“Truths” of Reconciliation: Reflecting on Ways Forward for Sri Lanka’s Post-War Reconciliation Process

By Anupama Ranawana

On 13 June 2018

In 2017, Helvetas commissioned CEPA to undertake a post-hoc study of their Peacebuilding project entitled Development and Peace Sri Lanka (DPSL).  The study asked “what worked, what didn’t work, what needs to be framed differently. A roundtable discussion was held on the 24th of May  to discuss the study and the lessons learned for peacebuilding in Sri Lanka.

Helvetas was commended for taking the risk of such a post-hoc study, and the presentations noted that the DPSL project had strengths in the efficiency and sustainability of the model. In particularly, it was noted that the practical projects and shared community ventures allowed for trust and friendship building that had long lasting impacts. The CEPA study concluded with a few critical considerations for those seated round the table, focussing particularly on the fact that there is no “quick, high impact way” to ‘do’ reconciliation.

When the floor opened for discussions, many lively and provocative interventions were made.  In particular, there was much discussion on the subject of the worth of relationship building versus institution building, and the value of working on the latter into order to make the former stronger and more sustainable. Participants also wondered if there was too much focus on projects that aimed to quell ethno-nationalist tensions. As such, it was asked if a more humanistic approach would be more effective.

This provided a sustained discussion on whether a mixed methods approach would be beneficial. One  of the participants noted that there are development partners providing support service delivery across the board and not considering an ethno religious lens. While these projects are attempting to strengthen service delivery, the politicization of the same, and the structural inequity in the system remains a challenge. Service delivery is politicized not only in terms of the delivery, but those who came to receive services based on politics. Service delivery depends on the GA/officials in the district. The beneficiary list depends who the GA is; which ethnic group he/she belongs to.  Governance works, but it perpetuates conflict.  Therefore, attention has to be paid to transforming these structures. However, combining methods was not advised.

There was also discussion on the role of women in shaping social cohesion, and what possible roles youth could have in such a space.

There were also questions with regards to the ongoing ethnic tensions between Sinhalese and Muslims and what connections there were to the macro economic climate.  Here, there was much discussion of ‘external’ factors that stoke tensions.  CEPA researchers noted that they had been told by respondents that that this kind of tension should not happen but they had no control over those who have come from ‘outside’ to influence because they had more agency and power. The relationships between different ethnicities are fine, but there are external forces that influence.

Other points of discussion included the role an influence of foreign funding on the Muslim communities in the area, a comparison of different models, the need to work closer with communities and build community capacity, and the need to strengthen local government. The final note was a reflection on the pros and cons of having an external institution working on peacebuilding.  A last reflection connected to this was with regards to trust, and that when trust is built, it can be quite resilient. This provides a positive place from which to continue work.

Following are some of the questions that emerged during the discussion and CEPA believes that the government and other key stakeholders should pay serious attention to the views of the public on these issues.

• What actually reconciliation means to ordinary public and does it matter to them?
• The fact that there are many actors working on reconciliation but a limited engagement of community actors, – Would a more diversified process have more long-term effect?
• There are interlocking complexities of patrony, caste, gender, class and geographic location that trouble development and reconciliation. What are the best ways to overcome these complexities?
• Current reconciliation discourses are framed too narrowly. Do we need new, more ethically framed ways of approaching reconciliation work?
• The issue of double alienation. For many, participation at various levels is not only invisible, but not recognized. How can we make them visible and recognized throughout the process?

Anupama Ranawana is a senior research professional at the Centre for Poverty Analysis, affiliated to the post war development thematic. Her research interests include Feminist Research Methods, Decolonial Thought, Critical Political Economy, Religious Political Thought, Liberation Theology, Social Cohesion and Reconciliation, Transitional Justice, International Development.