As Sri Lanka attempts to deal with the aftermath of the tsunami, the critical issue in the minds of everyone who wants to help, within the country and outside, is the function of the State as protector of its people. Questions such as could the State have contributed to some form of an early warning system, what immediate action should have been taken by the State to minimize the damage and what action should be taken now in dealing with the aftermath of the catastrophe, as well as other similar questions are now being asked.
In Sri Lanka, the concept of the State protecting its citizens however, has become a very cynical one during recent decades. The remark of the late president, J.R. Jayawardene that everyone must look after their own security, became a commonplace statement, indicating the attitude of the State towards its peoples’ security concerns. Each person for himself, and if there is peril you must only blame yourself: this was the ideology propagated from the top, which gradually sunk into the psyche of the people, who began to expect little from the State. The result was a nightmarish situation for the individual. The type of security problems that began to emerge is reflected by an extremely high crime rate, which often became the most frequent topic in public discussion.
The tsunami is now forcing the nation to rethink the concept of the state; questions such as what is the State for and what is the role of the people who hold the position of elected representatives in the government and opposition, are being voiced and will require answers. Pure cynical condemnation of politicians can no longer be the sort of position that people can take, publicly or privately. They who run for the State and become elected representatives have, above all, the radical duty of being the protectors of the people. Mere cynical dismissals of this duty on the basis that the protector has become the predator and the like, will not be sufficient to deal with the post-tsunami problems of Sri Lanka.
The country is now in a very vulnerable position. At present, much of what can be done in various areas, such as the clearance of dead bodies, creating some kind of identification system by photographs or otherwise of the dead, providing the enormous amount of medical care that is necessary to deal with existing illnesses as well as the possible health risks that may arise, dealing with the issue of displaced persons, particularly those who have lost all their belongings, dealing with transport and communications infrastructure and other vital human utilities, will depend largely on foreign donations and aid. However, the chief organiser for providing solutions to these problems is the State and the State must face its responsibility. As some of the leading bureaucrats themselves have pointed out, the State is in no way ready to deal with this task. This lack of readiness is not due mainly to the magnitude of the problem, the like of which has never been witnessed by the country, as pointed out by those involved in disaster management work. Rather, the fact is that Sri Lanka has not learned the necessary lessons from handling earlier disasters, albeit of a smaller kind. The idea of putting in place alert systems for possible natural disasters, making speedy interventions and accepting responsibility for putting the situation back to the status quo, are not among the habits formed by the Sri Lankan bureaucracy and its political establishment. If the present relief effort is to be based on earlier practices, the outcome will indeed be a very bleak one.
As awareness is raised globally to assist Sri Lanka to come out of this colossal crisis, the question of how the State will take responsibility and give leadership to the relief effort becomes a vital one. The present catastrophe cannot be addressed by way of ad hoc activities; the State must face up to its task in a manner befitting its role as the protector of the people.
Sri Lanka is a signatory to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This covenant obligates all state parties to protect the basic rights of their people to food, health, education and work, and in all matters relating to human well being. The maintenance of all basic elements that make human life possible and safe from peril is the duty of the State. In particular, the State must protect the poorer and most vulnerable sections of society, such as the elderly, children and women. It is these obligations and their implications that the Sri Lankan State must respect, protect and fulfill. It is the duty of all civil society organisations, while doing all they can to help in the relief effort, to ensure that the State carries out its obligations as protector of the people.
