What this means is that to achieve peace based on internal self determination, Peace Talks negotiations are conducted between three layers of recursion where each recursion level feeds into and is fed from its neighbouring level of recursion. The first tier of negotiations is seeking the balance between cohesion and autonomy as required by R0 and R-1 where Sri Lanka is the supervening system negotiating cohesive requirements and the embedded race systems are negotiating for their autonomous requirements.
The second tier of negotiations is between each race community system (R-1) and their array of embedded systems (R-2). The critical point in the second tier of negotiations is that R-1 is now cast in the role of the supervening system seeking cohesion across its unique spectrum of embedded systems compared to its earlier role with R0 when its focus was negotiating autonomy.
Currently, in the absence of placing the Tamil embedded autonomous system (Tamils as represented by the LTTE) in its dual role as cohesive systems (e.g. to embedded Tamil sub- systems) what happens is the LTTE can get away with negotiating autonomous demands whilst ignoring the imposition on peer systems which is what cohesion seeks to address. To the extent consensus is not gained among the peer systems in acceding to Tamil demands, it accuses the GoSL of being unable to gain ‘Southern’ consensus (effectively the Sinhalese). In other words, the GoSL is burdened with the sole responsibility of gaining consensus rather than positioning peer systems to discuss, understand and hopefully absorb each others’ variety. This should aid agreements on cohesive restraints which integrate the otherwise heterogenous systems. It is pertinent to acknowledge that building integration in conflict situations calls for high orders of variety engineering. Attenuating entire systems from negotiations may be reducing the encompassing system’s variety-absorbing capacity. Such variety engineering needs to also factor in timing of negotiations and the
Chapter Three 146 cohesiveness of each of the peer systems compared to each other. This will be further discussed in Chapter Five.
Due to the non-recognition of the third layer of embedded systems the way is open for the second layer of embedment to impose dictatorial command on its sub-systems (i.e. third layer of recursion) whilst negotiating autonomy (devolution of power) in its relationships with its supervening system. This makes for non-consistent application of the principle where S1 of R0 negotiates for meaningful autonomous powers but that same system does not grant its embedded systems such autonomy. This is a particularly important point given the dictatorial style of governance the LTTE adopts which gave it the power to consolidate the Tamil voice and leverage to negotiate with the GoSL. Yet sustained peace is unlikely to take root under a command mode of governance. Deprived of voice, revolt is invited by sub-systems as already indicated by the Karuna faction of Eastern Tamils. In other words, the LTTE lacks experience in building cohesion across its heterogenous sub- systems except by exercising dictatorial command or using the dominance of one of its embedded systems. For example Northern Tamil hegemony, which ironically is the same disease they accuse the Sinhalese of perpetrating on Sri Lanka.
It must be acknowledged that a two tier system of negotiations does not automatically confer consistency of principles. However, what the Pre-Talks can negotiate is that the manner in which cohesion is enacted between R-1 and R-2 is in principle the same manner in which cohesion will be invoked between R-0 and R-1.
Let me explicate using two examples. If more autonomy (constitutionally known as devolution of power) is the rule of the relationship between R-1 and R-2 then that same rule is available for use between R-0 and R-1. Likewise, if meaningful non-discriminatory provisions override majority based decision making then that same rule is what needs to be carried forward in relationships between R0 and R-1. It is this type of interlocking transposition rules that will act to circumvent or at least reduce the hypocrisy that prevails where devolution of power and dictatorial command exists between neighbouring levels of recursion.
Chapter Three 147 Applying this type of interlocking, what we may find is that the system Sri Lanka will not be able to get away with its discriminatory legislation pertaining to religion or Presidential immunity. If it does, it opens the way for the Tamils to do likewise and negotiate the same in terms in its relationships with its supervening system, its peer systems and its embedded systems. Similarly, the ISGA proposal will not be able to get away with its majority ensured power base and therefore control, for that same privilege would then be available to the dominating Sinhalese in their relationship with the system Sri Lanka (as the Tamils convincingly argue currently prevails).
It is vital to realise the remedy lies in the amalgam of the design. Namely, enabling negotiations across the full spectrum of S1 embedded systems, involving paired sets of Peace Negotiation linking neighbouring layers of recursion (refer Figure 9) and interlocking the reciprocity of principles applied.
Set Two: Peace Talks between each R-1 system and all its embedded systems (R-2)
Sri Lanka (R0)
Other minor ethnic communities (R-1)
Sinhalese (R-1)
Muslims (R-1) Tamils (R-1)
Southern Province Sinhalese (R-2) Eastern Province Sinhalese (R-2)
etc …(R-2)
Northern Province Tamils (R-2)
Western Province Tamils (R-2) Estate Tamils (R-2)
etc …(R-2) Eastern Province Muslims (R-2)
Southern Province Muslims (R-2)
Veddhas (R-2)
etc …(R-2) Burghers (R-2)
Set One: Peace Talks between R0 and all its embedded systems (R-1) Key
etc …(-R2)
Figure 9 – Two sets of Peace Talks between Three Layers of Recursion