1.2. Majoritarianism in Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka emerged as an independent country in 1948. The leaders of the Sinhala community sought to secure dominance over government by virtue of their majority. As a result, the democratically elected government adopted a series of majoritarian measures to establish Sinhala supremacy.

When Sri Lanka gained independence in 1948, the Sinhala leaders, who made up the majority of the population, aimed to take control of the government. They believed that being in the majority meant they should dominate political decisions. This led to the implementation of laws and practices that favored the Sinhala language and culture, reinforcing their position at the expense of minority groups.

Consider a classroom where one group of students frequently displays their work in a way that makes it the only focus, while the interests of other groups are overlooked. This can create frustration and feelings of alienation among those who feel ignored.

In 1956, an Act was passed to recognise Sinhala as the only official language, thus disregarding Tamil. The governments followed preferential policies that favoured Sinhala applicants for university positions and government jobs. A new constitution stipulated that the state shall protect and foster Buddhism.

The 1956 Act made Sinhala the sole official language of Sri Lanka, which marginalized Tamil speakers. Educational and employment opportunities began to favor Sinhala-speaking individuals, leading to widespread resentment among Tamils. Additionally, the constitution's focus on Buddhism further alienated non-Buddhist communities, particularly Tamils.

Imagine a workplace where only one language is used for all communications and documentation, making it impossible for employees who speak another language to participate fully or advance in their careers.

All these government measures, coming one after the other, gradually increased the feeling of alienation among the Sri Lankan Tamils. They felt that none of the major political parties led by the Buddhist Sinhala leaders was sensitive to their language and culture. They felt that the constitution and government policies denied them equal political rights, discriminated against them in getting jobs and other opportunities and ignored their interests.

Over time, the consistent discrimination against Tamils created a strong sense of alienation. They felt excluded from political processes and decision-making, which deepened their grievances against the state. This alienation stemmed not just from language barriers but also from a lack of representation and fairness in opportunities.

Think of a sports team where only certain players get to make decisions and practice in their preferred positions, while others are sidelined. This can lead to dissatisfaction and a struggle for recognition among the overlooked players.

The relations between the Sinhala and Tamil communities strained over time. The Sri Lankan Tamils launched parties and struggles for the recognition of Tamil as an official language, for regional autonomy and equality of opportunity in securing education and jobs. But their demand for more autonomy to provinces populated by the Tamils was repeatedly denied. By the 1980s, several political organisations were formed demanding an independent Tamil Eelam (state) in northern and eastern parts of Sri Lanka.

As frustrations mounted, Tamils began to organize politically and demand rights and recognition. Their calls for Tamil to be an official language and for more control over regions where they lived were dismissed by the government, leading to increased tensions and conflict. Eventually, this culminated in the demand for an independent state, Tamil Eelam.

Consider a protest where a group continuously asks for a voice in decisions that affect them but is ignored repeatedly. Eventually, their frustration could lead to more drastic efforts to make their demands heard.

The distrust between the two communities turned into widespread conflict. It soon turned into a civil war. As a result thousands of people of both the communities have been killed. Many families were forced to leave the country as refugees and many more lost their livelihoods. The civil war has caused a terrible setback to the social, cultural and economic life of the country. It ended in 2009.

The ongoing distrust and refusal to acknowledge Tamil aspirations escalated into a full-blown civil war, causing extensive devastation and loss of life. The protracted conflict dislocated families and devastated the economic structure, drastically altering the nation’s fabric.

Similar to a neighborhood feud where clashes lead to destruction and the displacement of families, the civil war in Sri Lanka caused lasting scars on its people and society.

What do we learn from these two stories of Belgium and Sri Lanka? Both are democracies. Yet, they dealt with the question of power sharing differently. In Belgium, the leaders have realised that the unity of the country is possible only by respecting the feelings and interests of different communities and regions. Such a realisation resulted in mutually acceptable arrangements for sharing power. Sri Lanka shows us a contrasting example. It shows us that if a majority community wants to force its dominance over others and refuses to share power, it can undermine the unity of the country.

The experiences of Belgium and Sri Lanka teach us that effective power sharing is crucial for maintaining peace and unity in a diverse society. Belgium's approach emphasizes inclusion and respect for all communities, while Sri Lanka's majoritarianism led to conflict and division. Understanding these dynamics is essential for fostering harmony in multicultural nations.

Think of a group project where members must collaborate. If one member tries to dominate and makes all decisions without consulting others, resentment builds, and the project could fail. Collaboration and shared decision-making typically lead to better outcomes.

--