groundviews » Have NGOs failed in peacebuilding? An interview with Jehan Perera

Have NGOs failed in peacebuilding? An interview with Jehan Perera

April 26, 2009 at 12:55 am · Categories: Constitutional Reform, Human Rights, Human Security, IDPs and Refugees, Jaffna, Media and Communications, Peace and Conflict, Politics and Governance | by Sanjana Hattotuwa

I recently interviewed Dr. Jehan Perera, Executive Director of the National Peace Council. Jehan is also a columnist for the Daily Mirror and the Lanka Monthly Digest in Colombo. He holds a Doctor of Law degree from Harvard Law School and a BA in economics from Harvard College.

Based on his significant experience as a civil society activist, I asked Jehan whether NGOs in particular had fostered any appreciable difference in the quality of governance in Sri Lanka. Jehan stated that after a quarter century of working in civil society, he was acutely aware how little impact it had in shaping the political agenda in Sri Lanka and could in no way compare with the power and reach of a politician or political party.

Jehan noted that the fundamental issue was for Sri Lanka’s continued strife was the confusion of majority rule with democracy. Agreeing that while the LTTE is close to defeat militarily, he also stressed the need to address the underlying causes of what gave rise to the LTTE. Without this he noted, combined with support from sections of the Tamil diaspora and the continuing grievances of the Tamil people, the LTTE could retain a presence in the country and act as a spoiler to any peace and developmental process.

Jehan spoke about the challenges of peacebuilding in a context of war and violence, the power of NGOs to shape the political and peace agenda, possible scenarios after the military defeat of the LTTE, his hope for the growth of dissent, the chances of legitimate Tamil grievances being addressed and the need for a united Sri Lanka that recognises the right to self-determination.

1,776 have read this this article so far. You may also find these articles interesting:

Who is afraid of NGOs? ‘The normal types of NGOs—advocacy organizations, service delivery groups, cultural organizations and others—generally contribute to democracy, not threaten it. They do so by pushing for greater accountability and increasing citizen participation. Governments that feel threatened by NGOs are usually non-democratic governments’ Thomas Carothers When governments have wanted to make peace with the LTTE, they have not been... Chulani Kodikara, June 12, 2008
In conversation with Prof. Sumanasiri Liyanage Prof. Sumanasiri Liyanage, who has written to Groundviews regularly, teaches political economy at the University of Peradeniya, is a well-known political analyst, columnist and on the Board of the South Asia Peace Institute (SAPI). We began our short conversation with the crisis facing the main opposition party in Sri Lanka, the United National Party, flagging serious issues... Groundviews, August 17, 2010

Permalink | Share this article on Facebook

sam said,

April 26, 2009 @ 3:47 am

I do not necessarily subscribe this statement;

“Jehan noted that the fundamental issue was for Sri Lanka’s continued strife was the confusion of majority rule with democracy.”

The reason is Jehan seems to be confused what democracy is all about: One definition of democracy when Googled gave me following result:

“majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group”

So the notion that there is a confusion between democracy and majority rule is just utter nonsense. Try getting something done by the government other language than in French in France. Good luck!

The real problem Sri Lanka has not what Jehan seems to be saying but rather lot of the policies that have far reaching implications on the citizens day to day life are devised and implemented and frequently changed without careful thought through.

Foodie said,

April 26, 2009 @ 9:46 am

NGOs treat peacebuilding as a issue of the people. I always find them talking about how to build peace between people of different ethnicities on a grassroots level.

But this war is not a grassroots war – it’s a political war. The war has been dragging on all these years not because the Tamil or Sinhala people wanted it but because the LTTE wanted it.

So the NGOs have failed in peacebuilding because they target the wrong groups.

For maximum impact, they shouldn’t be holding workshops with people in rural areas; they should be lobbying the political elite and the demagogues that occupy the space. This, obviously, doesn’t work so the NGOs spend time in useless community based peace building activities.

Were I cynical (god forbid), I might even say that continuous failure in peacebuilding is for NGOs what continuous war is for arms dealers. Succeeding in peacebuilding means cutting off their income. If I were them, I certainly wouldn’t do it.

Nuwan said,

April 26, 2009 @ 3:13 pm

While I appreciate Jehan’s efforts, I think we shouldn’t lose sight of the deeper malaise within our society, especially in the Sinhalese and Tamil segments. People claim that devolution of power will solve all our problems but who does that really help? 39% of Tamils live in Colombo, with a total of some 54% in the south. What effect will this devolution have on them?

The real problem is that we haven’t forged a true Sri Lankan identity which is independent of race. No amount of devolution will change this fact. The real effort should be in the forging of a true identity which celebrates the diversity of a multi-ethnic, multi-religious country.

Any form of administrative setup that cements racial divisions means that the racists amongst us have won. It doesn’t matter whether it’s Sinhalese racism which started it, or whether you excuse Tamil racism as being reactionary, racism is racism is racism. Any form of devolution along racist lines is also racism, and it means that people who are not interested in this primitive “race” concept have lost. It will only help some racist who wishes to mingle with his “brothers” in a mono-ethnic utopia. We need to address the real problem, not plaster it with some band-aid (I understand that temporary measures like “devolution” may be necessary given the current circumstances, I’m speaking of the long-term).

Perhaps if the pro-LTTE Tamil diaspora now spend the millions of dollars they formerly used to fund a racist terrorist group and its well-oiled propaganda machine, and instead redirect it towards propaganda for forming this Sri Lankan identity, we might be looking at creating a society which sees beyond these primitive notions. Perhaps they might use that same funding to suppress their own racism, whatever the excuse.

I think many young Sri Lankans now thing of it that way and the identity campaigns in the past have greatly helped. This is what we should really be fighting and working towards so that we have a truly plural society.The more the words “Sinhalese rights” and “Tamil rights” is used, instead of “Sri Lankan” rights, the more it belies the racism of the person using them.

rajivmw said,

April 26, 2009 @ 5:31 pm

I agree with much of what Foodie and Nuwan are saying. The National Peace Council never really offered any ideas, any vision of a way forward, beyond its tireless (and some would say tiresome) advocacy of a negotiated settlement with the LTTE.

Nevertheless, I think Dr. Perera is a man of immense courage, compassion, and sincerity. He has been so unfairly villified for so long, even by people who should know better. By his character and nature alone, so depressingly rare in these thuggish times, he brings me some hope for our future.

And thank you Sanjana for an excellent interview.

Sabes said,

April 26, 2009 @ 8:11 pm

I am making some observations about the limitations on what NGOs can achieve in SRI Lanka and the possible reasons for such limitations.

Before I do that a comment in support of \jehan’s work.
I support the type of sentiments that people like Jehan Perera are working which is a for an equal , diverse and inclusive society. I agree with him, that enjoying one’s right of self determination should not be proportional to the percentage of ones ethnic group in that country. How the State creates the legal and social framework for all peoples to perceive that they are respected and equally treated is fundamental for future resolution and peace.

NGO’s
There are NGOs with peace, development or relief objectives. In theory all these objectives are capable of producing peace and resolution. In reality, they have not achieved their objectives. This can be seen as a ‘failure’ or an interim assessment of a longer term project.

Taking the strand of ‘Failure’, I would say that the NGO’s focusing on peace have not found a way of working at the level of Government and policies. This may be due to the inadequacy of their analysis or the inappropriateness of NGO lead peace interventions in a complex situation as the one in Sri Lanka. My second point on the ‘failure’ of NGOs is that they have a not develop people’s capacity to resolve conflicts in their communities.

I would put forward the following as the reasons for their failure.
1 NGO’s have not grasped and devised programmes for racially diverse society whose problems are historical and policy based. Some may say that the problems are culture and society based, but I think such conflicts are relatively temporary and joined government and civil society actions can overcome them in a few years.

2 The NGOs working on relief and development worked exclusively with one community. So they came to be seen as Tamil or Sinhala, Muslim friendly NGOs. This did not contribute to the government or the public as a whole warming up to them.

3 Finally, the Sri Lankan community needs increased self governance. In ideal situations where NGOs work with the cooperation of the governments and local political stakeholders, capacity building and governance building work will have less resistance. In Sri Lanka, this is not the case. This is the case at least for now. Neither LTTE nor the Government trust people being empowered and taking their destiny in their own hands. After the defeat of LTTE this may become even difficult because of the fear of destabilisation. This work of political nature and very much of class nature. I am very doubtful that NGOs can do this type work for future building.

In conclusion, I would like to put forward that unless NGOs can engage with the Government and other power stake holders there is very little impact they can make in terms of actual conflict resolution and long-term peace. Even then they can only make limited contributions. Whatever they do they should not claim that they are able to resolve what in fact, people based political processes have to resolve.

Mythbuster said,

April 27, 2009 @ 10:20 am

Early days, NGOs really did some job for the community. Later
with so much funds flowing in and other benefits like occasional foreign trips, people involved with NGOs really got spoiled. Many NGO staff are Colombo Folks. Honestly, they inherently have less interest in the happening in the country and its people. If you interview any westerner, whatever political inclination he or she has, they love their country and never betray it. But the Goverenment recent war against LTTE terrorism and the response showed so far by these NGOs is less than satisfactory. During each killing spree carried out by LTTE (remember – not army personal, but innocent unarmed civilians)these NGOs never utter a word of dis-satisfaction, which implies the encouragement of such atrocities. It was well observed that many NGOs in Sri Lanka including so called “Peace Council” are bias and support for LTTE terrorism.

Therefore I have no faith in these NGOs and people like Jehan Perera who betray their birth country in the hour of need.

jan said,

April 27, 2009 @ 11:45 am

if you claim you are a tamil you will always be in the minority in Sri Lanka. It has nothing to do with democracy. If tamils wish to be a part of the majority they have to identify with the majority sinhalese in the national parties . As long as they continue to be represented by minority parties they will continue to be a minority. It is this narrow nationalism and arragonce of the tamil leaders like chelvanayagam who have brought us to this state. unfortunately this mindset is there in all the communities that collaborated with the British who after independence feel they have lost the dominent role in society.

punitham said,

April 29, 2009 @ 4:06 am

USAID DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE : SRI LANKA ASSESSMENT, December2006:

”Donor-funded peace building efforts are often disconnected from structural changes in the state; conflict exists not simply because people don’t like each other but because of unjust institutions and structures. Without fixing the institutions and structures, it is not clear how much progress can be made in working with communities alone.”

punitham said,

April 29, 2009 @ 4:10 am

Aid, Conflict & Peace Building in Sri Lanka 2000 – 2005, J. Goodhand and B. Klem(2006)
”In spite of the ceasefire agreement and peace negotiations, the structural dimensions of the conflict within Sri Lanka have remained relatively stable. There has been no “seismic shift” in the “tectonic plates” underpinning conflict in Sri Lanka. The constellation of factors that contributed to the outbreak and sustenance of violent conflict – including the nature of the state, its political culture, the institutional framework of policy, uneven development patterns and competing nationalisms – remains largely unaffected by the peace process.”

punitham said,

April 29, 2009 @ 4:14 am

Development Dilemmas:Challenges of Working in Conflict and Post Conflict situations in South Asia, DFID Conference, 5 – 6 March 2007:

‘’Economic growth is not an alternative to political conflict resolution. In Sri Lanka donor pressure to address development issues and post conflict reconstruction in 2002/3 could not make up for the lack of political progress in dealing with the central issue of the conflict. Aid became a distraction from the peace process, and then a point of division. ”

amila said,

May 5, 2009 @ 5:42 pm

INGO and NGO -
take a look – they buy landcrusers and prados’ for head of NGO’s in colombo while these super luxsury vehicles are actually not needed in colombo- over kill in expense…

we should make sure atleast few non-executive directors are on the boards of all NGO’s and INGO’s to make them accountable for SL law.

Jank said,

May 10, 2009 @ 10:41 am

It is difficult to develop our country without having economic opportunities for people. Economic development should be focused on the east and North. Creating tourist resort areas, industrial development and tax holidays for new businesses in the north should be introduced. Fishing, farming and other areas should be tried. When people have economic opportunities to pursue, they will less likely to line up with a race. Now the problem with the Vanni is the question that what skills do people have? Can they even manage the self-rule if it is given? But under the circumstances, it will inevitable that at least a limited autonomy should be granted to those that asks for their rights. But then how can the tax from the south be allocated to make the economy going in the self-rule areas?

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI