On the surface appearance, the situation in the country has vastly improved and normalized since 2022. Yet, it must be borne in mind that most of the imports are still restricted and we are yet to resume servicing our loans. Naturally, sooner than later we must wake up from this limbo. The atmosphere then might again turn explosive as nothing else has changed much.
We owe to creditors all over the world and the economy is struggling as we try to figure how to honour all this debt. In the meantime, we need more loans to get by in our day-to-day existence. We will have to lift the self-imposed debt ‘standstill’ in April 2022. The mountain of debt we will have to wade through then would be humongous. Yet, our income has not improved. In fact, the financial situation is increasingly deteriorating judging by the number of advertisements placed in by banks and financial institutions to auction property of bad debt and unserviced leases.
As the country struggles with poverty, experts are repeatedly warning that children are increasingly becoming malnourished. A Parliamentary Committee has already been appointed to investigate this dire warning. Yet, it is unclear if we as a nation understand the gravity of the problem before us.
The future of the State Owned Enterprises (SOE) is uncertain at this point. Those charged with resolving the country’s debt crisis are even exploring the potential the Port City might hold in this endeavour. As such, interested investors are not getting the fast track service or information that was promised when the Port City was envisioned.
Political parties are fragmented and none with which most can identify. Many of the ordinary citizens worry that certain foreign embassies have more of a political clout in the country than any of the political entities in the country.
For reasons beyond comprehension, old allies such as the Gammanpila-Weerawansa-Nanayakkara faction and the GL Peiris factions continue to fight with the Government separately. Both these two groups came together with the country’s main Opposition, the SJB, to try and defeat incumbent President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s Parliamentary bid to become president. Having failed that endeavour, they now work separately though they all make similar arguments on the country’s present status.
Indeed, we are on the road to recovery. All this boils down to one factor – without argument, Sri Lanka is in dire need of a system change. While a system change is a must, whether it is possible is the question.
System Change mistaken for a quick fix to Utopia
In the past, three Executive Presidents tried to change the way things were done. By the time they left Office, they were immensely unpopular. They were namely President Ranasinghe Premadasa, President Mahinda Rajapaksa and President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. President Premadasa forced the civil servants to be more efficient and effective. President Mahinda transformed the landscape with large scale infrastructure and mega investments. President Gotabaya was adamant not to embroil the country in further debt.
President JR Jayewardene does not count as he is the one who introduced and established the current governance. However, it is noteworthy that he too changed the system from a not so perfect one. Interestingly, today many attribute the present day ills – both economic and social – to the system introduced by President Jayewardene.
It is with a keen sense of regret that most critics of present day governance speak of the system change that took place in 1977. In a misplaced idealism, the previous governance of especially Sirima Bandaranaike’s 1970-77 Government is spoken of with the view that if we just held on to that system just a little bit longer, we would be in a far better place than now.
However, such pronouncements only go on to highlight just how little we understand the problem. The fact that the first JVP insurrection took place in 1971 proves that the youth were just as unhappy and frustrated as they are today. One may argue that since that first unfortunate insurrection, the reforms adapted since then and executed until 1977 were beneficial and necessary to the country.
If that is truly the case, one must ask as to what prevented them from reverting to that system. After all, the UNP Government under JR Jayewardene, Ranasinghe Premadasa and DB Wijetunga only lasted 17 years. Yet, JR Jayewardene’s Constitution and Open Economy is now in its 46th year, albeit with amendments.
Not even Sirima Bandaranaike’s daughter, Chandrika Kumaratunga, who served as the fifth President of Sri Lanka, from November 12, 1994 to November 19, 2005 attempted to repeat or emulate her mother’s policies. Everyone talks to changing the system created by JR Jayewardene but no one has got down to it. Interestingly, whilst many speak of Sirima Bandaranaike’s system with awe and admiration, none even suggests that we return it.
The reason is simple. It is being accused that JR Jayewardene’s Open Economy cannibalized the SOE. As SOE was domineering all domestic manufacturing industries, the Open Economy effectively crushed our manufacturing sector. This outcome is largely responsible for our unhealthy dependence on imports. Currently, the forex crisis is directly a consequence of this phenomenon.
While all this is true, the other side of the coin was just as brutal and damaging to our economy. Under Sirima Bandaranaike’s times, the private sector got wiped out. This killed the spirit of entrepreneurship. Therefore, to return to the much admired Sirima Bandaranaike’s style of rule is effectively to obliterate the private sector. No politician of today would dare do so.
The interesting point here is our penchant to jump into conclusions than truthfully analyze the causes and understand the problem as it really transpired. By clinging to half baked theories, we continue to trudge on the same issues than move forward.
For instance, the upward trend in JVP’s popularity we see today has nothing to do with their stated policies. This sudden popularity is because many are disheartened by the outcome of the previous Governments. The Mahinda Rajapaksa Administration was ousted due to alleged corruption. The Yahapalana Government failed to deliver good governance. Under Gotabaya Rajapaksa Government the economy collapsed. Only a handful have attempted to understand the cause for these Governments to fail. Instead, most latch on to wild theories, many of which are without any basis at all.
Unfortunately, this has led many to lazily conclude that since the trusted political entities failed, the time has come to trust a party that was never considered before. This party that voters are now willing to gamble on is the JVP.
 Colombo Port |
JVP rising to power is not the question though. The question is, whether they can sustain it. The manner professionals, academics and business community are gravitating to JVP seminars and gatherings is reminiscent of the days leading to Gotabaya Rajapaksa election campaign. The fact that some of the faces now seen in JVP events were also in the front rows of Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s presidential campaign is noteworthy.
However, from the day President Gotabaya Rajapaksa was elected, it is these same faces and forces that supported him that were the first to become disappointed with him. Whatever he did, he seemed to irritate someone’s pet concern.
A good example to illustrate this point is when President Gotabaya decreed that Chena farmers may cultivate in forest buffer zones, the environmentalists bristled. Many of these nature lovers campaigned hard for President Gotabaya but with just this decision, they lost all confidence in him in a matter of weeks.
While Chena cultivation causes deforestation, that destruction is temporary. After the harvest, the cultivated areas are allowed to return to the forest. This is of course not an ideal situation. Nevertheless, one must consider the plight of the farmers who are landless and steeped in extreme poverty. Getting angry with President Gotabaya was easier than exploring solutions that would uplift a fellow countryman whilst protecting the environment.
The JVP too, if they come to power, will find themselves in the same conundrum. Many expect instant change to the better but are unwilling to be part of the change. As far as most are concerned, their duty to the country begins and ends with voting a candidate to power.
However, that is not a system change. It is expecting one man or political entity – may it be a party of an alliance – to do all the heavy lifting without disturbing one’s lifestyle or pet concerns. For a system change to be effective in a democratic setting, we need to understand the problems as a nation.
Before JR’s System Change
Until JR Jayewardene came to power as Prime Minister in 1977, the big debate in the country was between socialism that shunned the West and capitalism, which wanted to work with the West. Considering the host of social issues we inherited with Independence in 1948 was manufactured by the British and before that the Portuguese and the Dutch, the anti-Western sentiment is understandable. Reacting to that hurt as we did however was foolish.
Most of our interests were still in the hands of the West as well as most of the established markets. In that context, we were really not in a position to alienate the West. Furthermore, the systems in place were also pulling to Western ideology.
However, one may argue it, at the end of the day, one had to be conversant in English and English habits and ways to climb the social ladder in Sri Lanka. This is not to be misunderstood as that we could not have progressed in any other way.
All the successful countries from the Far East as Japan to our closest neighbours as India had proven that a powerful economy is possible with a strong national identity. In our case, we never seriously veered from the systems put in by the Europeans for their interests. Instead of understanding the fundamental changes needed, we started tinkering with the economy.
At the time of Independence, we had an Open Economy. However, all the commodities were in favour of the British Empire. For instance, though we continued as an agricultural based economy and 90 percent of our exports were agriculture based, those products in the form of tea and rubber were not excess of produce, but solely produced for the export markets. Bulk of these markets were the UK and USA.
The commodities we did need as rice, sugar and fertilizer were not home-grown or produced. These were all imported despite our abilities to produce it within the country.
Since Independence, we have not explored ways to enter into the manufacturing industries. As far as we were concerned, it was easier to import from established suppliers than compete with them – especially, when at that time the domestic markets were small.
It is in this background that Sri Lanka decided to strengthen ties with the communist bloc – namely China and Russia. Both these countries have remained good friends of Sri Lanka to date and over the past decades have lent solid support to the Island nation. Therefore, the decision to broaden our international alliances was a wise move. However, to forge new relations whilst burning bridges with the Western bloc held dire consequences.
The anti-Western stance adopted was quite childish. It was a knee jerk reaction to the hurt and humiliation we suffered under their boot during the time of forced occupation. By trying to snub the West, we did ourselves much harm.
For instance, we began to exchange our valuable, trademark tea for industrial goods from other countries. These countries resold our tea to other countries. Thereby, we were deprived of opportunities to earn forex directly. In time to come, our distinctly flavoured and fragrant teas were mixed with lower quality teas and resulted in tarnishing our brand.
Over the next decades, we failed to read the situation developing in the world. One political entity believed that we should not reinvent the wheel and must follow the West with its established markets and manufacturing goods of high quality and standards. The other believed that we could live without the West. Neither factored developments as war and changing times and with it the needs of the world.
We have continued with this practice of simply forming opinions based on the immediate outcomes and taking uninformed decisions based on emotions. We still have not grasped that the rural economy is as important as mega developments. Instead, we try to instill one size fits all kinds of solutions that fit neither segment of the society.
Without recognizing this unhealthy pattern, we talk of power devolution. While some advocate power to be devolved at province levels, others debate on giving power to districts. The key steps that need to be taken before any power devolution are yet to be addressed.
[email protected]
