Political Obstacles to Justice and Reconciliation Mechanisms in Sri Lanka

After more than three decades of armed conflict, Sri Lanka continues to struggle to meet internal and external demands, which call for independent, transparent and accountable mechanisms to address human rights abuses and past mass atrocities. When authoritarian President Mahinda Rajapaksa was ousted in the January 2015 Presidential election by an unexpected rival, optimism for a more cooperative approach surged. However, this paper argues that the current government has outlined political distinctions between Sirisena and Rajapaksa, but their positions on key reconciliation mechanisms are comparative. It demonstrates this through a review of political documents and policy positions, and provides an analysis of statements, commitments, and engagements made internally and at the international level, presented in contrast with contradictory remarks made by Sri Lankan authorities

Sri Lanka: An Ethnocratic State Endangering Positive Peace in the Island

Although proclaimed as a democratic republic, the Sri Lankan state is strongly controlled and ruled by Sinhala Buddhist influence due to a deep engrained belief that the island belongs to the Sinhala Buddhists. The modus operandi of the Sri Lankan state apparatus outlines the ethnocratic characteristics of the state. This mono-ethnic and mono-religious attitude has led to the widening and deepening of the discrimination against a particular ethnic group known as the Tamils who traditionally inhabit the North and East of the island. Ethnocracy continues to be defended and justified by the state in the name of sovereignty, territorial integrity and national security and has led to further polarization of the already divided ethnic groups. As a consequence and outcome of the ethnocratic nature of the Sri Lankan state, a bloody war erupted between successive governments of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). After nearly 38 years the prolonged war came to a brutal end in May 2009 amidst blatant violations of international law. However, the root causes of this conflict, which occurred due to ethnocratic nature of the state, have not yet been addressed resulting in the continuation of the ethnic conflict despite the end of the war.