The relevance of institutions

By Uditha Devapriya

On Wednesday, August 9, the Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute (LKI) unveiled its inaugural Foreign Policy Seminar. Titled “Changing Global Dynamics: Implications for Sri Lanka”, it sought to address, and resolve, the many dilemmas the country was, and is, facing in light of various global issues, including the drive towards de-dollarisation and multilateralism. Featuring four panellists, drawn from four different yet somewhat related fields, the event was chaired, one could say hosted, by the LKI’s new Executive Director, Ravinatha Aryasinha.

The event coincided with the death anniversary of Sri Lanka’s foremost Foreign Minister, Lakshman Kadirgamar. Although, as I have outlined in another essay, Kadirgamar’s vision was thwarted by the very political forces and loyalties he served, there is no denying the mark he left on our foreign relations, for a decade if not longer. When people talk about Chandrika Kumaratunga’s foreign policy, it is actually Lakshman Kadirgamar’s policies that they invoke. It is no doubt one of the biggest ironies out there that those who undermined his concern for Sri Lanka’s security and sovereignty abroad, and for peace and unity at home, during his lifetime, can speak highly of his principles 18 years after his death.

In that light, institutions like the LKI serve a pivotal, if crucial, role. They address one of the more pressing problems facing this country now, namely the reduction of its state capacity. At a time when every other Sri Lankan’s dream is to leave Sri Lanka, and the public sector is facing the prospect of a massive shrinkage, it is becoming increasingly impossible to attract top minds to the public service. But a country’s mainstay is its public service, and no arm of that service is more important than the diplomatic and foreign policy apparatus. To attract the best, the State should appoint the best and pay the best salaries. It should also facilitate research. In that light, the LKI’s purpose cannot be underrated.

For these reasons, I was more interested in what the LKI had done than in the contents of its foreign policy seminar. Patronised by the State – the Foreign Minister happens to be the Chairman – the LKI is one of the few think-tanks that belong to the public sector, and by extension to the people. At a time when civil society has become associated with the non-public sector, the role of public sector think-tanks has become more important than ever.

The BCIS (Bandaranaike Center for International Studies) serves an equally important role, as do universities and institutions of learning. They are repositories of research, relevant because research backed by official patronage can ultimately help minimise Sri Lanka’s human resource shortfalls.

I myself work at a foreign policy think-tank, and I am aware that the State cannot fund institutions for long. This was true even before the crisis. The crisis, in that sense, merely aggravated a long-term decline. Yet public funds are paid by the people, and institutions dedicated to research facilitate policymaking. This is a two-way street: ultimately it is the people who patronise these institutions through the arms of the State, and it is up to the State to deliver on the funds it receives. Private think-tanks are beholden to their donors. That is not to say that such setups constrain these organisations, but there is a link, and an indelible one, between their aims and the aims of their sponsors. This is true of the bigger think-tanks especially. But not of State think-tanks. The latter are, unlike the non-public-non-private sector civil society outfits, ultimately owned by the public.

To be sure, all institutions tend to sway between good times and bad, between capable heads and incompetent hands. The LKI, together with the BCIS, fulfils an important mandate. There must be a consistent commitment to that mandate. To sustain such commitment, the heads of these bodies will have to conduct seminars, publish journals, and resist the urge to interfere.

Recently an institution dedicated to teaching leadership was launched within the premises of another older institution. One should doubtless welcome such initiatives, yet at the same time one wonders, and often fears, whether newer organisations will be pushed to replace older ones, despite the continuing relevance of the latter.

Under Ravinatha Aryasinha, the LKI can steer clear of these developments and stick to its mandate. A former Ambassador and a seasoned diplomat, Aryasinha has experience in the field. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he also has had experience as a journalist and a writer, and as an original thinker. Anyone can pass exams and “become” a diplomat, it is no longer as tough as it used to be. But very few possess the intellectual curiosity to write, to reflect, to speak with substance. The problem with our foreign policy establishment is that it is manned by too many bureaucrats, and too few original thinkers. Initiative, in that sense, has become a rarity, and Aryasinha is one of very few people who has it. But initiative is not enough, there must also be an environment conducive to it. In that respect, it remains to be seen if the wheels he has set in motion will be allowed to continue.

At the Foreign Policy Seminar, Harinda Vidanage, of the Centre for Strategic Assessment at Kotelawala Defence University, reflected on a tribute he penned on Lakshman Kadirgamar after his assassination. Prefaced by a reference to Zizek, it struck a plaintive if elegiacal note. When Vidanage went abroad, he remembered, it was that article, more so than any other academic piece, which his colleagues associated with him.

The lesson here is clear enough. Ultimately, it is what we communicate with the public that matters. If our foreign policy is to improve, and if institutions like the LKI and the BCIS are to progress, they must hence be manned by those who are aware of such needs. In Aryasinha, the LKI has got that kind of head. But what of other institutions, including those tasked with nurturing our youth for leadership? The jury, I think, is still out there.

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