Committing the uncommitted

By Uditha Devapriya

Any analysis of Sri Lanka’s political situation must consider the fact that many Lankans are tired of mainstream politics. It must then steer clear of diagnoses that trace the country’s problems to the last 75 years. If any party touting itself as an alternative to the mainstream faults the last 75 years for where we are now, that speaks volumes about that party’s inability to seize the moment, to present itself not merely as an alternative but also as the new mainstream, the new political centre and powerhouse. The JVP-NPP has been in politics, mainstream or otherwise, for over half a century. It cannot resort to the 75 years story. It has been part of that story. It remains part of that story.

The SJB is part of that story too. As a fairly mature party, it must realise that it cannot have the cake and eat it. Yet this is precisely what it has not come to terms with. One cannot view politics in isolation from economics. One cannot praise an economic programme while bemoaning the political excesses that programme has unleashed and continues to unleash. If the SJB is serious about its social democratic or centrist credentials, it must dispel itself of the false distinction it has made, and continues to make, between political action and economic reform. The two are intimately linked, and no party critiquing the government’s moves against its critics can afford to go easy on its economic reforms.

The latest International Health Policy (IHP) SLOTS tracker reveals the tide of discontent that’s swept through the country, but also the potential, hitherto untapped, for alternative parties and outfits. The tracker’s main takeaway is that close to a third of the country’s voters are uncommitted. These voters are tired of mainstream politics, mainstream economics, and mainstream pretty much everything.

They do not want to be told that the austerity they are living through and enduring is for the greater good, as some Colombo think-tanks are saying. They do not want to be told that the President is winning friends abroad, because in their cynicism they see the President’s foreign policy as catering to other interests, not Sri Lanka’s. They do not want words and empty debates, they want action.

This government isn’t just facing a crisis of credibility and identity, it’s also facing a crisis of optics. Everything it does seems to be riddled with ambiguity. Its rapprochement with India has brought about, at least superficially, a turnaround in relations with that country. Yet as (very few) commentators like Dr Dayan Jayatilleka point out, rapprochement must never be a byword for appeasement.

Is Sri Lanka’s attempts to (literally) build bridges with India going to take us to a Mexican standoff, or dare I say Chamberlainesque standoff, with India, China, and the US all holding a gun at one another and at us? The government must realise that how Sri Lankans view other countries, particularly India and China, has a bearing on how Sri Lanka conducts its relations with them. But has it realised this?

To this end Dr Jayatilleka, in his latest DailyFT column, criticises MP Eran Wickramaratne’s recent claim that Sri Lanka must turn to a multi-aligned foreign policy. The SJB, of course, is home to several MPs who share this sentiment. But as I argued in a piece not long ago, multi-aligned can mean many things to many people and many interests. To me it represents a policy of capitulation and appeasement, whereby we latch ourselves on to everyone and everything, not unlike George McHale, from Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, who attaches himself to multiple friends and enemies, depending on the situation he’s in. What works for individuals don’t always work for countries, and for Sri Lanka, multi-alignment is never going to work. It is no different to the sentiment aired at the LKI Foreign Policy Seminar that non-alignment makes no sense. How so, exactly?

The world has moved on, but Sri Lanka is yet to wake up. Every other country has ditched market fundamentalism and is embracing industrial policy and national planning. This is not a throwback to the socialist era, far from it: even the US is committing itself to a New New Deal. The JVP-NPP has embraced this paradigm, but has it succeeded it converting its base to that philosophy? The Communist Party is the only Left outfit that has made a serious effort in this direction. It has not kept these conversations away from the public domain, but has taken them forward, going beyond petty political divisions. It recognises that these issues are in the national interest, and are no longer circumscribed by party divisions, at least not in the Opposition. Have other Left outfits recognised this and reciprocated? So far, neither the SJB nor the JVP has. What does that tell us about these parties?

More importantly, what does that tell us about where they are headed? The SJB and the JVP-NPP have become political purists: they do not want to be tainted by past associations, and are desperately trying to forge a new identity. The SJB has been remarkably weak when it comes to forging that identity, because it remains circumscribed by its past links with the UNP even as it steadfastly refuses to interact with Rajapaksist elements. The JVP-NPP is committing the opposite error, as fatal: it is fiercely committed to its independence, and will do everything to not engage with other parties. Both tactics are, at one level, evocative of a kind of political purism that can only benefit the status quo.

Day after day the President seeks one triumph after another, here and abroad. The optics don’t really matter to him or his cohorts: what matters is the perception that he’s doing something, the semblance of activity. With an Opposition that’s hardly doing anything, this is going to be easier than one may give him credit for. If the Opposition is serious about converting the unconverted, and committing the uncommitted, it must not just form the broadest possible alliance, but also enable the broadest possible rapprochement between parties. I have yet to see that rapprochement; it remains as elusive as ever.

The writer is an international relations analyst, researcher, and columnist who can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.com.