By Saman Indrajith

The Aragalaya movement has formed a political outfit called the People’s Struggle Alliance (PSA) and has nominated Nuwan Bopage as its candidate for the upcoming Presidential election. Bopage, an attorney-at-law, was a prominent leader in the Galle Face Aragalaya movement, which successfully led to the resignation of former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

Born in Kolonnawa, Bopage received his primary education at D.S. Senanayake College in Colombo and completed his higher education at Sri Lanka Law College. He has spearheaded several notable public campaigns, including efforts to remove the garbage dump in Meetotamulla, his hometown. As a lawyer, Bopage achieved a landmark legal victory for the residents of Chunnakam, who were suffering from environmental pollution caused by a power plant.

His legal focus spans human rights, environmental protection, and constitutional law. During the 2022 protests, he played a crucial role both as a protest leader at Galle Face and as a lawyer, despite the state’s repression of the protests. Currently, Bopage serves as an executive member of the PSA.

During an interview with the Sunday Island, Bopage emphasized that without creating a pan-Sri Lankan national identity that transcends identity politics and unites all citizens as Sri Lankans, there will be no solutions to the crises facing the nation. He stated that the PSA believes the 13th Amendment to the Constitution will not resolve the national issue. The PSA proposes a political solution to the national problem, including the introduction of self-governing units and areas for oppressed and marginalized communities.

Excerpts of the interview:

Q: The PSA is a coalition of several political parties and includes many experienced activists, including Duminda Nagamuwa, who has previously run for president. Why have they selected you?

A:With the announcement of the presidential election, there is increased focus on the candidates. Media discussions are centered around who the candidates are and who might win. However, what is crucial for Sri Lanka, which is currently facing economic and political crises, is finding a genuine solution. It’s not about having faith in a particular candidate, but about evaluating policies and plans. The key question is: who will present a policy framework and action plan that meets the people’s expectations?

For nearly two years, various political campaigns have been underway for the presidential election, yet none have offered a clear solution, plan, or policy. This situation reflects a recurring pattern seen over decades. Despite numerous promises from various individuals to resolve Sri Lanka’s crises and lead the country forward, public trust has often been betrayed, leading to unmet expectations. A presidential election should not be a mere popularity contest; the public must take responsibility for their choice. It is crucial to move beyond being swayed by individuals who gain popularity through state power, financial influence, media presence, or civil power. For instance, in the last presidential election, a significant portion of the public placed their trust in Gotabaya Rajapaksa, only to have their expectations dashed within two years, resulting in his removal.

As a society, we cannot continue making the same mistakes. Trust should be placed in policies and plans, not in individuals. The People’s Struggle Alliance urges the public to base their trust on policies rather than personalities. On July 31, the Alliance presented its policy framework and action plan to the public. The Alliance’s candidate not only embodies these policies and plans but also has a proven track record of standing with the people, participating in protests, and maintaining their trust. All factions of the Alliance have endorsed this candidate.

Q: There are many traditional parties and parties with parliamentary representation contesting the election. Some alliances seem to have a better chance of winning due to their resources and support. Why did the PSA decide to enter this election?

A: What is the purpose of the other alliances that are being formed? Are they focused on retaining or gaining power? None of these alliances were initially formed based on policy agreements. They began by forming alliances to secure power and only later discussed their policies. In contrast, the People’s Struggle Alliance operates differently. From the start, the alliance members proposed a short-term transitional plan and its fundamental policy framework, which attracted other groups to join. This is why we were able to present a policy statement to the public within a week of the presidential election announcement.

On the other hand, the remaining alliances are largely based on a single plan—the neoliberal economic agenda promoted by institutions like the IMF. Political parties such as the United National Party and the People’s Front, as well as opposition groups like the Samagi Jana Balawegaya, National People’s Power, Tamil National Alliance, and the Muslim Congress, all adhere to this IMF-driven plan. These groups, fearing a loss of public support, advocate a powerful executive presidency and parliamentarians elected by the people, while maintaining the existing state structure that fails to serve the public.

The PSA offers an alternative economic plan and a new constitution that empowers the people. Other alliances are essentially working against the majority of the population. They have formed coalitions with entities such as the government, opposition, IMF, transnational financial organizations, local exploitative capitalists, global imperialists, and foreign intelligence services. While these alliances may appear as different factions under various names, they are united in their opposition to the people’s interests.

The PSA is a coalition formed to challenge this opposition and unite the people. It includes workers, farmers, fishermen, small producers, students, youth, women, and marginalized groups, as well as leftists, progressives, and democrats. We felt it was necessary to build an alliance of the people because the other alliances you mentioned are being created in opposition to the public’s aspirations.

Q: This is an election you cannot win. Whose votes will you break and why do you want to do that?

A: What will all those other candidates do after winning? For whose sake are they seeking power? One thing is certain: they will shift the burden onto the people, allowing the rich to continue their extravagance. Sell off public assets, sell common property, and take on more and more debt, trapping the country in a debt trap. When the people oppose these actions, bring in new repressive laws. The People’s Struggle Alliance is coming to the presidential election to abolish the executive presidential system, ensure that the people have the power to determine state policies and legislation, expand the fundamental rights of the people, and provide solutions to the national problem with a new constitutional framework.

It is for establishing economic justice. Our goal is not narrow, but to give power to the people. There has been a saying for so long. It is not just a saying, but what actually happened. To see who won the election, go in front of the TV when the election results are announced; to see who lost, go in front of a mirror, the saying goes. Truly, every time someone wins an election, the people who cast their votes have always lost. To prevent this from happening again, for the people to win, a policy and a program must be victorious. We are coming to the presidential election for that purpose. So we have no aim of breaking into anyone’s votes specifically.

Q: Do you support the principle of self-determination for minorities?

A: Currently, all other parties contesting the presidential election are still bound by the 13th Amendment, a 37-year-old solution that was relevant at its inception. This amendment, created in response to conditions at the time, has become outdated as significant social changes have occurred over nearly four decades. The needs and aspirations of society, as well as national issues, have evolved. Therefore, a solution that addresses today’s context is needed.

The 13th Amendment was designed as a solution for the North and South at the time, but even the LTTE did not accept it. The current advocates of the 13th Amendment seem to be using it more out of obligation rather than genuine commitment to solving national issues. They are not sincerely addressing the problem but are using it as a political tool.

In contrast, the People’s Struggle Alliance does not view the Tamil, Muslim, or Up-Country Tamil communities merely as votes to be won. We are focused on addressing national oppression and fostering true nationalism. The People’s Struggle Alliance proposes a political solution to national issues, including the introduction of self-governing units and areas for oppressed national communities. The boundaries of these areas should be reassessed based on population distribution and historical context, rather than adhering to current provincial or district boundaries.

Furthermore, we propose that the governing structures in these areas be monitored, regulated, and controlled by democratic bodies formed among the people, rather than being governed solely by elected representatives. Given that the Sinhala majority constitutes about three-quarters of the population, we have also considered the risk of majoritarianism within the legislature. Our proposal includes a bicameral legislature, requiring approval from both chambers for laws on sensitive issues such as national, religious, and cultural matters, as well as for state policy formulation.

Having endured 30 years of war, we must work towards a permanent solution to prevent such issues from arising again. It should be a genuine effort, not just a political maneuver.

Q: What solution does the PSA offer for the national problem?

A: Our vision is to create a society where all people come together to build a global human culture. However, addressing contemporary national issues requires giving equal recognition, respect, and rights to all national, religious, and cultural differences. In short, our solution is based on the principles of equality and democracy.

Q: The IMF has frequently been discussed in the election platform, with some even threatening to withdraw from the IMF bailout program. What is the PSA’s stance?

A: One key issue is that the IMF has not yet intervened in foreign debt restructuring. The Sri Lankan government has only engaged in discussions about bilateral, multilateral, and commercial loans with its creditors. Initially, the IMF’s involvement was intended to focus on local debt restructuring. However, the IMF became involved in local debt restructuring, which was not necessary. The issue of Sri Lanka’s debt should have been addressed domestically.

When dealing with foreign debt restructuring, the government should have focused on negotiating debt relief and forgiveness from the outset. There is a global practice recognized by the United Nations for debt forgiveness in developing countries. Sri Lanka should have collaborated with other nations in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe, which also face debt burdens, to advocate debt justice on an international level. Instead, agreeing to policies under the IMF framework that impose public hardship is not a viable solution.

Even now, it is essential to explore whether a portion of the debt can be written off using existing international norms and practices for the cancellation of odious debt. We have borrowed funds at high interest rates with large risk premiums, and it may be possible to attempt non-payment for such risky debts.

However, implementing this process requires genuine public representation in the debt restructuring negotiations. Currently, politicians and central bank officials involved in these discussions represent not the aspirations of Sri Lankan citizens but the interests of global creditors and financial institutions. This is the political issue at hand.