UK Elections 2015: Why Let Migrants Out?

The upcoming UK general election appears to be too close to call. Regardless of who wins on May 7th, it is clear that one of the issues that has been contentious in the run up to but also after the elections, will be the issue of 'migrants' / diaspora / expats or whatever the terminology that is issued to describe them. Whilst UKIP is guilty of shamelessly playing the migrant card to a dangerously xenophobic level, the other political parties haven't really shied away from the debate, knowing that in the fluctuating economic climate, migrants become easy whipping boys. In addition certain elements of the media led by certain individuals have succeeded on jumping on an anti migrant train for their own commercial and publicity interests. If you are part of this loud club of minority opinion, then it is clear that migrants are a problem!

Yet the reality as is often the case is a marked 180 degree opposite of what these shrill voices claim it is. Few campaigns have sought to address the issues of migration and diaspora such as the campaign called "I am an Immigrant" which had recent posters on London undergrounds. There have been few studies that have also attempted to look at the positive contributions not only for migrants or diaspora towards the UK, but how they also contribute greatly (and by extension, promote a greater UK investment) in their countries of origin.

One such small piece of work undertaken in the last 2 years has tried to highlight the contributions of around 2.8 million people of the diaspora communities in the UK and makes for very interesting reading. If understood it potentially has implications for how such communities' social capital can be expanded for greater contriution to the UK and how the UK govt can extend its 'development footprint' in many countries around the world that it supports with overseas development assistance (ODA).

The work carried out by the organisation BUILD (Building Understanding through International Links for Development) entitled BUKDIP (Building on UK Diaspora International Partnerships) Illustrates that whilst diaspora communities contribute nearly as much in remittances as the entire population contributes through the aid budget, they also contribute greatly to the UK. They are more likely than most to pay taxes and less likely to claim benefits; and, although only 4.4% of the population, they account for 9.7% of employees in strategically important sectors. These are important figures to be cognisant of in this upcoming elections because for example as the report claims, "If every member of the diaspora stopped working, the NHS and other parts of UK plc would collapse". Yet despite this, the poorly informed characterization in debates on migration, terrorism and welfare that sitgmatise diaspora and migrants, have allowed a disproportionate focus to be placed on the diaspora. This in turn has led to isolation from national and local government as well a decline in social cohesion. The threats to the diaspora where action was required from others include: Increased xenophobia, arising from attitudes to migration, terrorism and benefits debates; Misconceptions: e.g. "scrounger" imagery for good tax-payers and low benefit claimants

The report advocates for a new approach with regards the diaspora which involves the recognition of diaspora as an integral part of British society and for greater engagement with government and private sector. In doing this, there are opportunities for increased impacts. With more effective engagement with the diaspora, the UK government (and INGOs) can effectively extend their development / humanitarian footprint within countries of heritage. In addition, the social capital of the diaspora can be utilised to make positive contributions to the UK communities. For example the net contribution to the UK economy is £3 billion.

Yet there is a character to engaging with the diaspora playing field that complicates matters. The diaspora communities, whether they are numerous and powerful; a minority struggling for a voice; or even an influential tiny cadre, have undeniably, as strong a history of internecine strife and struggle as they do of cooperation and collaboration. They often bring with them conflicts from their countries of heritage or their vision of their country of heritage is frozen at the time in which people left. Thus they can be removed from some of the real grassroots and political dynamics taking place in their countries of heritage. Nevertheless it is against this framework of potential inter and intra disagreement and division, that there is a need to engage with diaspora organisations and build and sustain links with them. In addition, there should be linking, between and within diaspora communities-and certainly diaspora hub, to diaspora hub.

In this day and age, the notion of partnership though is that in reality no organisation can operate in isolation in today's complex world. The partnerships are about encouraging institutions to work across traditional boundaries to enhance their core competencies.

Genuine cross cultural, diaspora partnerships, give back to both donors and recipients, who realise that cultural contacts alter fundamentally the way in which they interact, giving them the power and strength to work cooperatively.

this originally appeared on huffington post

On 26 December 2014, Sri Lanka commemorated the 10th anniversary of the Asian tsunami.

It was quite a muted affair given its symbolic place in history, largely overshadowed by an unwanted presidential election campaign. No one, though, would have predicted the political tsunami that saw close to 82% of people take part in the election on 8 January; saw a new president voted in; the army refuse to instigate a coup and the incumbent president Mahinda Rajapaksa having to concede defeat when only 3 million of an estimated 15 million votes had been counted.

Called two years ahead of time, the presidential election was always going to be a gamble taken by the incumbent to shore up popularity among the traditional Sinhalese Buddhist vote, and establish a platform to carve out his family dynasty in politics – largely reminiscent of what happens in south Asian politics.

However, six weeks after the campaign, that gamble backfired in what can actually be termed a shock defeat. Sri Lanka has a new president – Maithripala Sirisena, a former health minister, who gathered 51% of the vote after an unprecedented turnout at the polls. The mood of course is quite jubilant and for once there is hope, evidenced by the turnout to see the inauguration of the new president.

So what went wrong with the re-election of the incumbent president for a third time? The analysis of this election has to be done based on how the incumbent lost, rather than necessarily focussing on what the challenger did to win.

First, people have been talking about a need for change. The fact that corruption and nepotism had got so rampant, that press and general media freedom had got so bad, that the conduct of the politicians had become untenable and that there was the danger of the regime going down the route of authoritarianism, prompted people to talk about change.

Coupled with this was the feeling of isolation among the minority ethnic Tamils and Muslims and a growing intolerance of Sri Lanka’s multi-faith landscape by radical Buddhist monks(this link will open in a new window) (operating with impunity from the state), it was clear that the incumbent would have a lot to answer for. Because of this, there have been claims by many that he only lost the minority votes and hence the election.

However, the incumbent also lost votes from his traditional support base (going down from over 6 million to 5.7 million), allowing the new president to win the election with over 70% of the votes from the majority community. Numbers aside, the hope and aspirations are for change.

So what does this ‘good news’ story mean for Sri Lanka? The new president will have an uphill struggle on his hands. So much anticipation and expectation has been created that this could be difficult to handle if not managed properly. There will be the task of ensuring a political solution to the grievances of the minorities in a way that ensures that the country moves forward after 20 years of conflict. There will be a need to contain the Sinhalese Buddhist elements who seem intent on hammering the Sinhala nationalist identity home at the loss of the minorities’ stake in the country.

More importantly, however, there will be the task of arresting the moral and intellectual corruption that seems to not only pervade the political scene, but has also trickled down into society as a whole. Yet neither of the main candidates has presented a clear proposal for the reconciliation and integration of the society.

This is perhaps the gap that International Alert is best equipped to fill.

Over the last few years, our work in Sri Lanka with young political leaders, faith leaders and Sri Lankan youth based in the UK, has been about creating spaces for people to talk about a ‘positive peace’.

What this means in practice is about setting the conditions right for people to get to talk to each other, understand each other and eventually work with each other to solve their problems. Now more than ever, a window of opportunity has arisen for a paradigm shift in attitude for people to make a principled ‘change’. This principled change will have to insist on a radical overhaul of the whole system of party patronage, ethnic nationalistic representation and political ‘one-upmanship’.

This is the aspiration of the citizens of Sri Lanka (regardless of whether they are the majority ethnic and religious community or the minority; whether they are the urban elite or rural working class), that spoke loudly on 8 January.

Alert’s experience in supporting such dialogue and conversation could be vital in further strengthening local initiatives in realising these aspirations for a more inclusive and just political system and society.

this originally appeared here

Sri Lankan Elections 2015: Will There Be 'Change'?

Today, 8 January 2015, Sri Lankans will be heading to the polls to elect a new President. Unlike in previous recent presidential elections, it now seems that there is a real contender to challenge the incumbent and suddenly the apathetic Sri Lankan voter has become energized. Voter turnout is expected to perhaps be one of the highest seen for a long time. In pure Sri Lankan politics style, the main opposition challenges has emerged from within the ranks of the president's own party adding a Shakespearean twist to an already fascinating tale of intrigue, nepotism, corruption and so on. Where else would you find the president running against his former health minister who whilst still belonging to the same party is being supported by a coalition of opposition parties?

Elections are nothing new in Sri Lanka, and over the last decade or so, we seem to have had our annual share of them. The process of elections in Sri Lanka is a rather superficial attempt to paint a picture of democracy in action. For the last 60 plus years, the two main parties between themselves have held power with very little difference in policy, approach and effect. Policies and manifestos seem to come second. There has been a trend of 'political up-manship' where the main opposition party would wreck attempts by the party in power to ensure that the country would not benefit from decisive decisions made at critical junctures. As a consequence,when rival parties came to power, they have tended to undo what has been done by the previous opposition government much to the detriment of the country. Most voters are largely not policy based but are mostly entwined in party patronage with parliamentarians being mainly elected for their ability to redistribute resources, provide access to public sector goods and jobs, and develop infrastructure for supporters.

This election has seen its share of this patronage. Support has been garnered based on much one can get out of each candidate, and so there have been crossovers and counter crossovers (from each party) like musical chairs, as 'horse deals' ensure that politicians and their supporters needs are met. Circumstances have now changed and former allies have become enemies and former enemies have become allies with actions being taken sometimes bordering on the point of absurdity in some cases. Take for example, a member of the Buddhist nationalist party who had crossed over from the government to the opposition a few weeks earlier, would then re-cross back to the government side citing a change of heart and establish a much more stringent Buddhist party (as if to indicate that he had an epiphany twice). The rumors (if true) of the amount of money being paid for politicians to cross over is staggering and points to expediency rather than principle.

This in itself highlights the glaring weakness in Sri Lankan politics and the current state of affairs in the country. This election rather than focusing on policies and manifestos has boiled down to removing the incumbent not because of anything but largely that even in this 'winner takes all' culture that has traditionally existed, it seems that there is a threshold that the incumbent has now crossed.

Even for politicians representing minority communities who have come increasingly under attack by Sinhala Buddhist nationalist elements declaring their support for the incumbent, their recent switch from the Government to the opposition was more in line with political opportunism than principled stance. After all how does this explain for example many of the Muslim ministers suddenly talking about how the government was complicit in the rising anti Muslim violence and rhetoric when over the last 2 years, no one responsible for perpetrating that has been brought to justice? A principled stance would also challenge the opposition candidate to being more clear with concrete policies in his manifesto to deal with the minority communities, an accusation pointing to the weakness of the opposition policies.

There is also very little appetite for any intellectual analysis of the situation on the part of the general public, especially those that live in Colombo, which is as far removed from the realities of the country as it can be. Everyone is advocating for a regime change, tired of the cost that the country has had to endure in the post conflict era; tired of the corruption of the political system, tired of how Sri Lanka has become as a nation and society. However very few people are willing to discuss and address the root causes that have allowed the system to manifest itself like this.

Speaking to people mainly in Colombo, there are only two camps. Those who want the incumbent and those who want the main opposition candidate with very little room in between. People have forgotten that there are actually other candidates for the election as well. There is not really a middle path or alternative and no avenue for a middle path. Those that advocate such are a silent majority on the sidelines. Yet dig further and you will find that people have absolutely no clue as to why one should vote for the incumbent or the opposition. 'Well we need to get rid of Mahinda so that is why we want Maithree' has been the most common argument that I have heard '. 'Mahinda brought peace and developed the country' is another one that has been said with those saying it, not wishing to go into the criticisms leveled against the incumbent.

What all this means though is that for the first time in 20 years, the Sri Lankan electoral carnival has come to life. This is one of the positives for the election and for the country. Apathetic voters have become energized; new voters are excited; social media has been in overtime and it has become the mainstay of most conversations over the last month, be it at the annual wedding season that seems to affect Sri Lanka at this time, to discussions with taxi drivers or in restaurants. There is an anticipation and expectation for change. Thus the stakes are quite high for both parties to win or lose. A loss for the incumbent might mean a quick exit from the country if the rumour mill doing the rounds in Sri Lanka is to be believed in terms of assets already being transferred abroad. A win for the incumbent, might mean that the challenger (and many of the government MPs who joined him in challenging the president) would have to seek residence elsewhere.

Of course, no matter who wins the presidency, he will have an uphill struggle on his hands. So much anticipation and expectation has been created that this could be difficult to handle if not managed properly. There will be the task of ensuring a political solution to the grievances of the minorities in a way that ensures that the country moves forward after 20 years of conflict. There will be a need to contain the Sinhalese Buddhist elements who seem intent on hammering the Sinhala nationalist identity home at the loss of the minorities stake in the country. However more importantly there will be the task of arresting the moral and intellectual corruption that seems to not pervade the political scene but has also seemed to have trickled down into society as a whole. Yet neither of the main candidates has presented a clear proposal for the reconciliation and integration of the society and for really addressing some of this burning root causes.

This then begs the question: will there be a change if the main opposition candidate is voted in ahead of the incumbent? Whilst a new face will get into the driving seat, the vehicle and direction will be the same. The paradigm will not have shifted!

Thus frankly despite all the illusions of grandeur of talk of change and principles, the concept of being 'principled' and seeking change by electing the main challenger or even the incumbent becomes laughable. Both these candidates and the parties and alliance they represent are two sides of the same coin and at this critical juncture in Sri Lanka's history may not be able to offer anything of value for taking the country forward especially as it moves towards post conflict reconciliation. Picking the opposition candidate is at best, frantically grasping for a last minute consolation prize and it would be based on a limited understanding of the ground realities and ingrained prejudices. There will be nothing pure or principled about the choice. It is about the desperation of the situation, which we find ourselves in to change the person at the helm and which frankly I am also not opposed to.

So let us be realistic and honest about this. The choice is not about 'change' of the vehicle per se but about the 'change' of the driver. The vehicle remains the same and will pose the same challenges (perhaps to a lesser intensity than previously) for people. However the start perhaps has to be this change in the driver. But people need to realize that this is just the start and not the end.

If people do want to make a principled 'change', then there will need to be a paradigm shift that involves changing the vehicle. Variations on the same old themes can not be the order of the day. They will have to insist on a radical overhaul of the whole system of party patronage, ethnic nationalistic representation and political 'up-manship'. This is the principled change that Sri Lanka desperately needs in order to meet the aspirations of all its people (regardless of whether they are the majority ethnic and religious community or the minority; whether they are urban elite or rural working class).

Regardless of who wins in this election, it is clear that people want a change for a better equitable future that allows them to voice their concerns, whilst having the security and stability for their children to go to school. Petty rivalries will need to be forgotten. Past grievances will need to be looked into and addressed. This requires the support of all concerned from within Sri Lanka and outside of it. This aspiration and expectation cannot be left unfulfilled or simply ignored. The consequences of doing this could be disastrous for the future of Sri Lanka.

this originally appeared on Huffington Post

Tsunami 10 - A Missed Opportunity for Sri Lanka

Hypocrates once said that "healing is a matter of time, but it is sometimes also a matter of opportunity". Thus in tragedy there should be an opportunity to heal. In an ideal world a ten year reflection on the tsunami in Sri Lanka would wax lyrical about the developments of the country. Much would be written as to how the doors that were opened between faith and ethnic communities in the first few days after the tsunami would become opportunities to forge peace in a conflict affected land.

However like in many things in life, the aspirational is far removed from the functional. It is now 10 years since that fateful day of the 26th of December 2004 when the lives of many would be turned upside down forever by the Asian Tsunami. Sri Lanka was the second country next to Aceh in Indonesia to be severely destroyed by the tsunami and like Indonesia was in the midst of a floundering peace process. In the lead up to the 10 year anniversary there is much to reflect on. What worked; what didn't work; where could we have done better?

In the initial stages of the tsunami rehabilitation and reconstruction, Sri Lanka was well ahead of the game. Somehow though a mere 18 months later, the post tsunami reconstruction would grind to a halt as the machinery for conflict started to be ramped up which would end with the much publicised end of the conflict in 2009, whilst in Aceh, a peace process would ensure some political and security stability in a post tsunami reconstruction era.

In 2005, Bill Clinton coined the phrase 'Build Back Better' to describe what should happen in the aftermath of the tsunami. The tsunami was a turning point for Sri Lanka in terms of how it looked at itself and the rest of the world. However ten years on, the aftermath is perhaps not as rosy as we think it is. Despite the tremendous amounts of money that was generated for the victims, it is still disheartening to hear of tsunami survivors who ten years on are still waiting for help. In cases where entire villages were built by well-meaning NGOs, many of these have either been abandoned at worst or been neglected by local councils. There has to be greater local ownership and consultation so that $1000 apartments are not built for people accustomed to living in $20 tin shacks (only for the recipients to sell the apartments to property developers). There also has to be greater sensitivity to local contexts such that income streams are not inflated by NGOs providing jobs for the locals causing further problems later on, such as people being virtually unemployable because of the high salaries commanded, when the NGOs left. These are indeed pointers that the international humanitarian system has to think about. In the run up to the World Humanitarian Summit, it would do well to really commission a study of what worked and didn't work in terms of humanitarian work vis-à-vis the financing.

10 years on in Sri Lanka, we are once again gripped in a political upheaval in the middle of a presidential election that no one wants, facing an uncertain future that no one will dare speculate about. This is in spite of the end of the conflict in 2009 and numerous development achievements, all which took place despite the tsunami. Thus what should be a very sombre pause for reflection about the greatest natural disaster to strike Sri Lanka, has been relegated to the side lines of election campaigns and rhetoric in the midst of flooding caused by rains. Though there will be prayers held in various faith institutions around the country, along with safety drills, the value of really honouring those who perished (and subsequently survived) will not take place nor will some of the more truer lessons of the tsunami for Sri Lanka be understood or argued. This is sad because at this moment of time, what is needed is for Sri Lanka to rediscover that spirit and ethos that guided the initial post tsunami response as it still grapples with the post conflict transition amidst serious questions being asked about its governance and political future.

That spirit and ethos is represented by the outpouring of grief and support for the victims and survivors of the tsunami in the immediate aftermath of the tsunami before the government and international institutions started their response. For a brief moment, people forgot the divisions that separated them and concentrated more on what could unite them. For a brief period, regardless of what faith and ethnicity you were, what mattered most was that you were Sri Lankan. The post tsunami response before responsibility was abrogated to the government and the international community represents the single most opportune moment that Sri Lankans (of all ethnicities and faith) came together to help one another in the rebuilding. This for me represents the single most vital lesson of the tsunami. We were shown the value and vulnerability of life. Yet the tragedy of this lesson, is that we quickly forgot this and did not capitalise on it. We did not build the relationships that we once cultivated in those dark times, nor did we go out of the way to forge new ones. As quickly as we responded, we retreated into our silos. Consequently Sri Lankans remain as polarised as ever and in a post conflict setting with a new focus for peace, the minorities in particular feel disenfranchised and disempowered.

Whilst many will blame the political context and will of the day (which of course has a lot to answer for in setting the context), we can not shirk away from our personal responsibilities in allowing the state of affairs to arrive to the crunch that they are in Sri Lanka. Our personal relationships with and between different communities has much to say for how we value life as taught to us by the tsunami.

10 years on, there is a missed opportunity to reflect on from the tsunami which is the missed opportunity for people to build relationships with each other that could transcend political and religious biases. If anything, the election serves as an unwarranted distraction and the tsunami commemoration is relegated to a bystander at worst, unwilling participant in a race to gather votes.

10 years on, we should be reflecting on how we can once again build the relationships. This is vital for the country to move forward otherwise those that lost their lives in that terrible natural disaster and since then, would have lost it in vain

this originally appeared on Huffington Post

Rethnking International Development

As we near the 10 year anniversary of the tsunami, it is worth taking the time to reflect not only on what worked well but what has not worked well.  Over the last decade with the frequency of natural and manmade disasters increasing, the amount of money that has been fundraised and made available for organisations to respond has increased putting increased pressure for it to be spent effectively and efficiently.  The tsunami of 2004 was in fact the tipping point in terms of the money raised & spent (plus wasted) with the current Syrian crisis coming a quick second.

For a while many agencies that have been campaigning for greater transparency and accountability within the sector.  Calls for greater transparency have come in the wake of huge funding cycles being made available to agencies after the 2004 tsunami where agencies struggled to properly and efficiently utilise donated funds.  In the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake, it is still evident that many of the lessons that have been learnt from the South Asian tsunami and the Pakistan earthquake have not been taken on board.

However in scrutinising funds and fund allocations,  it shouldn’t constrain operations.  Additional levels of bureaucracy than already exists should not be brought.  Aid agencies already have enough hoops that they have to jump through in order to satisfy donor requirements and justifying the admin costs that are necessary.  This does mean that some of the smaller agencies who are doing great work on the ground miss out because they are unable ‘to meet such requirements’.

Thus a rethink of international humanitarian response and development should include methods of transparently accounting for funding.  It should also distinguish between emergency relief and long term aid.  Herein lies one of the fundamental problems with the current debate and dialogue on aid.  Long term aid and development is more needed and necessary but offers less tangible and visual results.  More importantly it survives the life cycle of standing governments.  Hence many governments are reluctant to follow up on verbal promises of aid packages. 

Witness the calls on G20 spending  by Oxfam, a call that is rapidly being repeated every couple of years when the G20 does meet, but which does not proceed farther than the rhetoric.  It seems that governments are just reluctant to move further on this or are content to regurgitate old rhetoric.

This in my mind is a problem.  The complacency of the government with regards this subject betrays not only the priority of international development and humanitarian assistance but also the importance of the work.

As we discuss a greater system of transparency and accountability, we should also measure not only efficiency but effectiveness.  More importantly, this discussion and dialogue needs to be set in place to change the paradigm of thinking on the issue as well as what is needed to change it.  The challenges of the globalised world along with climate change cannot and should not be addressed just from the west, but has to be done in consultation.  It should be realised that the current operational mandate with which International Development has operated in the last 60 years has some flaws which need to be revisited. 

Why it that at no point in time, has the world is contributed so much to alleviating poverty yet we seem to be in a losing battle.  Somewhere we have to stop and take a step back and examine our systems and processes.  We should be asking the question, ‘What is it that we are doing wrong with our International Development Strategy?’

Part of this reflection should also realise that there has been a birth of small charities and humanitarian organisations often set up by immigrants or the Diaspora.  They sometimes have a better reach into areas where the larger organisations do not as well as work on shoestring budgets with better energy and motivation.  Of course they will need to be guided in order to become more professional and to avoid pitfalls of bad governance.  This hand holding needs to take place at all levels...  Hence rather than giving to the UN, DFID should work with smaller organisations to mentor and lead them towards delivering on standards and many of the larger organisations need to come to terms with working with existing systems rather than trying to change them. 

Initially published in The News Hub

To remain complacent about the intricacies of the aid world and just continue giving aid and maintaining the status quo will be like putting a band aid on a deep cut.

Who do you think you are

Incidents that have unfortunately plagued the world for decades but become more pronounced over the last 8 years or so, show an increasing ‘emphasis’ for political violence flavoured by faith, culture and identity where the world is seen through a singular lens of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ and  an ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ attitude.  This unhealthy uni-polar view, congruent to a ‘Clash of Civilisation’ concept, has led to ambiguities and complexities with regards the perception of current global conflicts and the pivotal role played in the popular mobilisations against the West from sections of disaffected Third World Opinion.   In particular, one key source of trans-national conflict has stemmed from the rise of political Islam as a force in international relations, the end of the Cold War and the emergence of distinct tensions between Western countries with a Christian heritage and countries, around the world, with a distinct Muslim heritage. 

Often one of the key catalysts for these global conflicts  and the ethnic / faith identity violence that stems from them, is the issue of poverty  and  the process of allocation of resources, which perpetuates the view through this singular lens and ensures that  a vicious cycle of competition is generated and maintained.  Many will argue though that in the globalising world of today such rivalry, competition, conflict and ultimately violence are a necessary tool to preserve the ‘values of freedom’.   However the violence we have seen to date has been perpetuated from deeply delusive and divisive assumptions of single exclusive identities by sectarian activists, who want people to ignore all affiliation and loyalties in support of one specific identity.    Such exclusive identities are negative, stressing difference rather than belonging and ‘opposition to’ rather than ‘support for’ something. Unfortunately whilst faith may rarely be the original source, it often becomes the arena in which conflicts are played out.  The result is that conflicts manifest themselves into rumour, hearsay and generalization which are the first steps towards the stereotyping of people (their faith, their culture and identity) and the denial of a diverse, lived reality, the opposite of respect, understanding and acceptance. As a consequence, faiths (beliefs, culture and identity) become judged by the attitudes and actions of small and aberrant minorities. 

It is precisely in this scenario with the world experiencing such kind of  turmoil, that there are calls for new solutions.  With the collapse of socialism, and now with the global financial crisis, an apparent sign of the failure of capitalism, this search for the new solutions has intensified, to look for answers outside the box that will address the turmoil and their causes. 

Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen’s premise in his book ‘Identity and Violence’ is that the key to good citizenship and social cohesion is the encouragement and retention of multiple identities. People have several enriching identities: nationality, gender, age and parental background, religious or professional affiliation. They identify with different ethnic groups and races, towns or villages they call home, sometimes football teams; they speak different languages, which they hope their children will retain, and love different parts of their countries.   It is the recognition of this plurality and the searching for commonalities within this pluralism that will lead to greater respect and ultimately understanding and acceptance.

Thus these new solutions will have to challenge people to accept diversity and create equal opportunities for diverse communities, ethnicities, traditions, cultures and faiths.  The new solutions will also have to take into account  the existence of multiple identities which add a richness and variety to diversity and pluralism as part of a common wealth that needs to be celebrated in the global civil society and integrated into life as a positive force for development. 

The role of faith and spirituality in particular in the search for new solutions will be very important as it offers a simple and easy access to communities (strong in their spiritual and faith teachings) and a simple language to express the commonalities of existence and create the prerequisites for forgiveness, respect, understanding and acceptance.  Whilst dialogues are a beginning it is important that engagement goes beyond this, engaging practically with faith leaders and communities, to help resolve and avoid conflict and achieve gains that make a difference to people’s lives

In Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers, Kwame Anthony Appiah writes eloquently of the urgent need for ‘ideas and institutions that will allow us to live together as the global tribe we have become’ (2006: xiii).  The roots of all global crises can be found in human denial of the eternal principle of peace.   In order to fight this denial there needs to be self-critical reflection.  Sir Richard Burton once wrote that  ‘All Faith is false, all Faith is true: Truth is the shattered mirror strown In myriad bits; while each believes his little bit the whole to own’ (The Kasidah of Haji Abdu El-Yezdi), where he meant that you will find parts of the truth everywhere and the whole truth nowhere.  The shattered mirror concept enables us to see that ‘each shard reflects one part of a complex truth from its own particular angle’. Our mistake in the world today is to consider ‘our little shard can reflect the whole’ (Ibid: 8).

This is the current problem with all spiritual and religious teachings that everyone thinks that their little truth is the whole truth.  However if we think in the grander scheme of things (beyond theology and ideology) to unite humanity with peace, respect and understanding, then each of us (with our faith and spiritual teachings) have a bit of that shard of broken glass. This can be pieced together on issues of commonality, as opposed to focusing on our points of difference. Then we would have made the first step towards  spiritual reconciliation between communities. 

Thus all of the differences mentioned above represent small shards of glass which, in the analogy of Kwame Anthony Appiah, require careful positioning to create a compelling mosaic.  The initiatives described above then offers an antidote to sectarianism, the polarisation of different faiths in multi-cultural societies and the potentially divisive effects of selective aid flows to particular faith communities.   In particular, the partnership between Muslim Aid and UMCOR represents a template for a large cosmopolitan mosaic seeking to piece together the broken shards of a greater truth of serving humanity.  There is a need to remain committed to engineering the software needed to work effectively in a range of situation. This will never be easy, but remains vitally important for, as Kwame Anthony Appiah illustrates, it involves creating the very ‘ideas and institutions that will allow us to live together as the global tribe we have become’.

Initially published in The News Hub

Myanmar: The International Community's Dilemma

As international community focus centres on the events unfolding in Gaza, in Myanmar, the silent genocide of the Rohingyas is still continuing as it has been for decades previously. Like the Palestinians, the Rohingya are not only stateless or lack citizenship rights, they are officially in the eyes of the Government of Myanmar, identity less. Like the Palestinians with Israel and Zionism, the Rohingya are also dealing with a racist and xenophobic system & culture that links ethnicity to religion, a purist form that ironically saw an emergence in the early 20th century with Nazism.

The entire Myanmar nation is complicit, from the president down to the grassroots, in terms of how the Rohingyas are perceived, accepted and treated. The situation is so bleak that calls for the extermination of the race of the Rohingyas are not uncommon. This intolerance is not just reserved for the Rohingya community, but observers will testify that it exists towards Muslims (and even Christians) i.e. anyone non Buddhist. These anti minority sentiments especially against the Muslims are not as some claim an 'unfortunate social consequence of transition from authoritarianism to democracy'. They are part of a decade long persecution of the community in the country often led by the authorities who have manufactured, endorsed, committed and allowed to be committed such violence. Myanmar's military in particular have played a large part in manufacturing this Burman-Buddhist nationalist ideology and institutionalizing a culture of fear and distrust of minorities. In recent times, the Military have taken a back step largely due to Myanmar's chairmanship of ASEAN as well as planned elections of 2015 as reasons why there has been a restrained effort by the government whilst indirectly proxies have been allowed to perpetuate the violence and keep alive this xenophobic nationalistic rhetoric.

It is this fear of "the other" within Myanmar's society especially when it comes to the issue of the Rohingyas that are the "elephant in the room" for the international community much more adept at black-and-white depictions of Myanmar's history as a struggle between military and "democratic" civilian forces. So far the international community have failed to put pressure on the Government or indeed its famous opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi (who has famously remained reticent on this issue). It is also an issue that donors have been reluctant to chastise the government on. If anything, the international community has gone out of its way to avoid unnecessary criticism for the fear that it could jeopardise not only the transition of the country to democracy but more importantly the economic benefits that such a transition could bring.

This can only be the reason to explain the meekness behind certain actions of the international community this year itself. Take for example, the recent apology issued by UNICEF for using the term Rohingya in an official document, something that they tried to deny. Or the violence in March of this year that saw the destruction of millions of dollars of assets of the UN and other INGOs, which caused the agencies to withdraw for a few months from humanitarian operations in the affected areas of the Rakhine State. Despite such wanton destruction, unlike in other country there was hardly an international outcry.

The recent census which took place at the beginning of the year supported largely by the international community against the advice of activists and observers is yet another example of a confused position. Despite the government's undertakings to allow a self-identification of the Rohingya as well as an agreement on allowing Rohingya enumerators to conduct the census, both of these promises were broken. People were not allowed to self -identify while in some cases, officials had to be bribed in order for people to be allowed to participate in the census. The recent violence in Myanmar's second biggest city Mandalay against the Muslim community has sparked fears of a demographic redistribution in the preemption of a census not showing the desired ethnic distribution by the extreme elements of Myanmar.

This reluctance by the International Community to engage on the issue in the hope that democracy will wash away the problems is ideologically problematic. It doesn't fully comprehend the history of community relations; minority existence and ethnic tensions of the country. There are deep seated problems which cannot be solved merely through elections and a legal system. It needs a deeper engagement between faiths and a deeper social understanding of the concept of citizenship. This needs time and patience. It needs to undo the power of the military (and their vision of nationalism) and the influence that they have even within some of Myanmar's Buddhist monasteries.

Building trust and better relationships between ethnic groups from the grassroots level should be a priority for the Myanmar government supported by the International Community. A democratic system is not just about elections, but about citizenship and understanding basic notions of political rights. Much more effort and investment needs to be undertaken to ensure that these mechanisms and institutions are set right at the grassroots level before imposing a top-down electoral process. More must be done to hold the government accountable for the role it has played in supporting organizations and movements responsible for inciting hatred and violence. Its institutions need to understand the basis of the rule of law and ensuring safety and security for all.

Otherwise, there is a great danger of repeat violence prior to next year's elections. Myanmar and its people need to fundamentally understand the roles, rights and responsibilities of citizens in a multicultural, democratic country. This takes time, effort and investment and cannot and will not be solved by prematurely pushing for a census or elections. Programs at all levels of society need to be quickly developed to teach people how they can be part of a democratic process.

If Myanmar is to truly join the global community, the floor must be open to debate the issues of the Rohingya and other ethnicities. Approaching the problem both sensitively and directly, unlike even powerful figures in the pro-democracy movement, has to be part of the international community's much-needed road map for this country. If the foundations of democratic understanding at the grassroots level are not built, the 2015 elections will be a superficial showpiece and Myanmar runs the risk of retreating back into its shell.

this originally appeared on huffington post