Old Bottles, Spent Wine

By Uditha Devapriya

With elections coming up in a few months’ time – notwithstanding Palitha Range Bandara’s outrageous remarks, to which Saliya Pieris, the former President of the Bar Association, responded thoughtfully – new coalitions and alliances are cropping up. These have pulled together the unlikeliest MPs and ideologues, who you’d never put together in the same room but who have, in the aftermath of the 2022 crisis, have unified around certain issues. Outside of the government, the consensus seems to be that we have yet to see a proper Opposition. This is the selling promise of these new coalitions: they tout themselves as that proper Opposition, the only political groups that matter.

The most recent of these coalitions is the Sarvajana Balaya. Led by Dilith Jayaweera, it houses a galaxy of parties, representing diverse, often disparate, interests, including Wimal Weerawansa’s National Freedom Front, Udaya Gammanpila’s Pivithuru Hela Urumaya, the Democratic Left Front, the Communist Front, and a breakaway faction from the SLPP and government called the Independent MPs’ forum. There are other groups as well, and other personalities, including attorneys and former Chief Justices. They have colourful pasts, and they have given the new formation a very colourful platform.

Rhetoric and political statements aside, however, the Sarvajana Balaya is essentially a gathering of ex-Gotabaya Rajapaksa ideologues. Many of them, like Weerawansa and Gammanpila, resigned early on from the Rajapaksa administration, before the crisis in 2022. Others, like Gevindu Cumaratunga and Channa Jayasumana, broke ranks with that regime during the crisis. The Communist Party went beyond these formations by calling for reforms and directly taking part in the aragalaya at Galle Face. When goons attached to Mahinda Rajapaksa attacked Gotagogama in May, the CPSL’s chairman, Dr G. Weerasinghe, convened a press conference condemning Rajapaksa and asking him to resign.

Dilith Jayaweera is, of course, the ultimate ex-Rajapaksist, perhaps in the same way Ignazio Silone and Whittaker Chambers were the ultimate ex-Stalinists. When the government announced 10 plus hour power-cuts and hastily imposed a curfew after the confrontation at Mirihana on March 31, Jayaweera tussled with Namal Rajapaksa on Twitter. This led to perhaps the most significant political breach for the Rajapaksa government, since Jayaweera had, since at least 2018, spearheaded Gotabaya’s campaign from the sidelines. That he has refused to come full circle, and remains critical of Rajapaksa, is intriguing. At one level, one could call him sincerer than the SLPP, three-quarters of which slung mud at the UNP in 2019 but are now content being at its beck and call every day.

Jayaweera’s party, the Mawbima Janatha Pakshaya, is an enigma. It pontificates on the need for an alternative politics. It is high on protecting national assets, and straddles between transforming Sri Lanka “into a state of unparalleled dynamism” and “drawing inspiration from our rich culture and values rooted in our ancient civilisation.” At one level, its ideology bears analogies with the East Asian brand of developmentalist nationalism.

This is not to say Jayaweera is a Mahathir in the making, though I think he is more deserving of such epithets than Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who evoked comparisons with Vladimir Putin. In any case, kingmakers are deal-clinchers. Jayaweera’s party has the money and outreach, and is tapping into both. Against that backdrop, it makes sense for the party to enter agreements and pacts with other parties. In that regard, the Sarvajana Balaya has reached a consensus with two formations: the Old Left and the ex-Rajapaksa nationalists. For the Old Left, this marks a return to form. Last year, it spoke loftily about carving a different political space, but it has now reverted to its age-old strategy of aligning with nationalist forces. Since at least 1970, that seems to have been their preferred path to socialism.

I am being harsh on the Communist Party. But I am also being fair. Such strategies once had a purpose and logic. The geopolitics of the Cold War being what they were, the Left could make a cogent case for joining Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s coalition. The Left could make as cogent a case against it, but that’s another story. The point is that Bandaranaike represented a wave of anti-imperialist socialist leaders in the Third World, who the Left thought could be nurtured and pushed towards the Left. In this, however, the Left both overestimated and undermined the force of nationalism: it believed that nationalism would eventually wither away in the face of socialism, and saw nothing wrong in compromising on its animus against petty bourgeois ideologies if they could help foment a revolution.

The great lesson of the 1960s and 1970s, not just in Sri Lanka, but also in India, Algeria, and Egypt, was that nationalism could never lay the groundwork for a socialist society. It could only overtake it. The two, put simply, could never become one: there were just too many incompatibilities and incongruences. To give perhaps the best example, when Sirimavo Bandaranaike forced the LSSP and Communist Party out of her coalition, she shored up the right-wing of the SLFP, the Felix Dias flank. And when her brand of nepotism became too strong for even her MPs, the country witnessed a mass defection to the UNP, leading from an internal shift to the right (the SLFP) to an external, and far more consequential, shift to the right (from the Senanayake to the Jayewardene chapter in the UNP).

Yet, even with all this, it was possible to justify the Left’s forays into nationalist territory. As Vinod Moonesinghe has noted in a rebuttal to Nathan Sivasambu, not even the Left could ignore the electorate and the reality of “bourgeois democracy”, which had been granted to Sri Lanka long before other colonies and territories. 1956 marked a crucial turnaround in electoral politics. It led to the bifurcation of the Sinhala Buddhist right between the SLFP and the UNP. The choice for the Left seemed hard to make here, and for a while, controversial as it was, the LSSP and CPSL joined the the SLFP. That they soon embraced, almost uncritically, the SLFP’s descent into chauvinism (“Dudleyge badey masala vadai) is certainly unfortunate, even deplorable. But politically, it was felt necessary.

Half a century on, has the Old Left revamped its strategies? From its press conferences last year, one would have assumed so. At one point there was even speculation that the Old Left and New Left – the NPP – would band together, doing away with decades of sectarianism. This, however, was not meant to be. Instead, the Communist Party and the Democratic Left Front seem to have preferred joining Jayaweera, perhaps seeing the likes of Weerawansa, Gammanpila, and Cumaratunga as comrades who will lead them to that kalunika of Sinhala politics, the congruence of nationalism and developmentalism.

This is, of course, a mirage. But it underlies a tectonic shift in local politics.

Over the last few decades, we have seen a diminution of the Old Left and, ironically, the Mahinda Rajapaksist brand of nationalism. I have contended in my articles on Jathika Chintanaya that this reflects a broader shift within Sinhala Buddhist nationalism itself. The history of the Republican Party, some would say, boils down to the descent from Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump. Likewise, the history of Sinhala nationalism has been the descent from Gunadasa Amarasekara and Nalin de Silva to the hundred or so dilettantes who claim to be their descendants but are anything but. In that scheme, the likes of Weerawansa and Gammanpila have become the proverbial last of the lot, spouting a nationalist discourse which has become predictable and passé.

Why passé? Because Gotabaya Rajapaksa, promoted as the security-sovereignty candidate, facilitated the conjunction of nationalist and neoliberal forces. This dislodged the more populist sections of the nationalist camp – which Weerawansa epitomised – empowering a political class that wields nationalist, even communalist, rhetoric within a neoliberalised economic and social space. That could of course not have been possible without the Ranil Wickremesinghe presidency, but it would not have come to pass without his predecessor’s catastrophic failures. And no matter what Gotabaya may think, it was not, as the title of his book would have us believe, a conspiracy. It was stark, clear, obvious, from day one. Neither he nor his advisors can deny their culpability there.

Jayaweera’s developmentalist-nationalist vision shares more with the paternalistic right than the democratic left, notwithstanding his embracing a party which calls itself the Democratic Left Front. What is ironic is how ideologues attached to the Communist Party see it fit to attack the NPP, but see nothing wrong in joining forces with nationalist formations that have run their course and have given way to the most nefarious political conjuncture in Sri Lanka’s post-independence history: the SLPP-UNP pact. These parties are as complicit in that conjuncture as the parties that are in power. Not all the rosy words or mea culpas in the world can absolve them, or their accomplices, of this.

Uditha Devapriya is a writer, researcher, and analyst based in Sri Lanka who contributes to a number of publications on topics such as history, art and culture, politics, and foreign policy. He can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.com.