Sri Lanka:The New Regime and the
Revolution
Prof.Asanga Abeyagoonasekera
“The most perilous moment for a bad
government is one when it seeks to mend its ways.” ―Alexis
de Tocqueville,L'Ancien Régime et la Révolution (1856)
At a meeting in Davos in
2017, Chinese President Xi Jinping made a speech supporting the agenda on
globalisation. Meanwhile, back in the US, President Trump was highlighting the
importance of the US confining its national boundaries. “America only does not
mean America alone,” said Trump in Davos. The President received a standing
ovation for a speech that resonated the importance of collective action to
build a better world. However, global reality, with its increasing political
fractures, tells a different story.
Sri Lanka, too, is
witness to political bipolarity at a critical moment in the island's political
narrative. For a closer examination of the developments underway in Sri Lanka,
a study of the 'Silent Revolution' of 2015 against the monumental French
Revolution provides illuminating points for analysis. Alexis de Tocqueville
ideas on the French Revolution state that the “chief permanent achievement of
the French revolution was the suppression of those political institutions,
commonly described as feudal, which for many centuries had held unquestioned
sway in most European countries. The revolution set out to replace them with a
new social and political order, at once simple and more uniform, based on the
concept of equality of all men.”
In comparison, what did
the Sri Lanka’s Silent Revolution achieve? Did the present government take
precautions to make sure of importing nothing from the past into the new
regime? What kind of process did the new regime follow? And what restrictions
were set to differentiate themselves in every possible way? Was the word
revolution used simply to fulfill a political aspiration?
Messages from the
leadership are loud but inconsistent. Sufficiently exposed to bipolar political
promises, public absorption of rhetoric has reached exhaustion. This is a poor
note to send the electorate after casting their franchise at the local
elections in Sri Lanka. Looking at this bipolarity from the top, one could
design a “political bipolar index (PBI)” to assess local leaders' (lack of)
responsibility.
For politicians,
political power remains the raison d’être. The struggle toward electoral
victory, subsequent power struggles, and influence over public policy is
visible across societies. In certain dignified societies, persuasion remains an
acceptable choice over coercion. However, in some other societies, politicians
prefer the baton, tear gas, and machine guns. In an orderly society, coercion
and conflict are transferred from the battleground to councils of law. Some regimes have the
muscle to ward off a revolution while others fail.
Sri Lanka’s Rajapaksa
regime failed to ward off the Silent Revolution in 2015. It was a peaceful
revolution by ballot. To apply de Tocqueville’s words, “The regime which is
destroyed by a revolution is almost always an improvement on its immediate
predecessor, and experience teaches that the most critical moment for bad governments
is the one which witnesses their first steps toward reform.” Today, the Sri
Lankan government is experiencing what Tocqueville wrote in 1856, in his book
on the French Revolution. The local government election results
revealed the mood of the polity. Local elections remain a perfect barometer to
identify political cyclones on the horizon. Then one could also name the next
revolution 'Silent Revolution 2.0' in 2020. An actual revolutionary scenario
will offer new faces and fresh voices. However, such a reality remains
doubtful.
Sri Lanka celebrated 70
years of independence on 4th February this year. The country displayed its
achievements since independence in the print and electronic media. Alongside
its achievements, the country has also faced nearly a thirty-year war with two
youth insurrections in 1971 and 1989. The revolt was against the political
system of that time which failed to create better economic conditions particularly
in the field of employment. The situation has not improved. The economic
condition worsens with high borrowings and debt. This was clearly indicated by
the latest Moody’s Asia Pacific rating. Sri Lanka did not rank favourably, especially
when compared to with 24 Asia Pacific countries. Earlier, the World Economic
Forum's Global Competitiveness Index report reflected the same dismal ratings.
Since independence,
successive governments have failed to make Sri Lanka a developed nation. A
toxic mix of high-level corruption and bad governance remain at the heart of
the problem. According to senior journalist, Malinda Senevirathne, “a system of
government run by the worst, least qualified or most unscrupulous citizens” and
an absence of technocrats with the right skill set to deliver could be the
cause of this situation.
President Sirisena’s
findings from the Central Bank Bond Commission and the revelation of
malpractice to the public should be appreciated. His actions reflected
transparency at the highest level. In a country like Sri Lanka where the appearance
of civil power is little more than a wispy gauze veiling the reality of political
power, disclosures from the Bond Commission are grist for the mill of
politics-as-usual and not a force disrupting the status quo. Only if
appropriate action is taken following the revelations contained in the report
and the funds recovered to the public can progress be measured in terms of
restoring civil power over political power.
In this revolutionary
political moment that began in 2015, revolutions within revolutions are needed
to harness the scattered and disgruntled polity. The ballot in hand has proven
that the results will be a clear epiphany.
*(The author is a
visiting Professor for Geopolitics and Global Leadership at the Northern Kentucky University(USA)
and the Director General of the Institute of National Security Studies Sri
Lanka. The views expressed are
the author's own)
