the national question with the anti-imperialist struggle.

New Democracy 42