Devolution by Brainwashing

Has any new Constitution anywhere been marketed as strenuously as ours, and under so many aliases? What is being marketed is, in nomenclature of decreasing accuracy, A New Constitution, a.k.a. The Devolution Proposals, a.k.a. The Devolution Package, a.k.a. The Package, a.k.a. The Peace Package.

The techniques of prootion have become so relentlessly intrusive that they warrant identification and dissection, particularly because most of the targets of manipulation may be unaware how they are being influenced. The profusion of fallacies in reasoning also needs to be highlighted.

Decades ago, psychologist Robert H. Thouless published a classic entitled "Straight and Crooked Thinking", highlighting fallacies in reasoning, pitfalls in analogy, and tricks of persuasion. The current campaign promoting devolution offers fascinating illustrations of many techniques described by him.

Power of suggestion
Dealing with tricks of suggestion, Thouless wrote, "...if statements are made again and again in a confident manner, without argument or proof, then their hearers will tend to believe them quite independently of their soundness and of the presence or absence of evidence for their truth. More particularly will his hearers tend to accept the suggestion of a speaker if he has what we may call "prestige" the acknowledged dignity of authority possessed by Cabinet Ministers, bishops,...." Repeated affirmation, a confident delivery, and prestige are the essence of the technique.

Consider now four types of statements constantly being made "again and again in a confident manner, without argument or proof".

• The devolution proposals will bring peace and eliminate expenditure on the war.
• The devolution proposals are the only solution to the conflict.
• Those who oppose the devolution proposals are chauvinists/ racists/ extremists/ warmongers/ hardliners/ arms dealers.
• The devolution package will be a lasting solution to the ethnic problem.

There is no doubt that many who listen to these statements over and over again "tend to believe them quite independently of their soundness and of the presence or absence of evidence for their truth".

A study of these statements suggests that there is no evidence of their truth because:

• No one, however powerful, can guarantee that the proposals will bring peace. Indeed, Professor G. L. Peiris has written (Sunday Observer of 10th August 1997 and Daily News of 19th August 1997) that it is most unlikely that the conflict with the LTTE will end as soon as devolution becomes effective, that devolution is not an instant solution to the conflict, and that the way to peace may be long and hard.
  
• If the proposals are declared to be the only solution, there is an implication that other solutions have also been considered. But there has been no public discussion of any alternative solutions. How then can it be said that devolution is the only solution? Here it is worth recalling a comment by management consultant Peter Drucker: "..a decision without an alternative is a desperate gambler's throw, no matter how carefully thought out it might be. ...If one has thought through alternatives during the decision-making process, one has something to fall back on.." The basic question also arises how any solution can be formulated when policy-makers have resolutely avoided defining the problem.
  
• Thousands of ordinary, peaceful citizens who oppose the proposals cannot by any stretch of imagination be labeled racists, arms dealers, etc. They oppose the proposals for reasons which may be perfectly justifiable, e.g., because they fear, rightly or wrongly, that the proposals would destroy the country.
  
• It is difficult to see how the devolution package can provide a lasting solution when the influential EPRLF leader Douglas Devananda is on record in the Daily News of 11th February 1997 as saying that the proposals will be a useful starting point for negotiations.

Emotional labels

The categorisation of opponents of devolution as chauvinists, racists, extremists, etc., illustrates another well-known technique, i.e., the use of emotionally charged words in order to let emotions overwhelm rational analysis, and invoke disapproval. Not liking to be dubbed racists/extremists, the uncommitted tend to shy away from the views of so-called "racists/ extremists" without examining their arguments, and gravitate towards the "establishment" view..

The use of emotional labels slides into another logical fallacy, i.e., assuming the truth of what needs to be demonstrated. Foreigners in our midst have contributed their mite. A foreign High Commissioner recently provided a shining example. In the course of ex cathedra remarks about the northern problem, he said, "..I was very pleased to note that almost everyone of goodwill, no I would say absolutely everyone of goodwill, in Sri Lanka welcomed the agreement..." Apart from committing an elementary and easily refuted error of argument — the sweeping generalisation — (has he carried out a census of people of goodwill and ill-will in Sri Lanka, and taken a vote from each?) the diplomat has argued in a circle by implicitly defining persons of goodwill as those who welcomed the agreement! As Thouless wrote, "One could prove that all swans are white by refusing to count as a swan any bird that was not white"!

The diversion
Another technique has been used very successfully, wittingly or unwittingly, in handling the report of the Sinhala Commission. This is the diversion, where a provocative remark is made about a matter which is peripheral to the central issue. The celebrated "dustbin" remark provides a textbook illustration. Supporters of devolution joined in enthusiastically, heaping abuse on the Commission, its bona fides, its antecedents, its creation, its motives, its composition, and the clothes worn by the Commissioners. Opponents of devolution rose to the bait and responded by denouncing the "dustbin" remark as an insult to the Sinhala race and to Buddhism, demanding apologies, organising demonstrations, and smashing coconuts. In the process the only relevant issue — the content of the Commission's report — was totally forgotten!

The slogan
A technique which overlaps with the repetitive assertion uses the tendency of the average citizen, when faced with a matter of great complexity, (such as the question of devolution) to tire of the argument and accept a ready-made slogan such as "peace package" as a kind of convenient shorthand which, however, ignores the intricacies of the subject. Thouless offered a likely explanation: "The most finely developed brain reaches at some point the limit of complexity it can grasp. With the majority of men this limit is reached rather early. Long before it is reached, however, mental idleness steps in, making us tend to accept mental food well below the limits of our digestion.." We probably all know people who say that they are tired of the devolution debate, and skip the newspaper item or switch the TV channel when it turns up. They are particularly prone to take refuge in the slogan.

Variable meanings
The variable meaning of certain words is another factor contributing to confusion in discussion. The word "devolution" is one such word. It can vary in meaning from devolution of power which is mild to moderate to extensive to extreme. The promotion of "devolution", without qualification, could therefore be misleading if the public perception is mild or moderate devolution while the reality is extreme devolution. Perhaps the western powers' apparent fascination with the devolution proposals is due to such a mistaken perception of their nature.

The patronising put down
As a variation to the sledge hammer approach of labeling opponents with terms such as chauvinist/ racist/ extremist, there is a parallel track where opponents are patronisingly assumed to be opposing the proposals for emotional reasons and/or because they have not read the proposals and/or because they have misunderstood/misinterpreted them. This subtler method also uses the techniques of repetition, confident delivery and prestige, without argument or proof. But the evidence, indicated by the detailed nature of much of the criticism of the proposals, suggests that many opponents of devolution have studied the proposals carefully, have understood them, and detected dangers which may have escaped the attention of the framers of the proposals.

The soothing euphemism
The promotion of devolution has been marked by the use of names which underplay the significance of the transformations involved. The disarming term "Package", with its connotations of goodies and benefits, does not reflect the reality, which is a controversial new constitution. A thorny issue within this new constitution the merger of the North and the East has been cosmetically termed "the redemarcation of boundaries".

The false analogy

Another false analogy is the comparison of opposition to previous devolutionary arrangements e.g., the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayagam pact, the Sananayake-Chelvanayagam pact, and the Indo-Lanka Accord with opposition to the current proposals, and the characterisation of all such opposition as obstructing a settlement of the northern problem. Leaving aside the legitimacy of the assumption that the pacts mentioned would have solved the problem, the analogy is false because there is a quantum difference between the extents of devolution envisaged in the current proposals and the previous pacts. The previous pacts did not threaten the survival of Sri Lanka; the deepest fear of the opponents of the current proposals is that they could destroy the nation.

Goebbels
The consequences of falling prey to propaganda can be disastrous. The Encyclopedia Britannica, in its reference to Goebbels, states: ".. Goebbels, the leading propagandist of the Nazi party.. mastered, to the point of near perfection, every contemporary device for leading and misleading the public. It was largely due to his extraordinarily persuasive propaganda that the German people followed Hitler into the abyss.."

The techniques have been moderately successful in Sri Lanka partly because very few among the target audience — the general public — are aware that they are being brainwashed, and partly because hardly anyone has read the entire text of the devolution proposals, analysed their implications independently, and considered their context. They are naturally particularly susceptible to propaganda conducted with professional skill. It is therefore a civic duty to read through the proposals, question assertions from whichever quarter, discuss the issues, watch out for tricks of persuasion and errors of logic, and form one's own individual opinion.

A brief comment now on the brainwashing approach being adopted by the promoters of devolution. If their objective is to push devolution through regardless, they may well succeed. But if the misgivings of opponents of devolution turn out to be correct, the consequences, in the form of disintegration, escalated conflict and partition could be horrendous. It would therefore be short-sighted to ram the proposals through. The wise course of action would be to recognise that devolution anywhere is a complex and irreversible exercise, and that it is vital that any dangers foreseen are openly discussed and not dismissed out of hand.

Developing disagreement
Drucker relates a story about A. P. Sloan, the former head of General Motors: "..Sloan.. said at a meeting of one of his top committees: 'Gentlemen, I take it we are all in complete agreement on the decision here'. Everyone around the table nodded assent. 'Then,' continued Sloan, 'I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what the decision is all about' " (Emphasis added).

That would be the enlightened approach to a momentous issue on which the future of Sri Lanka depends.

  Home

Courtesy of Island Newspapers,
Sinhaya  - 7 November 1997.