Democracy and Democratization in Sri Lanka

Over the last 60 years we have had a continuous (uninterrupted) system of ‘nominal democracy’ with governments elected by the people. However, whether we still have a system of government where people decide the kind of government, kind of  economic policies and  kind of decision making and the kind of society  is seriously questioned.

 

Therefore, the paper will attempt to analyze the processes that have taken place over this period to see the efforts made by different classes of people, to have systems of government in the country, that would represent the interests of those classes. Since in this process there have been not only the conflicting interests of various classes of Sri Lankan society, but also the influences of global powers to have systems of rule that suit their interests, we will look at those external influences, that worked through collaboration with those classes that dominated Sri Lankan society.

 

It is hoped that this analysis of historical experiences will help in working out strategies that may be useful in today’s context, where the interests of the largest numbers of people in Sri Lankan society, to ensure their very survival, would be protected.

 

Based on the formal definition of a democracy, that it is ‘a government of the people, by the people” we have adopted a system where a government is elected once in five years or so, by a majority vote, with all adults having the right to vote. However, in society there are classes of people with contradictory interests and we also have people with different ethnicities, gender and castes etc. who have different and some times conflicting interests. Therefore, what happens during the period of rule, after being elected, is important. It is necessary to analyze the processes of decision making within any government to see whose interests are represented by a particular government and how this happens have to be analyzed too.

 

Therefore we will go briefly into history, the political processes that have resulted in the present form of government, to understand what classes of society dominate and how the voices and interests of other classes are being ignored, kept out and even suppressed. This applies to ethnic groups and other interest groups too.

 

Some interesting aspects of history

 

When the British took over, in 1815, the Sri Lankan society had a system under  kings, who ruled the country through a system of hierarchy of feudal leaders, controlling  different regions. This system was based on caste and people belonging to these castes had obligatory functions ( Rajakariya ) by birth, according to each caste to serve the powerful feudal families. Land and livelihoods depended on these services which provided the elites the power of control over the lives of people. These structures of domination and control were well established with religion, culture, tradition and patterns of thinking, playing a role that made the structures strong and stable.

 

 The British rule made certain attempts to break these up, by trying to do away with the system of “Rajakariya” ( tasks assigned by the king ). The interests of the British rule was not so much to make people freer, but to make free labour and land available to serve their purposes of building the plantations, roads and other infrastructure and also to have “free labour” to be used in the plantation industry, which they established. However, these efforts were strongly resisted, initially, by two rebellions, the first of which was in 1818 led by the feudal elite, while the other was also a rebellion in 1848, against compulsion by the British on the people to pay taxes and to provide obligatory labour in the construction of roads etc. The second rebellion was joined by broad masses who suffered exorbitant taxes and various forms of punishment by the British rule to extract taxes and to compel people to provide services.

 

The feudalist system compelled people to provide services that the elite leaders needed with very little remuneration, while the British rule compelled people to provide services and pay taxes that they needed to build infrastructure such as roads that they needed for transportation required for plantation industry.

 

Learning from this experience of resistance, the British adopted a strategy of absorbing and including the feudal leaders who were controlling people in various regions into their system of administration. Thus the privileged positions that were held by the regional elites and elitist families were protected and additional powers and privileges were granted to them under the British rule in Sri Lanka. The positions created by the British with administrative positions such as “Disawe”, “Korale” , “Rate’ Mahaththya” and “Gam Muladeni” were the administrative officers in charge of regions, districts and villages. Thus it was possible to continue the same system of governance and control over the people making use of the same traditional systems of elitist control. They had powers over allocation of land, control over livelihoods and also socio political control. The power structures build by the feudal system were kept in tact. The kings and the feudal leaders protected the religious institutions while the religious institutions played a role in keeping the elitist system strong and stable.

 

In fact the British did not have much economic interest in the rural areas of Sri Lanka except the areas that they required for expansion of plantation agriculture. This was largely the hill country which was initially used for coffee and later for expansion of tea plantations. It was cheaper and politically easier for the British to bring cheap labour from some parts of South India where there was severe hunger and poverty. Large numbers of Indian labour were brought in, during the period of expansion of the tea plantations ( 1830s on wards ). These plantation workers were kept under a system of semi slavery during the entire period of British rule. The situation did not change much even during the post independence period either, since plantations were continued by the Sri Lankan Governments too after Independence adopting and maintaining the same system of plantation administration. The British planters continued ownership even after Independence until early 1970s  when a Land Reform  was carried out which led to much of the plantations were taken over by the State. The systems of production and control remained almost the same. The governments of Sri Lanka thought that the system of control and management built by the British were necessary to continue the plantation industry.

 

Processs of politicization and formation of plantation Trade Unions began early ( in the 1930s ) initiated by some leadership provided by Indian leaders such as Natesa Aiyar . The left parties too engaged in building Trade Unions during this period. This is because they believed that organized labour was the vanguard of the proletarian revolution and Plantation workers were clearly of that class. However, when the tendencies of plantation workers supporting the left movement, in the first general elections in 1947 was seen, the First Sri Lankan Government took away the citizenship rights of the plantation workers, by introducing new laws for this purpose. Therefore, whatever gains that were made by the rest of the population making use of their rights as citizen with voting powers was not available to the plantation workers who numbered well over a million.

 

Formation of a class of Sri Lankan rich elite during the British period was another phenomenon that had serious implications on the post independence political processes.

 

This group of urban elite were those who were absorbed into various administrative jobs by the British, those who acquired some education under the elitist system of education introduced by the British and also some  groups who became rich providing certain services under the British government. The British introduced a system of elitist education for the purpose of building a loyal group of English educated urban elite who were to serve in their administrative system. Among them were also those who handled transportation of tea to Colobmo, those who rented liquor sales, and contractors in construction work etc. There were those who were in high professions such as lawyers,  administrative services etc. The important fact was that they were loyal to the British rule and had gained confidence of the British for their loyalty. They willingly emulated the culture and the lifestyles of the British as superior. Among this group was the important category of Sri Lankan Planters, who had acquired considerable ownership in the rubber and coconut plantations.

 

Sri Lanka’s process of obtaining Independence was very different from the process of “struggle for Independence” in India. It was a process of friendly negotiations with the British rule for self rule, with a promise of continued loyalty.  The group of urban elite described above , led by the “Low Country Planters Association” bargained with the British to say that they were as capable as the ‘white planters’ of ruling the country and were equally loyal to the British.  However, in order to convince the British rule about their strength and capacity it became necessary to form a nationwide political party named Ceylon National Congress, which later became the United National Party (UNP ) of Sri Lanka.

 

 Political party formations during the British rule and in the early post independence Sri Lanka 

 

The structure of this party and the way it was formed has had serious implications on the the political party formations and processes that have continued to date. The leaders of the party were the pro British, urban, rich elite. The rest of the regional, rural elite who were close allies of this group, were also loyal to the British rule, due to the privileges and powers granted to them by the British. . They were the agents through whom the urban elite were able to get the support of the rural masses of people. The important factor is that the elitist control over the people was maintained undisturbed. The British introduced the concept of private ownership of land. They declared all land where ownership could not be established with legal documents ( land titles ) as land belonging to the State. This law introduced in 1838 was called the “Waste Lands Ordinance”. There was no system where people could prove their private ownership of land. Thus, the British Government could take over ownership of land which made it possible to sell large extents of land to prospective “White Planter” at extremely low prices.

 The Local elite too, both the urban as well as the rural elite, made use of this opportunity to acquire ownership of large extents of land, privately, which later provided them tremendous power over the ordinary people who were enjoying almost free access to land under the previous system. Therefore, when Sri Lanka became independent there was already a very powerful group of rich urban elite and also a powerful group of rural elite who had very close and friendly relationships with the urban elite and both these groups were loyal to the British.

 

The formation and contribution of the early Left Movement

 

At the beginning of 1930s was also the formation of another political trend which was led by the first Marxist political parties in Sri Lanka, the Lanka Sama Samaja Party and the Communist Party of Sri Lanka, which began in 1930s. The first Marxist party in Sri Lanka was formed by those who had the opportunity of studying in the UK and of getting exposed to the leftist movement in the West.  In fact this was the party that campaigned initially for universal adult franchise when the Ceylon National Congress ( that preceded the formation of the UNP ) was asking for voting powers only to the ‘rich and educated’ people who were about 5 % of the population.

 

 The much praised achievements of social welfare in the country   were largely due to the fact that Sri Lanka gained universal adult franchise very early ( as early as in 1931 ) and that there were political parties such as the Left political parties that were engaged in education of people about their rights, their rights to social welfare, rights to proper  liveli hoods, right to have health, education, food at affordable prices and right to participate in the political decisions in the country.

 

In addition to education they were also involved in organizing people to fight for their rights, even introducing the concept of “socialism”. In the initial years these political parties were very concerned about the rights of the rural agricultural population, their rights to land, water and irrigation, the responsibilities of governments to ensure that policies at national level should ensure that people, including the rural farmers should have sufficient facilities to continue their agricultural livelihoods.

 

The gains  made in the early struggles for democratization  

 

The achievements made by the campaigns for rights that were carried by the early left movement were quite substantial. Although these parties influenced by Marxist thinking, by the Soviet Revolution in Russia and by the traditions of the British left movement stood for Socialism, much of their struggles were for social welfare. Since those who wanted power had to get elected the Sri Lankan political leaderships had to grant many demands made by the people, led by the left.  Thus Sri Lanka achieved many social welfare benefits. Among the great achievements were a “Free Education System” introduced by Law as early as in 1944, A “Free Health System”, comparatively advanced laws protecting labour rights and also a comprehensive set of policies that aimed at supporting small farmers’ agriculture. Keeping cost of living low was one of their main struggles that was very effective. All these combined enabled Sri Lanka to achieve very good  social development results, a relatively high PQLI, in spite of the fact that overall economic growth rates were comparatively low.

 

Majority of the people ( voters ) were the rural poor and small scale farmers. Left parties organized the farmers as well as urban and plantation workers. The right wing political parties were very concerned with maintaining the support of the rural small scale farmers. The rural elite had control over the rural farmers. However, sustaining the support of these people, necessary to keep winning elections, facing the challenge of the left movement, pushed subsequent governments to adopt policies that were beneficial to the poorer sections of society too.

 

The economy of the country at this stage was good enough to deliver much social welfare and subsidies. The Sri Lankan economy had also made much gain during the war. This was because rubber which was the second largest export commodity ,next to tea, fetched good prices during the time of the war. Another important factor that contributed  to a strong social welfare orientation was that Sri Lanka did not have a powerful industrial capitalist class in this early stages. This enabled people, an organized working class and a rural population with considerable political education led by the Left parties could gain considerable victories through a system of political bargaining. All these contributed to a system that had many positive democratic features. 

 

 

 

Some concrete gains in democratization

 

Among some of the policies and programmes adopted by the Governments were measures that aimed at sustaining small scale agriculture. This policy of supporting and sustaining small farmers’ based agriculture aimed at making the country self sufficient in food (particularly in rice).

 

 The serious food shortages that occurred during the second world war, in late 1930s, convinced even the British government in Sri Lanka that domestic food production was important. Developing and revitalizing the irrigation systems that had existed in Sri Lanka from the time of the ancient kings was seen as an effective means of strengthening domestic food production. This policy of strengthening paddy farming was picked up by the elitist Sri Lankan Governments and irrigation development and initiation of irrigated agricultural settlements, particularly in the Dry Zone of Sri Lanka was continued over decades after independence. This could be described as the policy of highest priority of all Governments since independence, until a near complete reversal of economic policies was introduced in 1977.

 

Some analysts of the Sri Lankan post independence economic history, such as Sachchi Ponnambalam, in his writing “Dependent Economy in Crisis” ( an analysis of economic policies from 1948 to 1981 ) say that the reason for setting up the irrigated agricultural settlements in the dry zone was to prevent relatively land less people, joining the workers movement and linking up with the Left Movement.. In fact these small scale rural farmers with small plots of land have been described as “guardians of Democracy in the Country”. This is to say that the process of democratization through supportive policies towards rural poor was a result of the struggles launched by the Left Movement, with a Socialist objective. Granting of such small plots of land to land less people was a policy introduced in 1938 (even before independence ) under that Land Development Ordinance. The number of people who have received such land grants from subsequent governments was estimated by the World Bank later on as 1.2 million families. This figure estimated in mid 1990s, includes the generations that followed.

 

Among other gains made were food subsidies. All governments until 1977 had a fairly consistent policy of  supporting small farmers agriculture through various support services and a policy of ensuring food ( mainly rice ) at affordable prices, through a rice subsidy ( a system of rice rations ) which continued from the time of independence until 1977. Another big achievement in democratization made largely by the Left Movement was in the area of labour rights. Even during the time of the British rule, the campaigns and struggles of the organized working class succeeded in getting progressive Labour Laws, such as minimum wages, security of employment, right to organize labour and right to trade Union action etc established. The organized labour movement played a very important role in fighting for social welfare in general, in addition to their struggles for labour rights. They struggled for affordable food prices, rights for health and education  and for services that the governments had to provide to all people.

 

With all these achievements the Left movement gained strength until mid 1960s. This process gave confidence to the Left political parties that they could even get elected to government through parliamentary elections. This resulted in a process where the Left Political parties began to believe and get more and more involved in the parliamentary political process.

 

With the trend of Left parties giving more importance to parliamentary politics, their attention to the rights of plantation workers became less. This was because the plantation workers were no longer voters. Also left parties gradually shifted away from organizing the poorer sections of rural society to fight against the elitist structures that dominated the rural society. In parliamentary politics the left parties too had to win over certain sections of the elite who had the ability to command support of the rural poor.  Thus the shift was away from organized class struggle to a system of patronizing.  Thus the control of the elite over the poorer sections of society was allowed to continue.

 

The ideology of socialism, aiming at creating an egalitarian society got strongly rooted in Sri Lankan society  for a combination of reasons. Sri Lanka has had a long history of Buddhism influencing its culture, ways of thinking among the people. Buddhism peaches “impermanence”.  Greed and selfish accumulation is seen as some thing to be overcome. Therefore, leaders are expected to be benevolent. They are expected to care for the poor. Marxism has a strong criticism against exploitation and accumulation of capital. It also gives a methodology for transforming society. Many intellectuals influenced by the growing communist movement in the world during 1930s to about 1960s  were attracted to Marxism. In fact Universities in these early stages were breeding grounds for Marxist intellectuals and radical youth.

 

A turning point in the political party formations in 1952 and 1956

 

One important  aspect of this process that needs to be recognized is that, although  the left parties had achieved considerable gains,  they were never able to get a majority in any of the parliamentary elections. This was because the “power structures” that existed in Sri Lankan society which gave the rural and urban elite control over the political affiliations of the masses were so strong and well established that they could not be disturbed or broken down by the left politics. The parties in government adopted measures that sustained this control and most of the welfare policies adopted were utilized to keep people well under control of such structures. These developments did not in fact contribute to people building confidence in their own organized strength. It rather created systems  of dependence.

 

In 1952, one of the leaders of the major rightwing political party, the U.N.P,. left government and formed a separate party “Sri Lanka Freedom Party” He, S.W.R.D. Bandaranayake, came from one of the very influential elitist families and commanded much respect among the urban as well as the rural elite.

He made full use of many factors that had emerged by this time to gain power. He claimed to adopt a “middle path” , some thing in between, neither capitalism nor socialism. This enabled him to make use of much of the gains that had been made by the left, adopted many policies with an ‘Anti Capitalist’appearance, that the Left had propagated and also made full use of the sentiments that had been built against the neo colonial powers which the UNP was seen as protecting. What put him in power in 1956 was a combination of the strengths that the left had built and the support that he could still mobilize from among the “second level elitist elements” that were competing with the “old traditional elite” in rural areas.  The elite did not see him as an enemy, for them he was just one of them, who decided to go separately for personal reasons. During his earlier carrier as an important Minister who had even been tipped to be the next prime Minister, he had built a strong base among the rural elite, the Buddhist clergy, the Sinhala educated groups and also among peasants. He made full use of the sentiments that had grown in the country against domination and previledges enjoyed by the English educated, Westernized elite

 

This was a very crucial turning point in the political processes that followed. Now the elite had two alternative political parties that they could support with no hesitation. But, the SLFP began to be seen as a more progressive,  nationalist,  alternative when people began to get tired and frustrated with the other party led by the more powerful group of elite. The Left political parties were gradually pushed to a situation where they had to support this “more progressive alternative” at elections to prevent the former “ traditional right wing” party from  getting elected. SLFP’s alliance with the left had always been a necessary strategy of winning the support of the left inclined forces such as the workers’ Trade Unions and other forces built by the left to oppose the capitalist tendencies.

 

Where the Left failed

 

If we look at the Left movement, the organized workers movement, as a potential force that could have contributed to further advancement of democratic reforms in the country, it is very important to understand where the left failed. The Left movement gave a lot of priority to organizing workers. They saw the “proletariat” as the vanguard of socialist revolution.  Although they had also begun to build considerable support among the rural poor, the peasants, in their early stages, they did not have a real strategy of organizing the rural poor, the peasants, to break away from the relationships of dependence on the rural elite. To breakdown the elitist hierarchical system that has kept the masses of people away from possibilities of planning and  decision making   As described earlier this structure of elitist domination was very powerful and strong.  It had been sustained by the political powers almost through out history, from the time of the ancient kings, through the period of British Colonial rule and by the regimes that came into power after independence. The welfare deliveries did not give the rural poor any independent strength of their own. This was a process of patronizing and keeping them pacified and dependent.

 

Struggles by the organized working class, the trade unions, for reforms, for democratic rights, for social welfare and social security were repeatedly defeated due to their failure to build alliances with the rural poor, the peasants. The elites now aligned with the two alternative “ right wing “ political parties did not lend support to these struggles by the Left progressive forces.  Since the emergence of these alternative forces of the “right”, the workers’ movement began to lose strength. Finally the Left parties began to compromise with this alternative political force, giving up their ideals and also gradually moved away from a strategy of “class struggle”( organised struggles of the exploited and oppressed  classes ) to a typical approach of parliamentary politics.

 

Other mistakes in moving out of organized struggle for justice and democracy

 

There were other serious errors that were committed by the left ( the “old left’ as they are now called ). Their compromised approach of trying to enter into political power through elections and alliances with the right wing parties, made them also to give up their just positions on the ethnic issue, which resulted in their losing confidence among the minority communities. They lost interest in the plantation people and their struggles since they were no longer voters. Thus they lost their support base among the plantation workers of Indian origin, who began to be lead by large plantation sector trade Unions such as the CWC ( Ceylon Workers Congresss ) headed by Mr. Thodaman. CWC and Thondaman adopted a strategy of lending support to any government that came into power. The strategy was to gain a few concessions from the Government by keeping the large force of plantation workers quiet and submissive. The net result was that plantation workers who were once seen as the real “proletariat”  in Sri Lanka did not play a useful role in the overall workers’ movement together with the “Left”. 

 

Ethnic discrimination and emergence of ethnicity based political parties

 

At the beginning of the  emergence of elite led political formations that negotiated with the British rule for “self rule” in late 1920s and 1930s The educated, Westernized rich elite comprised of representatives of the Sinhala and Tamil elite. In fact the idea of forming a national political party for bargaining with the British rule was pur forward by some prominent leaders of the Tamil elite. Ceylon National Congress , then had a Tamil leadership in persons such as Ponnambalam Ramanathan and Ponnambalam Arunachalam.  Although they were together initially, there were certain differences that emerged in sharing of power among the ethnic leaderships. Universal adult franchise gave the Sinhala leaders opportunity to have a Sinhala majority in the early structures formed by the British to include elected representatives in the Government. When the election of members in to the “State Council” with a committee system, all committees had a Sinhala majority, which was used to have an all Sinhala Cabinet of Ministers. This conflict escalated later which resulted in the formation of the first Tamil political party ‘ the Ceylon Tamil Congress. It further intensified giving birth to a demand for a Federal form of Government and the Federal Party was formed.

 

The formation of the United National Party ( UNP ) in mid 1930s was an attempt to bring together these ethnic leaderships of the Tamils and Muslims, this was not done on the basis of proper recognition of equal rights of minority communities. The proportions of populations were approximately, Sinhala( 70% ) Tamil ( 13% ) and Muslim ( 8% ). Initially the bargaining was for proper representation for the Tamil elite in positions of power. However, these differences subsequently intensified into serious conflict between ethnic communities which continues to be the most strongly expressed issue of conflict that affects the process of democratization of the Sri Lankan society,  to date.

 

Although the scope of this paper does not provide enough space to go into a detailed analysis of the issues of ethnicity and its impact on the process of democratization, some discussion is essential.

 

Expansion of education, demand  for opportunities for employment and intensification of crisis in land and rural agriculture

 

Although much had been done in terms of social welfare, subsidies and support to rural agriculture, these measures never led to any weakening of the rural and urban power structures, the structures of elitist domination. What ever achievements made in improving rural, small farmer based  agriculture, through setting up of irrigated agricultural settlements and support services provided to small scale farmers  did not weaken the control of the rural poor by the elites. For instance there were no serious attempt made to strengthen the position of the rural small scale farmers, through effective trade arrangements. The strength of the middlemen traders and the growth of a richer group of rural powers were assisted by the policies. This was because the political parties depended heavily on the support they obtained from these rural powers to win support of the rural masses. The elitist control over the rural population strengthened with the process of strengthening the rural elite, now comprising not only of the traditional feudalist powers, but of the new groups of rich that benefited from trade, money lending and extraction of the surplus generated through agricultural growth.

 

This created a serious lack of opportunities to the growing population of rural youth in the agricultural economy.  Therefore, the only path of finding new opportunities for economic and social improvement ( mobility ) was through opportunities that were available through education. Opportunities of education, including higher education in the local languages, was the best and almost the only way for the rural youth to move out of the rural agricultural setting. Therefore there was a rapidly growing demand for higher education and employment opportunities for those who had education in the local languages of Sinhala and English. By mid 1950s this led to a situation where “official language” became a serious political issue.

 

Official Language issue

 

At the General Elections of 1956, both the two big rightwing political parties , the SLFP as well as the UNP, picked up the slogan of “Sinhala as official language” since the majority of voters were the Sinhala. The Left parties took up a different position foreseeing the danger of trying to discriminate against the Tamil speaking people, which they predicted could even end up in the Tamil speaking people demanding a separates country.The Tamil political parties demanded Tamil also to be accepted as an official language.  The attempt made by the two right wing parties to out do the each other in winning the Sinhala votes resulted in a position of “ Sinhala Only as official language” in place of English which had remained the official language until then. The proposal made by the left parties to have Sinhala and Tamil as official languages  was pushed out.

 

Introduction of “Sinhala only” as official language lead to the first serious inter ethnic violence, when the Tamil political leaders launched non violent protests against the Official Language Bill. In 1958 was a major outbreak of violence against the Tamil people who were living in the Southern Sinhala majority areas. This was a reaction against the non violent protests of the Tamil people, led by their political parties boycotting the “Sinhala only Bill”.

 

Another very serious issue that intensified the conflicts between the Tamil community in the North and East and the Sinhala majority state, was on the settlement of people in the eastern province, through a process of expansion of irrigated agriculture settlements.  The Governments were concerned about proportions of people of ethnic groups in the respective electorates. The way decisions were made regarding who should be settled in these areas, and who was to be given irrigated land led to a feeling of being discriminated against. The complain was that the Governments were adopting a policy of giving land to Sinhala settlers in preference to the Tamils in the Northern and Eastern provinces who were also farmers and had problems of land and agriculture. Subsequently this conflict has build itself up into the emergence of the concept of these parts of the Country in the North and East being declared by the Tamil political parties as their traditional home lands. Thus they demanded that they must have the right of self determination.

 

Formation of Muslim Political Parties

 

The long  and intense conflict over the rights of the Tamil community and their claim for the declaration of North and East as the traditional home lands of the Tamil people led to the creation of consciousness among the Muslim Community too of their rights as an ethnic minority who also had certain geographical areas of concentration of high proportions of Muslim Population. This later led to the Formation of Muslim Political Parties who became a force to be reckoned with in the bargaining over sharing of political power and in the negotiations on devolution of power.

 

Emergence of the Radical ( revolutionary ) Youth Movement

 

Growth of a large population of educated youth in rural areas  and the aspirations that grew in the country for further advancement in progressive social change due to the changes achieved so far were factors that led to the emergence of radical thinking among the youth in mid 1960s.  They were unhappy about the compromising positions taken by the “old left”.  The governments that were in power during the period from 1956 to mid 1960 could not fulfill the aspirations for further advancement in “socialist transformation” that these radical youth. What resulted was the emergence of a Radical youth movement who wanted to carry out the changes that the Left failed to fulfill.

 

They were strongly influenced by revolutionary changes that had taken place in China, Vietnam and in Cuba. Thus, they made an attempt to build a revolutionary movement that rejected the reformist parliamentary approach adopted by the old left. They saw this as a betrayal of the revolutionary cause.

 

The crisis that was emerging in the rural agricultural economy that led to very large numbers of rural youth wanting to find new opportunities outside the rural agricultural sector and the frustration of the aspirations for change under the SLFP led “middle path” resulted in a very rapid growth of this radical / revolutionary youth movement.

 

They made the first attempt at an armed revolution in 1971 which was violently suppressed within a short time. One important reason for the failure was that this movement named JVP ( Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna – People’s Liberation Front ) only succeeded in winning support of a considerable number of youth, largely from among the rural youth, with some following among the urban youth too. If we compare this experiences with the experience of the armed youth struggle that emerged  in mid 1970s among the Tamil Youth in the Northern areas  there are some important lessons to be learnt in relation to the struggles for democracy and social justice.

 

Some important lessons from the youth rebellion in the Southern ( Sinhala ) as well as in the Northern ( Tamil ) regions

 

In both cases it was largely the youth who rebelled. In both cases one common factor was that the youth aspiring to achieve satisfactory opportunities for higher education and employment in sectors out side their traditional rural agricultural setting, did not find such opportunities. In both cases they were those who were rejected from the mainstream agricultural or industrial sectors of the economy. In this sense they were outside the mainstream social and economic structures. Therefore, their resistance did not take the form of resistance and struggle that disturbed the functioning of these structures. They did not succeed in mobilizing workers, peasants / farmers and other forms of working people.  Thus, the form of organization and struggle was not for changes within these structures. They could only think of forming “underground” organizations that aimed directly at taking over State power. Taking over overall state Power in the case of the Southern movement while it aimed at a separate state for the Northern Tamil people. In the case of the Northern struggle. Thus they soon became illegal organizations, threat to the existing power structures declared Illegal and were  suppressed.

 

In these cases too, one reason for failure in becoming real mass movements of the oppressed people that they intended to represent was that neither had strategies of organizing the people to overcome the control that the elite leaderships had over them. Therefore these movements ended up becoming organizations that used “armed strength” not only to fight their real enemies but also to get ordinary people to support or be submissive to their strategies. This enabled them to be declared “terrorist organizations” which justified their suppression using state controlled armed forces.

 

The second armed youth uprising was attempted by the JVP after a process of reorganization over a period of about 16 years. This was in 1988 – 1990.  this was suppressed with even greater violence by the State. The first suppression led to about 10,000 youth getting killed and the second uprising led to about 60,000 involuntary disappearances.  The reasons for these repeated uprisings, mainly by rural youth have to be discussed since they have had very serious implications on the process of democratization ( or reversal of democratization )   of Sri Lankan society.

 

Reversal of economic development strategies and of democratization

after 1977 with WB guided policies

 

A major turning point in the history of democratization in Sri Lankan society and in the political structures of the country was the change of political power that took place in 1977.

 

Changes in the global economic trends

 

The decade of 1970s was a time when major changes were taking place in the Global economic processes too. The World Bank was proposing macro economic stabilization programmes for Sri Lanka, which later build into proposals for “Structural adjustments in the 1990s.  This was a shift away from the previously adopted policies of “import Substitution” to “export oriented growth” strategies.

 

Internal reasons for the political change in 1977

 

Within the country there were increasing problems faced in the economy partly due to unfavorable external conditions. The severe restrictions that the Government had to impose on imports created problems of dissatisfaction among people due to shortage of goods, including food shortages. The Government that was responsible for the suppression of the armed uprising of the Youth, killing about 10,000 young people and imprisonment of about 25,000 had become unpopular.  A combination of these factors gave an unprecedented victory to the UNP with a 4/5^th majority in Parliament.   This gave the possibility for the UNP government to introduce drastic changes in the economic policies and also in the whole political system. 

 

Suppression of the democratic tendencies of the past as a necessity to bring about economic changes

 

The changes introduced in the economic strategy  required a drastic change in the political system. What was introduced in Sri Lanka was an economic model that had been carried out in many other countries such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand, Philippines , Indonesia under dictatorial Governments, under Suhartho, Marcos, and others. Similar shifts had also been done in several Latin American countries under military dictatorships.

 

This could be done in Sri Lanka, with a very different economic policy direction and with different democratic traditions only through a very repressive form of Government. One major change was to introduce an executive presidential system with immense powers in the hands of the President. A new constitution was also introduced in 1978 which  not only gave powers to the Executive President but also made it very difficult to change the Constitution. The system of elections was changed to make it almost impossible to get a sufficient majority in parliament to change the constitution.  These measures were seen as necessary to provide the type of political stability that would encourage foreign investment to come in. The changes introduced in the country  to achieve the envisaged ‘rapid growth” in the economy through expansion of exports were very  wide and was a complete change in the former approach of social welfare, protecting small farmer based agriculture, protection given to domestic industries and the extensive role played by the state in intervening in the economy.

 

Due to the limited space in this article we will limit ourselves to a brief description and analysis of the results / outcome of these economic and political changes that were continued over a period of 17 years under that same government and were continued by all other governments that followed during the last 30 years.

 

1. Government assisted   process of building a very rich and powerful private sector has now resulted in a very strong control of the economy and the political system in the hands of the business community. Government withdrawal from providing food, and other essential services such as health, education etc. has been an accompanying process of privatization of all production, trade and services. There have been efforts to further privatize even water, both,  irrigation as well as drinking water, which had been slowed down due to massive resistance by the people. Privatisation of natural resources, making them available to big private companies for destructive exploitation has been going on

 

2. Huge increase in foreign debt that resulted from following the economic advice of the IFIs over the 30 years resulting from large increases in import expenses, large costs in building infrastructure facilities that were seen as essential to make the country attractive to foreign investment.

 

3. Very large increase in income disparities in the country and increased poverty of the rural poor. This was also a result of a conscious weakening of the domestic agriculture by rural small scale farmers.

 

4. Almost complete control over the processes of economic planning and decision making in the hands of the international  lending institutions ( WB, IMF and ADB ) and the group of “donor” ( lender ) countries, officials at high levels of economic management such as the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, the Treasury, the Finance Ministry etc who are chosen with endorsement of the above IFIs and also the Sri Lankan Business elites

 

5. Very high and unacceptable levels of malnutrition, low birth weight and aneamia among mothers, particularly in the plantation sector, the rural agricultural sector and now in the war affected areas. There has been a tremendous increase in rural debt and also in suicide rates

 

6. Severe breakdown in the local food production potential with tendencies and plans to further marginalize small scale rural farmers. There have been concrete proposals by the IFIs to introduce new land ownership laws to facilitate large numbers of small scale rural peasant  farmers to sell their land and migrate to urban areas as reserve force of cheap labour. The intention in addition to creating cheaper labour is to make land and natural resources more available for expansion of larger scale commercial agriculture for export. 

 

Destruction of democratic structures in the phase of neo liberal economic reforms

 

It is very easy to understand that such a drastic and socially destructive change can only be carried out in a country with such democratic and social welfare tradition only through repression and / or through manipulation of the democratic structures. There are two clearly visible process at the top levels of decision making, as well as at the lower levels of political control under  particular regimes.

 

The International Financial Institutions ( IFIs ) as well as the global and Sri Lankan business powers have recognized that in a country where a big majority of people are poor, any government can not get elected or remain in power if they visibly carry out a process that strengthens the interests of such big capital at the expense of the poor. The early efforts to present neo liberal economic policies as strategies that would ultimately reduce poverty have failed. The last 30 years have been a continuous period where  the poor have been compelled to provide greater benefits to the rich at the cost of bigger burdens to the poor. In fact if we look at the massive amounts of borrowings to provide infrastructure, tax concessions and other privileges to promote private businesses and to attract foreign investment, it has been a process of “compelling the poor to subsidize the rich” rather than a process of achieving faster economic growth , which would “trickle down”  and reduce poverty.  Therefore, gradually the political system in the country has been adjusted in a way where Governments declare “pro poor and pro people policies” in their political manifestos during elections but are able to carry out policies that are totally contradictory to their promises once in power.

 

The decision making processes and structures at the top have been adjusted to make it possible to take decisions quite independently from the decisions of the elected representatives of the people. The executive presidency makes it possible for him or her to have authorities that are not answerable to the elected representatives. There are several such institutions set up that are directly answerable to the President and not to the Parliament.  The Sri Lanka Board of Investment ( BoI ) responsible of all matters dealing with foreign investment is one such institution. Public Enterprise Reforms Commission  ( PERC ) had authority to privatize any Government enterprise with no decisions necessary by the Parliament. Similar authorities responsible for many important sectors of the economy exist.  

 

Also the process of deciding on foreign assistance/ lending  was designed by the WB and IMF in a manner which enabled them to get commitments from what  ever government to carry out their recommendations irrespective of the promises on which the Government got elected. As mentioned earlier these arrangements went beyond this where the IFIs were able to get governments to have almost all high officials of the Central Bank, Finance Ministry and the Treasury appointed as approved by the IFIs. It went further in getting most of the secretaries and even the economic advisers to the President appointed as desired by them. Thus the real decision making bodies were these financial institutions and not the elected representatives.

 

Political control over the people was achieved making use of the elitist power structures that existed and were strengthened through various forms of patronage. The impact of these processes was a severe erosion of democracy in the country. Those elected were less and less people who really represented the interests of the poorer sections of society, but were people who had powers of control over people through various means. The tremendous corruption that we see in the current political system is a result of these phenomena. 

 

What then is democracy in today’s context ?

 

This question needs to be answered not only from the perspective of Sri lankan realities, but also from the perspective of the whole process of globalization and  the changed role of governments within the process of globalization and neo liberal economic policies that are adopted by most governments whether they are elected or not.

 

The world is increasingly divided into two camps. Those who are benefiting from the restructuring of the world for globalization of market  and those who are pushed out in this process of globalization.  In today’s world it is much more meaningful to look at these camps or these two contradictory forces pushing the world in two opposite directions. Countries and Country Governments are becoming less and less meaningful. Formation of regional economic power blocks is part of this process.

 

Even the elected Governments of Sri Lanka, whatever the party that gets elected or what ever promises they make, will simply become instruments of control that are used by Global capital and their local allies to adjust Sri Lanka, its economic structures and plans and the political systems to fit into their agenda of expanding capital.

 

This leads to a situation where more and more people will be “excluded” from surviving inside the new type of globalized market. They become no longer useful for the purposes of the market. Therefore, the systems do not expect them to survive, in fact the expectation is that they should disappear, not becoming obstacles to the necessary process of restructuring the market.

 

Therefore, the most important question that needs to be raised in relation to democracy is which of these two camps decides or is responsible for planning and decision making in a given society. This is why there are visible forces that have emerged who are contending in the struggle regarding the direction in which the world has to be moved. Sri Lanka is very much in the midst of this struggle.

 

What vision do we have in relation to the type of world we want? This is very valid for any particular country such as Sri Lanka or any particular region such as South Asia or for the whole world. Since interdependence is a reality that will remain and become ever more strong.

 

Unless we look at democracy from this perspective it will only remain a trap that will compel people to voluntarily surrender to the instruments created for utilizing humankind and all resources of nature for destructive exploitation by capital. Democracy from this perspective would be the right of people to plan and decide for ensuring survival. This primarily would be for ensuring survival of the section of human population whose survival is threatened in the process of exclusion by the market and survival of nature and its resources necessary for survival of life, of all life.

 

Emerging  global understanding of a new democracy

 

This understanding in fact is emerging globally. The emergence of a new vision expressed as “Another World is Possible” or “ A Better World is Possible” as opposed to the process of globalization and the world envisaged by the forces of globalization. The resistance against the processes of globalization such as WTO and the institutions of restructuring such as the WB. IMF, G-8, The World Economic Forum are clear signs of the new understanding of democracy that the world needs.     

 

 The concepts such as “Food Sovereignity developed by global movements of peasants and landless farmers and others who are destined to disappear in the process of globalization of market is another clear indication of the new meaning of democracy. It’s the right to decide on food, who produces food, who decides on what food to produce and to eat, where and using what means are included in this concept put forward by Via Campasena that works in about 60 countries with a membership of about 150 million.

 

The present crisis of high food prices globally with the situation in Sri Lanka much worse than the overall situation globally is pushing the world to recognize that food should not continue to be a commodity for profit making. It should be some thing that ensures survival of all and survival of nature that needs to be ensured for survival of all forms of life.

 

In Sri Lanka

 

The vision and understanding of what democracy should be in  Sri Lanka, could very well be based on this global perspective on future democracy. People, particularly the people who are threatened in their very survival must have the right to decide on creating a society, a country and a world which would ensure their survival. They must have the right to set their own agenda for poverty eradication. Such an approach will necessarily be a process of avoiding destructive exploitation of nature and human beings for profit accumulation. In fact it can even go further in adopting a process of recovery of the lost capacity of nature to regenerate itself. This approach of not only “conserving”  and “sustaining” , but of recovery of regeneration  is an increasingly recognized  necessity  for the survival and well being of all.

 

Strategies towards achieving “democracy” in the present context and for future

 

As already discussed what is needed is for the poor to take over the agenda. The agenda for overcoming their poverty. The right to formulate strategies of overcoming hunger and poverty, which is also a strategy of creating a society that will not exclude them to the point of threatened survival. This can combine with the task of developing ways of dealing with nature and its resources that would ensure the recovery of regeneration. Such an approach is essential for the poor who do not have access to capital. Their methods of survival should be such that they depend much more on what nature gives them free and least on what can be done with capital investment.

 

In the world of today and in Sri Lanka today such a strategy can only be built from bottom upwards. Building a vision and building strength and competence in applying this vision, gaining more and more space and access to nature’s resources to implement such a process of recovery and survival  through organized struggle, establishing collaboration across boarders among people who are in the same struggle and finally fighting for political space to carry this agenda forward at all levels is the way forward that can be envisaged.

 

Sarath Fernando

8^th May , 2008