The recent wave of anti-Muslim violence follows a pattern that we have witnessed before, in 2013-14 and 2018. Does it bear a similarity to anti-Tamil violence in 1977, 1979 and 1981 that preceded the large-scale violence of 1983? Is Sri Lanka about to embark on a new cycle of violence?
These are essential questions, but to answer them, we must examine the causes. Daniel Katz, a theorist on conflict, identifies three primary sources:
1. Economic conflict arises from competition for scarce resources.
2. Power conflict occurs when each party wishes to maintain or maximise the amount of influence.
3. Value conflict involves incompatibility in ways of life and ideologies.
In its essence, conflict arises from competition.
Sri Lanka’s past conflicts have risen primarily in the economic and power dimension, which have been amplified by perceived differences in values. The Sinhalese/Tamil conflict arose over language. In fact, what mattered was not language per se, but what proficiency in English offered: access to education and thus jobs. At the time, Ceylon’s university system was justly acclaimed, and graduation guaranteed significantly better economic prospects. A career in the civil service was similarly prized, because of prestige. Both depended on one’s knowledge of English. People believed that a change to Sinhalese would permit greater access to university and the civil service, hence better prospects for those proficient in the language and worse for those who were not. Thus, some part of the language problem was a manifestation of economic competition.
Economic conditions in the first decade of independence were favourable, but the policies that sustained the country’s relative prosperity were radically changed in the late 1950s. Extensive regulation of trade and commerce, and the nationalisation of key sectors of the economy (banking, public transport and ports) led to economic stagnation.
[pullquote]ESCALATING CONFLICTS ARE BECOMING INCREASINGLY CHALLENGING TO MANAGE[/pullquote]
Meanwhile, post-independence improvements in healthcare resulted in a growing population. A large number of young people completed tertiary education, creating demand for more ‘white collar’ jobs; but the private sector, constrained by increasing economic regulation, failed to provide them. This increased dependence on the government to meet the demand for these jobs, which it could not.
The combination of a growing population and a stagnant economy provided the impetus for the southern insurrection of 1971.
Conflict over power, in terms of political representation, grew out of the original Tamil grievances over language. The solution to fundamentally economic problems was implicit in demands for partial or complete autonomy.
Thus, we witness the tendency of conflicts to morph and escalate, to become more intense and hostile, and for issues to multiply. Escalation feeds on fear and defensiveness.
“Conflicts have a certain tendency to escalate, i.e., to become more intense and hostile, and to develop more issues than what the parties say the conflict is about. Therefore, escalating conflicts become more difficult to manage. The process of escalation feeds on fear and defensiveness. Threat leads to counterthreat, usually with higher stakes at each go-around. Selective and distorted perception justifies a competitive and cautious approach as opposed to a trusting and cooperative one….
…competition breeds competition…. Each party believes in the evil intentions of the other and the inevitability of disagreement, and therefore takes precautionary actions which signal mistrust and competitiveness (Blake, Shepard & Mouton, 1964). When the other party then responds with a counteraction, this is perceived as justifying the initial precautionary measure.” (Dr Ronald Fisher)
Escalating conflicts become increasingly challenging to manage. With each succeeding spiral of conflict, polarisation grows, and the parties become more adamant and intransigent in their approach to the situation.
This has been the bitter experience of Sri Lanka. Are we about to embark on this unhappy path again?
The current conflict with the Muslims has no apparent causes, but interested parties have played on existing cultural differences, spreading mythology, falsehoods and hate.
In a culturally diverse society, different groups will have different customs, practices and beliefs. The higher the social distances between groups, the more likely that attitudes will be in opposition.
Competition by itself is neither good nor bad. However, how it is handled determines whether it is constructive or destructive. The solution, therefore, is to manage the competition and to close the perceived distance in values.
MANAGING COMPETITION
Functioning democratic political processes regulate competition among groups with different preferences. Differences need to be negotiated through the legislative process, not fought in the street. For this to work, people must have faith in the system, which starts with trust in the law.
Laws protect people’s general safety and ensure their rights as citizens against abuses by other people, organisations and the government itself. If people are attacked and their property damaged, it breaks trust. This happened with the anti-Tamils riots in 1956, 1958, 1977 and 1983, leading to a militant response.
Clear laws evenly enforced with any wrongdoing being justly punished sets the framework for trust. The first step must be for the government to restore law and order. There should be no room for mobs and vigilantes to execute “justice”, law enforcement must uphold order. The law must work and be seen to work, it is only then that it serves as a deterrent to potential violators. Citizens can then learn to trust in the law and seek justice through the system.
Democratic societies are best placed to manage competition, but the process must work, and people must understand and believe in the system. This means investing in civic education to create a citizenry that can engage meaningfully in public life. The knowledge, skills and disposition to participate in civic life must be imparted in schools.
The education must also cover liberal values because, while the best available system, procedural democracy in practice has a drawback: it is not a good way to resolve moral or ethical questions. Democracy is built on majority views, but this may mean that alternative perspectives on issues that are in the minority, controversial, novel or particularly complex, may be ignored – “the tyranny of the masses”.
It is essential to transmit to younger generations a host of democratic values such as tolerance and respect for diversity, concern with the rights and welfare of others, freedom, and justice.
A rote-learning, exam-oriented approach will not work. To change attitudes, it must include practical aspects, involving cultural extra-curricular activities and exercises. The aim is that differences in viewpoint and culture be cherished and appreciated rather than judged and feared.
MIDDLE-INCOME TRAP
It is particularly important to work on social peace now because of looming new economic challenges. Sri Lanka is now a middle-income country. As costs increase, it is more challenging to compete in low-cost industries, but there is a lack of skills and technology to move to higher value-added sectors. This is the Middle Income Trap.
While lifestyles are better than 25 years ago, people’s aspirations must be met. Constant outward migration is a testament to the fact that these are not. What is not recognised is the importance of immigration as a safety valve; it allows the dissatisfied and the frustrated to leave, rather than rising up in rebellion. Problems in the Middle East and a slowing global economy mean that the opportunities afforded abroad are diminishing, closing an important avenue of escape and allowing frustration to build. Transitioning from a middle-income to high-income country is surprisingly tricky. A World Bank report highlights that, of the 101 economies classified as ‘middle-income’ in 1960, only 13 had become ‘high-income’ by 2008.
[pullquote]THE LAW MUST WORK AND BE SEEN TO WORK, IT IS ONLY THEN THAT IT SERVES AS A DETERRENT TO VIOLATORS[/pullquote]
The country needs to unleash new sources of growth to maintain a sustained increase in per capita income, which means an increase in the productivity of the economy. Cutting red tape that causes delays and costs, and improved infrastructure will help, but this is only a part of the problem.
To promote dynamism and help unleash private sector potential, competitive forces within the economy need to be increased, with new areas opened to foreign capital, ideas and products. More significant investment in human capital and R&D is needed, but the government cannot do this. All this means reform, which is pathologically opposed by all quarters, both politicians and the private sector that is comfortable with the current arrangements.
If the current generation of youth find their opportunities overseas narrowing, while the fissures between communities widens, the competition for economic resources will once again burst out in conflict.