Citizen dialogue on the LLRC

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has taken a lead in monitoring the levels of public awareness of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) and the implementation of its recommendations. CPA has monitored the proceedings of LLRC and disseminated information to the public through its websites critically analysing shortcomings in the process.

CPA issued a comprehensive statement on the implementation of the recommendations of the LLRC, no sooner it was published, and advocated the implementation of its recommendations. Furthermore, CPA was the first institution in Sri Lanka to issue a translation of Chapter 9 (Recommendations) of the LLRC Report in Sinhala and Tamil in May 2012 and a report on the benchmarks for peace and reconciliation in post war Sri Lanka. It also successfully implemented a project promoting Citizen Dialogue on the LLRC, raising awareness of its recommendations and their importance for the process of conflict transformation in Sri Lanka.

One of the significant outcomes of this project was that both the original Commission report and the Action Plan for the Implementation of its recommendations were simplified and made available to more than one hundred and thirty thousand citizens, through publications, mail shot, electronic mail and dialogues held in Sinhala and Tamil at 1033 meetings, facilitated by 47 regional trainers island-wide.

Here are excerpts from the Executive Summary of the Citizen Dialogue on the LLRC 2012 released this week:



The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) presented their much-awaited report and recommendations on 16 December 2011. Following a war which lasted almost 30 years, and resulted in death, destruction and devastation, this report is the result, after 18 months, of a presidential commission of inquiry studying the failure of the ceasefire agreement of 27 February 2002, highlighting lessons learnt, and aiming to promote national unity and reconciliation among all communities. This can be said to be one of the most important documents in the history of Sri Lanka.

Nevertheless the failure of the Government in implementing these recommendations led to the UNHCR resolution against Sri Lanka in 2012. The main requirement of the resolution was proper implementation of the recommendations according to an Action Plan and review and reporting of progress. This caused a contentious situation in the country and divided opinions.

The majority opinion was that the internal problems of the country should be settled without foreign intervention. The less popular opinion was that some recommendations would to an extent solve serious issues of Tamil and Muslim minorities and therefore full and expeditious implementation would reduce continuing conflict and even the possibility of renewed hostilities.

A number of factors underpin these responses. One of these is that the first LLRC witness enquiry was carried out, outside of a broad public space. The second is that, authorities responsible for creating awareness among the public on the LLRC, have evaded such responsibility. In fact, the report itself was only available in English, and not in Sinhala or Tamil. Some elements of the Government itself engaged in inciting the public against some recommendations and despite the country being bound to international agreements and UN conventions, the government maintains that it is implementing LLRC recommendations.

Similarly although the LLRC recommendations clearly suggest involving them, the Government has rejected support from civil society organisations, and instead incited and spread hostile attitudes about such organisations among the public. The public for its part is uncertain as to what to believe.

In this situation, a broad public discourse has not been carried out in the country, on how to work towards genuine reconciliation and a united future.

Firmly believing that civil society has an important and constructive contribution to make to the conflict transformation process in Sri Lanka, CPA worked to promote a democratic dialogue at community level on the contents and recommendations of the LLRC report (and the resulting Action Plan) and to channel resulting opinion into a national discourse on implementing the LLRC, while increasing overall awareness of the LLRC report, among the public at large.

Project outcomes

Books and publications

1. As an initial step, CPA prepared, disseminated and launched relevant information on the LLRC report in the public sphere. Accordingly, a publication, edited by Attorney-at-Law S.G. Punchihewa was launched in both the Sinhala and Tamil languages. This was a simplified, attractive publication, designed to be easily understood by its intended audience, the general public. This publication was prepared using as a basis, the recommendations of the LLRC report, the report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka (‘Darusman’ Report) and recommendations of the European Commission.

2. The September 2012 edition of the Saama Vimarshi (Peace Monitor) periodical, edited by Lionel Guruge and published by CPA, discussed the LLRC report and was published in both Tamil and Sinhala languages under the theme of ‘Will LLRC become reality?’ Over 67,000 copies of the LLRC book, and 63,500 copies of the Saama Vimarshi periodical (70% Sinhala/ 30% Tamil) have been disseminated and links to these were distributed electronically to mailing lists of 8,000 persons. A relevant amount of feedback was received from people who requested these periodicals at dialogue sessions, and on an individual and organisational basis, leading to the creation of interest groups.

Training sessions and workshops

The Citizen Dialogue on the LLRC project targeted the raising of awareness in more than 130,000 stakeholders through meetings and awareness raising publications on LLRC, as well as increased capacity in 47 trainers trained on conducting community dialogues.

47 competent trainers selected from partner organisations in the field were given comprehensive five day training in all matters of the reconciliation process leading to the LLRC, and on strategy for raising awareness among people on the LLRC recommendations. Each trainer conducted an average of 42 sessions.

Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, S.G. Punchihewa Attorney-At-Law, Prof. Jayantha Seneviratne, K. Gurubaran and A. Sarjoon, university lecturers and senior journalists, including Thimbirayaga Bandara, attended as resource persons in these sessions and workshops. Through these open dialogue sessions and workshops, CPA was able to identify some misconceptions about them which were well established in the society, as well as able to create a pool of trainers able to clarify such problems. A total of 1m033 community level discussions were carried out islandwide with the facilitation of trainers, with the participation of more than 30,990 attendees

These dialogue sessions emphasised citizen participation. Politically motivated and interested citizens, professionals from various fields, and a number of members of the clergy attended these sessions. Resource persons for these dialogue sessions were connected from Colombo. These dialogue sessions were completed with a total participation of over 30,990 citizens.

These sessions resulted in discussion of a number of current political opinions and ideas, and resulted in a group of people with a serious interest in the recommendations of the LLRC coming together. Thus it can be seen that the results of these sessions continue to flow into social discourse in different levels through various forums.

It was clear that it was important to collect the observations and opinions of witnesses who gave evidence before the LLRC. Therefore a report of such witness opinions was produced. For this purpose, the opinions of 46 persons who had given evidence before the commission were taken. A report on public opinion on the LLRC was also compiled based on the feedback from participants at the dialogue sessions held at district level.

In this process it was identified at the citizen level, that if there had been a prior awareness raising process on the LRRC recommendations at the initial stage, the situation would have been different. The lack of citizen participation at the policymaking stage results in social discrimination. It is caused by the autocratic behaviour of rulers who act as they wish.

Also, the necessity of continued information on LLRC related issues was identified by citizens. There was another observation. In addition to the attitude by the Government, media and academic institutions too had evaded their responsibility for ensuring awareness on these matters. The combined effect of this negatively impacted on citizen’s attitudes.

Similarly it became clear from citizen attitudes, that the media promptly publishes news on the UN responses as it happens, whilst evading any responsibility to educate the people on the recommendations and their background. Based on the coercion by Government leaders and local politicians, citizens appeared at mass demonstrations; however they had little or no understanding of what they were doing. As mentioned in the novel of Ignazio Silone’s Fontamara, villagers of Fontamara were similarly helpless after being sent to towns for rallies and being misguided.

A popular attitude was then that agreeing with the LLRC recommendations amounted to overturning the war victory.

Challenges/obstacles

At the citizen level, challenges and obstacles faced were minimal.

However, there was a level of rejection from some parties such as Government administrative officers and security personnel, based on the belief that these recommendations – although established by State appointed commission – were against the interest of the country, as well as an attitude of hostility against civil society organisations, and tactic implication that such hostility was acceptable.

Threats have been received to some trainers and facilitators from regional political leaders. However, as a whole, the results were positive and encouraging. Though citizens had been accustomed to not questioning such issues, it was clear that they had the capacity to understand such issues. Therefore, the majority of persons who participated continue to be interested in the process.

Recommendations

1. The LLRC process was carried forward without broad citizen participation. The role of citizens in the obtaining of testimony was at a minimum level. Political leaders and high officials like Minister Champika Ranawaka and the Defence Secretary were given priority during collection of testimony. In taking the discourse on the LLRC process to the people, one factor identified was that there is no understanding about this among Government officials and among people. Therefore the Government should start creating awareness among the people. It is the responsibility of the Government to ensure this.

2. The Government should take a political stance about implementation of the LLRC recommendations. In the presentation of a new Constitution, then President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga was prepared for such. She was of the firm belief that such should be implemented. The Government should also have such readiness.

3. Opposition parties including the United National Party (UNP) and Tamil National Alliance (TNA) should fulfil their responsibilities instead of levelling accusations at the Government. The education of the public on these specific political matters is the responsibility of political parties and civil society organisations. The education at least of their constituents on matters of the LLRC has not been carried out. Necessary steps to fulfil this are urgently needed.

4. The media too has not fulfilled its responsibility in informing the public on matters of the LLRC. As well as informing on these recommendations, the creation of a related discourse on this subject, should be initiated without delay.

5. The National Plan of Action on the implementation of recommendations made by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) drafted to win reprieve from the UNHCR has not yet been translated to Sinhala and Tamil. Out of the 285 recommendations in the LLRC report, only 133 have been included in the Action Plan. There is no specific mention of when deadlines commence, and the time line for such implementation. Therefore the Government should take steps to present these clearly.

6. There is no transparency to be observed in the Action Plan. Many responsibilities have been allocated to the Defence Ministry and many have been allocated only by name, what is needed is movement towards the creation of a new Constitution respecting the rights of all ethnicities, such that a situation of conflict and hostilities in the future will not arise.

7. Steps have not been taken to promote harmony and coexistence among ethnicities; although this is mentioned in the LLRC recommendations, the Government has not implemented these. It is not enough to simply assure the international community that measures are being taken to promote reconciliation.

There should be a creative process to make a space for co-existence between the north and south, from village to village, school to school and religious centre to religious centre for example.

8. In the National Budget millions of rupees are allocated for various issues. However, it is not clear how much has been set aside for the implementation of the LLRC process. There are also recommendations which can be implemented within existing structures, which do not need any financial outlay.

9. The tasks of making decisions on recommendations of the LLRC, expression of opinions and producing information on this to the public has been discretely handed to certain nationalist elements, leading to negative attitudes among the public. This has to be changed.

10. In the presentation of the new constitutional proposal (political package), Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga took on herself the responsibility via the Saama Tawalama (Peace Cart), ‘Book and Brick’ and Sudu Nelum and similar movements to involve the people. However, this Government has not taken the lead responsibility for the LLRC implementation. After a war lasting 30 years, in order to prevent such a situation arising again, the recommendations of the LLRC need to be discussed broadly and lead to the introduction of a new Constitution. If this is not the final focus, the existing problems will not only continue, it may not be possible, in the future, to prevent a more dangerous situation than that already experienced, arising.