Suchergebnisse

Resistance to political change is a hallmark of Sri Lankan politics since the 1980s. Thus, the polity has been able to sturdily maintain the status quo. Linking contemporary politics with the political legacies of the 1980s, the article argues that by providing continuity to the 1978 constitution, Sri Lanka's political system has become a hostage to the status quo. This is shown in the analysis of the functioning of democracy, and ethnic conflict and peace-making. The rise of illiberal democracy is traced to the present constitution and the centralizing tendencies of the J.R. Jayewardene regime. While some successive power-crazed leaders have nurtured illiberalism, others have undertaken a limited constitutional reform. Yet, none of them have rejected illiberalism altogether and shown commitment to a liberal constitutional order. Likewise, the debate on political solution is centred on the 13th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution. Both the government and opposition leaders have a shared interest in failing every peace initiative and denying a permanent political solution. Together they form a barrier to comprehensive political reform in the country.

Ethnic war is an asymmetrical military contest for power in which vital interests of the groups are clearly at stake. Wining the war is, therefore, the fundamental objective of the com-batants. Compromise is hard to arrive at in negotiations, so long as the asymmetry of power between the ethnic parties is not altered. Thus, power assumes an important factor in determining the outcome. In this context, finding the linkage between both the war and peace processes, with each influencing the other, this article underscores the relevance of the theory of 'ripeness' to explain the phenomenon of war and peace. Power equivalence may induce a negotiation process as a 'mutually hurting stalemate' creates ripe moments for the end of the war. However, conditions to start negotiations are different from situations under which a negotiated political settlement is reached. Peace accords in ethnic wars are about power-sharing and autonomy. Generally, the focus is on creating new ethnically balanced institutions, while dismantling some of the centralised political structures. Reforming the State, constituting a part of the solution, would mean, to change its ethnic exclusive character and make it more inclusive one. A durable political solution in an ethnic war may spell out a new social and political contract between the warring parties for peace and development.