Student Research Project Sri Lanka 2002 Supervisors: Prof. Dr ...

the taxes. Where they were mentioned, they were attended by short grinning and ‘knowingly
murmur’ by the participants. Unlike all other issues brought up, the taxes were not further
commented by the group presenter or any other person. The workshop facilitator , sent by a
Colombo based development, did not further comment or pose questions on it either, which
stood in sharp contrast to the dealing with other topics. It turned out, that a CCIY steering
representative had asked him, not to raise this topic 51 . The strong, manifold constraining
impact of the LTTE taxes on entrepreneurial activities, as it commonly became clear in the
interviews, was thus consciously blinded out.
This can be explained with a.) an obviously shared understanding between the entrepreneurs,
that this was not a topic to be discussed in a public space (a view, that was also commonly
expressed in the interviews and that can be traced back to the feeling of powerlessness as
well as the fear of LTTE reprisals), but also b) due to the moderator not responding to it and
thereby approving (and possibly) reinforcing this view. This example makes clear, that
events organised by the CCIY, did only in a very limited way serve as a forum, to discuss
factors constraining entrepreneurial activities. Open discussions on the LTTE taxes, its
legitimisation and impact, did not take place and were hardly possible. In (public) meetings
and workshops this topic seemed to be rather avoided or suppressed by CCIY steering
members. From the insights gained during field work it can be concluded, that the CCIY had
to position itself carefully towards the LTTE in order not to take the risk of reprisals (for the
organisation as a whole or for leading representatives personally) and also to remain a
‘credible’ negotiating partner to them.
Furthermore, it has to be taken into account, that some of the steering members might have
been influenced by feelings of loyalty or some kind of moral obligation towards the LTTE as
well, which possibly caused a certain reluctance, to question or criticise its taxation. In
addition, it turned out, that even in case of the problems and constraints caused by other
actors, only a few entrepreneurs were interested and actively engaged in the discussion on
how to act on these issues. In this context it has to be considered, that the expectation to
improve the conditions for entrepreneurial activities barely was their motivation for a
membership. This can be partly explained with the perception, that the CCIY had hardly any
influence on the concerned actors.
51 This became clear in a conversation with him when the seminar was finished.
46