Peace Building and Capacity

There is no doubt that the government has the greater responsibility to ensure that the requisite legal frameworks, policy implementation mechanisms for peace to be sustainable and for reconciliation to be meaningful. In present context of increasing direct internal regulation, it appears that when the international community calls for greater transparency and accountability for present government (good governance), what is meant is greater accountability to the international community rather than to citizens in the country; the policy-making process may have been opened up to review by human rights commission and some individual countries such as the Britain, USA, Canada and the EU etc. also, it is clear that administrative capacity-building under UNHRC auspices, which focus on policy outcome through internal and externally managing the policy process, has the unintended outcome of undermining institutional capacities. In fact, takes the policy process further away from elected representatives and their constituents.  

It is clear that administrative capacity-building talks are being held under the auspices of the UN Human Rights Commission (according to them there are some contradiction issues with the both governments, past regime and present), which focuses on policy outcomes and peace building slow progress through internal institutions managing the policy process, has shown since war end 2009.   

For example, the human rights and minority representation; should be drawn up a comprehensive programme for the promotion of multi-ethnic coexistence and for the protection of minority groups in the country

The government is a central part of assistance to make peace building, whose expertise (local) and assistant would have bought in drawing up and overseeing administrative procedures through the long-term mission and training with the support of the international community; developing and implementation of policies being dependent upon state-based democratic processes. For example, the human rights and minority representation; should be drawn up a comprehensive programme for the promotion of multi-ethnic coexistence and for the protection of minority groups in the country. In areas of minority rights, the internal drawing up and imposition of policy can increase fears and concerns. However, the stability pacts assume that the internal establishment of campaigns among the Sinhala majority and around minorities are questions, to get beneficial we need to establish trustworthy human rights protection centres and urges that legislation reviews and awareness campaigns and promotion of the population are important activities.  

The stability pact has gone slow direction through, it’s good governance programme by dint of the unstable political situation (the country heading to three directions of the political campaign for the power struggle without concerning the country’s major issues) in the country and they have forgotten focusing on the development of local and provincial governments and the establishment of institutions and the reform of public administration. This may result in policy-making that runs the risk of failing to recognize local problems or to adapt to local circumstances. Example provincial council administration issues and more serious risk is that the fragmentation of the domestic political process (what we are experiencing today). If regional and local assemblies or ethnic and national minority groups are to encourage seeking external support; this may cause friction or lead to a breakdown relationship with central government institutions.  

In areas of minority rights, the internal drawing up and imposition of policy can increase fears and concerns

Civil Society  

Having considered peace process progresses slowly in the country, the civil society, particularly we need an independent media and NGOs support (trustworthy) vital to the good governance process (but unfortunately we are unable to see much of it today) ‘there is also a need for a more active civil society, requiring not only greater openness and accountability on the part of the government but also access to funding to empower the general population, media and non-governmental organization to generate this activity’ (EC, 2001a:10). What we can see today, this artificial and dishonest drive to empower civil society in Sri Lanka, results in a highly bureaucratized process of all activities. Civil society is to be turned to in the attempt to substantiate the argument that external and internal regulation is led by the demand of those with the correct understanding of the ‘genuine’ needs and interests of their society, if this work as an artificial and dishonest drive to empower civil society that would be resulted in a highly bureaucratized process and policy initiative would be jeopardized and isolated from the civil society themselves.  

In addition to that political motivates groups and individuals support to civil society are in many ways, such as media discussion, star class hotel conferences and political stage etc., are inadequate and it covers a very minor elite group within the population; Consequently, these groups are professionalized, it separates itself from the grassroots problems and social reality. We can see hundreds of round tables and workshops are produced and attended by the same group of people in the civil society.   

We can see hundreds of round tables and workshops are produced and attended by the same group of people in the civil society

In the peace building policy process can have unintended results of marginalizing public participation further by isolating policy-making from broader constituency and legitimizing policy made by international influence with only limited elite group consultation, this would be helped …where the public consensus collapses, a political opportunity goes to create for anti-reform parties, including intolerant nationalists in all ethnic groups to challenge to the peace building program. In such a situation, we all have an equal responsibility in peace building and we have the potential for self-initiative, for making something than waiting for things to happen, and for resistance, perhaps not on a grand scale, but certainly at the level of the individual and the personal, when it comes to lasting peace building and reconciliation process in the country.