Connect with us

Politics

Flight SU-289 and the future of Sri Lanka-Russia ties

Published

on

By Uditha Devapriya

On June 2, the Commercial High Court of Colombo issued an enjoining order against Flight SU-289 over a lease matter, preventing it from returning home.

The flight had been handled by Aeroflot, the Russian airline at the centre of a controversy over Western sanctions. The order had been issued on a complaint by an Irish airplane leasing company, Celestial Aviating Trading 10, against two parties: Aeroflot, and the head of the Airport and Aviation Services of Sri Lanka. It was immediately complied with, leaving more than 200 passengers stranded in Colombo.

What was in essence a commercial dispute soon turned into a diplomatic row. Sri Lanka’s Ambassador in Moscow, Janitha Abeywickrema Liyanage, was summoned by the Russian Foreign Ministry. In an official statement the Ministry urged Colombo to resolve the matter as quickly as possible, so as not to impact “traditionally friendly bilateral ties” between the two countries. Meanwhile, Aeroflot suspended all operations to Sri Lanka.

The government reacted as fast as it could. The following day, it issued a statement highlighting the commercial nature of the dispute. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe instructed the newly appointed Foreign Secretary, Aruni Wijewardane, to investigate the issue. Several other Ministries, including Tourism and Transport, also commented on the matter, publicly regretting the incident. Such responses had to be quick: going through its worst economic crisis in living memory, Sri Lanka remains heavily dependent on markets like Russia for tourism, tea exports, and possible cheap sources of fuel.

To be sure, Russia-owned Aeroflot has been flying in turbulent skies since last February. When a ban by the US and UK governments came into effect in early March, followed by a ban by the EU, Russian airline companies had to put up with three issues: the risk of flying overseas; the lack of spare parts; and the prospect of repossession of airplanes by Western leasing companies, especially following the Russian government’s decision to re-register its fleet of foreign owned airplanes in response to sanctions.

The EU gave member countries until March 28 to conform with sanctions on Aeroflot and other Russia-owned airlines. This was hardly enough for companies that had leased planes and jets to entities like Aeroflot to recover their fleet. As of March, Irish leasing companies had leased more than 200 planes. Later that month the biggest of those companies, AerCap, filed a USD 339 million claim against a small airline, Volga-Dnepr, in a bid to repossess eight Boeing airplanes. Analysts expect more claims to follow.

Since the ban came into operation, Aeroflot has been cautious about international flights. While it did maintain flights to Central Asia and countries like Turkey, it began expanding its list of destinations only recently, resuming flights to New Delhi last month. Needless to say, this has had a massive impact on international relations and international law. The disputes with leasing companies are just the tip of a very unwieldy iceberg.

The implications for a small country like Sri Lanka are obvious. On the brink of chaos and collapse, it cannot afford to let disputes involving a major power, especially one with which it has enjoyed warm ties for 75 years, go to waste. The fact that many Lankans came to Russia’s defence, on social media, going as far as to criticise the court’s decision, shows that there is a consensus over the importance of maintaining those ties.

More seriously, the fact of its commercial nature did not deter people, even officials, from urging the government to get involved. The consensus here seems to be that the problem stretched beyond its legal consequences, having an impact on the country’s ties with one of its more powerful allies. This was, in effect, a recognition of the role of realpolitik, power, and national interest, not to mention imbalances within inter-state relations, in otherwise perfunctory legal matters and commercial disputes.

To be fair, it must also be noted that the judge handled a legal matter regarding which it was neither practical, nor ideal, to prioritise geopolitics over the independent functioning of the courts. Moreover, though Moscow expected the Sri Lankan government to intervene, though such intervention would place the country in a different quandary; this in the context that Colombo is betting heavily on Western institutions, which tend to scrutinise the governance structures of the countries they lend to, to get over their economic crises.

In any case, ex-ministers and ex-presidents, even those from the Opposition, were quick to react. While the main Opposition, the Samagi Jana Balavegaya, did not formally issue a statement on the matter, ex-SJB MP and head of the 43 Brigade Patali Champika Ranawaka urged the government not to treat the dispute as a commercial issue. Dr Dayan Jayatilleka, former Ambassador to Moscow, commented earlier that Sri Lanka should refrain from doing the bidding of other countries, prioritising its ties with Russia.

More importantly, former president Maithripala Sirisena, under whose administration a spat between Colombo and Moscow vis-à-vis an asbestos ban briefly imperilled tea exports, issued an apology on behalf of the government, urging Russia not to take steps against the country. Sirisena emphasised the warm ties his government enjoyed with Russia and Putin: when he was in Moscow in 2017, for instance, the Russian President paid him a visit to hand over an unusual gift: a royal sword from the Kandyan era.

What such developments show is that, at the political level, there is a consensus over matters such as bilateral relations with countries like Russia. A similar consensus prevailed last year over Israel’s shelling of Palestine: both the SLPP and the SJB condemned the move, in a rare act of inter-party solidarity.

Soon after the incident at the Airport, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe urged Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe to expedite the Aeroflot case. The Attorney-General called for the enjoining order’s suspension, which the courts complied with. The flight has now returned to Moscow, and the Russian government has formally acknowledged the Sri Lankan government’s “prompt settlement of the situation.” As of now the fiscal officer at the centre of the case has been suspended over his enforcement of the order.

This is the latest in a series of disputes that have threatened to derail Sri Lanka’s ties with its traditional allies. Given recent developments, it may not be the last. It goes without saying that Sri Lanka can ill-afford getting into a similar spat, any time soon.

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



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Timetable set for India’s national election, deadlock elections loom in Sri Lanka

Published

on

Supporters wait for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to arrive at the venue of a Bharatiya Janata Party election campaign rally in Hyderabad, India, on Friday, March 15, 2024 (Al Jazeera Photo)

by Rajan Philips

The Election Commission of India has set a staggering 44-day timetable for the country’s 18th Lok Sabha elections, between April 19 and June 1, with the results declared on June 4. There will be seven phases of voting – on April 19, April 26, May 7, May 13, May 20, May 25, and June 1. Voting will take place on all seven days in some states – like Bihar, West Bengal, and Uttar Pradesh; two or more days of voting in states like Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Odisha; and single day voting in other sates including Andra Padesh, Gujarat, KeraIa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Telangana.

India’s elections are not only the largest in the world, but they have also become the most expensive. A country with 1.4 billion people, it has nearly 970 million registered voters of whom 470 million women, spread across 28 states and eight union territories. Total expenditure by political parties exceeded USD 7 billion in 2019, compared to USD 6.5 billion spent in the US during the 2016 election.

The voter registry has increased by 150 million since the 2019 elections, and that includes 18 million first-time voters. The voter turnout was 67% in India in 2019, compared to 66% in the 2022 US presidential election – that was exceptionally high by American standard. What might be of interest and significance in the Indian election this year is the voter turnout in different states – depending on the relative positions of the contesting parties and alliances.

Unlike Sri Lanka, India has retained since independence in 1947 the parliamentary system of government and the first-past-the post system for elections. The current Lok Sabha has 543 seats and a simple majority of 272 seats is required to form a reasonably stable government. The governing BJP won a staggering 303 seats in the 2019 elections, and a total of 353 seats with its National Democratic Alliance (NDA). That was the second election victory for Prime Minister Narendra Modi who defied expectations and improved the BJP seat tally from 282 seats (and 336 seats for the NDA) in 2014.

This time the BJP-led NDA alliance is targeting 370 seats that would surpass the two-thirds majority threshold in parliament besides giving Modi a three-in-a-row success in three successive elections. Modi and the BJP are widely expected to win and win big. The opposition is weak and divided across the nation except for the southern states and West Bengal. The economy is strong and that is Modi’s biggest success story. But as I noted recently, in spite of the strong economy the Indian political and social superstructures are quite shaky.

At the national level, the second Modi government has struck huge blows against India’s secular superstructure. The three most significant blows are the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution that ended the autonomous status granted to Jammu and Kashmir; changes to citizenship rules for undocumented migrants that excluded Muslims and included five other religious groups including Hindus; and the recent inauguration of the Ram temple in Ayodhya. The national response to these changes has been divided. The argument for secularism is now dismissed as intellectual and cultural elitism. Modi’s Hindutva populism has become the political answer to the secular legacy of Jawaharlal Nehru.

New North-South Divide

All of this is good enough for Modi to win a majority, even a two-thirds majority in the Lok Sabha. At the same time, however, he is also falling short of his other goals of establishing himself as a national leader accepted across all of India’s states and regions. Modi’s greatest strength, which is also the gravest threat to India’s secular politics and social peace, is his unabashed championing of Hindutva politics that alienates not only India’s Muslims but also the states and regions outside the vote rich Hindi belt states.

If the partition of British India increased the specific weight of the southern states in the new Indian federation, as Hector Abhayavardhana was known to conceptualize. Modi’s Hindutva politics has politically alienated the southern states and created a new north-south division in the Indian polity. Ironically, the southern states despite their political exclusion from central powers are also the main beneficiaries of India’s burgeoning economy.

The five southern states, comprising Andra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Telangana, account for 20% of India’s population and 26% of the Lok Sabha seats, but 31% of India’s GDP. They also boast of better governance, urbanization, education and income levels than other states, and attract 35% foreign investment. Prime Minister Modi’s persistent attempts to make an electoral breakthrough in the southern states, especially in Tamil Nadu, as well as in West Bengal and Odisha, have been quite spectacularly foiled by the strong state parties in the last two elections. Caste politics and alliance machinations are now in full flow in these states, and it will be interesting for political watchers to follow the changing dynamics and the eventual winners and losers.

At the national level, the attempts of the opposition parties comprising the Congress Party, the two Communist Parties and a number of state and regional parties, to form a new alliance have been more successful in formulating catchy abbreviation called INDIA – Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance – but not at all successful in making real progress on the ground and launching a unified national opposition alliance. The alliance apparently works in states where the Congress Party is the junior partner to State parties, but it founders in states where the Congress is stronger than the State parties.

Led by Rahul Gandhi, the Congress Party has been undertaking long marches across India (called Bharat Jodo Nyay Yatra – Uniting India for Justice March), first from south to north and last week from east to west, to galvanize political opposition to the Modi government. The marches have enthused the Congress supporters, but they are not going to be enough to rally other parties in the INDIA Alliance, let alone create a national wave that will translate into significant numbers of votes in the election.

The election is coming at a time when India is experiencing a democratic recession at multiple levels under the Modi regime. Freedom House, a democracy advocacy group, has downgraded India’s democratic status from “free” to “partly free” on account of the Modi government’s second-term record of discriminatory policies against Muslims, and its targeting of opposition and media critics. Not to mention the electoral bond scheme initiated by the Modi government in 2018, which has now been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The Court has also ordered the State Bank of India that operated the scheme to reveal the names of all donors and recipients of bonds. Not surprisingly, the BJP has turned out to be the biggest beneficiary at the national level.

Further, in a highhanded action on Friday, the governments Enforcement Directorate arrested Arvind Kejriwal, the Delhi chief minister and leader of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), who is also one of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s most vigorous critics in the country. He was arrested on seemingly spurious charges alleging malpractices in alcohol licensing. This certainly does not augur well for free and fair election that is unfolding from now till June 1.

Deadlock Elections in Sri Lanka

In contrast to India, there is no timetable yet for the presidential and parliamentary elections in Sri Lanka, which are due later this year and sometime next year. In fact, parliament can be dissolved at any time of the President’s choosing. And there cannot be any timetable until President Wickremesinghe decides which will go first and when. Although Mr. Wickremesinghe has now repeatedly said that the presidential election would be held between September 18 and October 18, no one seems to take him at his word.

In any event there is nothing to stop him from dissolving parliament any time now. Basil Rajapaksa’s case for having the parliamentary election before the presidential election is quite an example of special pleading for a self-serving purpose. But even those who have adamantly opposed this sequence, now seem to be warming up to the prospect of an early parliamentary election if only because they are fed up with current parliament that voted down the no confidence motion against the Speaker by quite a margin. Who is worse, the parliament or the president, and who should go first? That seems to be the question weighing on pundits’ minds.

Whatever goes first, a looming possibility is that either election could end up in a deadlock result. Pundits and people are familiar with the hung parliament in which no party secures the requisite simple majority. But a deadlock presidential election is a different matter. If there are two leading candidates, a conclusive result can be expected on the first vote count. However, if there are three or more candidates each with a reasonable following, and if there is no mutuality in the preferences between candidates, a deadlock situation may very well be the outcome.

There is only one person who would benefit most from maximum uncertainty. That is President Wickremesinghe. So, nothing will be certain until the beginning of September. Until then the President has all the cards to play at the time and manner of his choosing. He could form a grand alliance and declare himself as its presidential candidate. He could dissolve parliament and spring a parliamentary election before the presidential election. He could also decide not to dissolve parliament or to contest the presidential election. Everyone else will have to respond to whatever Mr. Wickremesinghe chooses to do. Quite a short but very different timetable to the long one that India is going through.

Continue Reading

Features

AKD slams speaker for stuffing his staff with relatives

Published

on

View from the gallery
by Saman Indrajith

The three-day debate on the No-confidence Motion against Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena offers an insight into the prevailing ‘dump the lot’ public opinion on the incumbent legislature. Listening to what some MPs said (sometimes yelled) during the debate helps understand the present mood in the country that the incumbent legislature has long lost its mandate which must be urgently restored through a general election.

Only a few members presented coherent arguments during the debate. The government relied on its roster of provocative speakers who bellowed the usual rhetoric. Those who spoke sensibly rightly predicted that the government’s numerical advantage would secure the motion’s defeat. However, they cautioned that any victory would be fleeting as they believed the government’s downfall was inevitable.

The government ensured the attendance of its members for the vote in Parliament on Thursday evening by taking necessary measures. Initially, it had rejected the opposition’s request for a three-day debate allotting time in the party leaders’ meeting for only two days. However, recognizing that extending the vote by an additional 24 hours could facilitate the presence of all its members at voting time, the government decided to prolong the debate by one day.

Consequently, several members, including Pavithra Wanniarachchi and Dilum Amunugama (in Canada), Bandula Gunawardena (in the US), Harin Fernando (in Austria), Manusha Nanayakkara (in Israel), and Madhura Withanage (in Russia), had to cut short their visits to ensure their presence in the House at the time of the vote.

Many opposition speakers in their speeches chose to list shortcomings, mistakes, and wrongs by Abeywardena. Perhaps JVP/NPP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s speech was the strongest. He accused the Speaker of stuffing family members into whatever high post available in the House.

Even if Abeywardena would be able to stay in his seat by mustering the required votes, he would never be able to come back to this parliament again after the next election as people know how he abused his powers.

The level of abuse of power for personal gain by Abeywardena was unprecedented in parliament history, Dissanayake said.

“Abeywardena is nothing but another symbol of decadence of our political system. He always acted partially towards the government. He was shameless in displaying his bias. This bias could be illustrated with one example. When Ranil Wickremesinghe and Basil Rajapaksa took their oaths as MPs, Abeywardena rose from his chair but when some other MPs took their oaths he remained seated.

“Abeywardena filled parliamentary posts by recruiting his kith and kin. He and his family acted as parasites of this system. His brother Wasantha Yapa Abeywardena is his private secretary, another brother Sarath Yapa Abeywardena is a Coordinating Secretary, brother-in-law Premananda Kumasaru is another coordinating secretary, another brother Indunil Yapa Abeywardena is the Media Secretary, son Chameera C Yapa Abeywardena is Public Relations Officer.

“In addition to these posts, one of his sons was appointed to the post of Chairman of the Lotteries Board by the finance minister demonstrating his partiality to the president who is the finance minister. During his tenure whenever a parliament delegation went on foreign tours, it became a delegation representing the Yapa family.

“In addition, the Speaker also held the post of Chairman of the Development Coordination Committee in his area. This post is an extension of the Executive. How could the head of legislature hold become an extension of the executive,” Dissanayake queried.

SLPP dissident MP from Badulla District, Dilan Perera, said he had not signed the motion and had considered abstaining from the debate out of respect for Mahinda Abeywardena’s contributions as an MP. “Yet, after hearing speeches by some government members, who are intelligent lawyers including the Justice Minister, I changed my mind.

“They admitted that they could not incorporate all Supreme Court recommendations to the Online Safety Bill. So, what more is there to debate? Constitutional provisions have already been violated. What more to do than remove this Speaker?

“People out there curse all of us. In such a situation how should this parliament behave? Is it by the Speaker violating the Constitution or is it by replacing Ranjith Bandara with Rohita Abeygunawadena as COPE chairman,” Perera queried.

When Deputy Speaker Ajith Rajapaksa declared the results, with 117 in favor and 75 against, the opposition benches of the House were nearly vacant as opposition MPs had left the Chamber after casting their votes. Notably absent from the SLPP was Namal Rajapaksa, while Mahinda Rajapaksa was present and participated in the voting process.

Shortly thereafter, Abeywardena delivered a prepared statement addressing the accusations leveled against him in the motion. He disclosed that he had been approached by foreign entities to assume the presidency during the tumultuous Aragalaya protests, but he declined the offer, citing its constitutional implications.

Opposition MPs, observing the speech on TV screens in the lobby, remarked that had the Speaker accepted the presidency, the entire cabinet would have been filled by Yapa Abeywardenas.

A senior MP was overheard telling his colleagues that the insinuation of foreign involvement was merely a familiar SLPP tactic, dismissed as a baseless conspiracy theory.

As government MPs exchanged congratulations within the Chamber, SLPP dissident MP Prof GL Peiris addressed journalists in the lobby. He said: “This government lacks legitimacy and operates on an expired mandate. Consequently, it no longer represents the people’s aspirations, rendering decisions made in this parliament invalid.

“Throughout the history of our parliament, there have been approximately 50 NCMs. As of Friday, there have been five NCMs against the Speakers. The first dates to 1963 against Richard Stanley Pelpola. The second was in 1980, against MA Bakeer Markar. The third was against MH Mohamed in 1991, followed by another against him in 1992. The most recent one, concluded last week after a lapse of 32 years, marked the fifth instance.

SJB Kurunegala District SJB MP Nalin Bandara said that the Speaker could savour victory for the time being. Asked whether the NCM was a waste of time and money knowing that the government had majority, he said that even when an NCM was brought against former Health Minister Keheliya Rambukwella (who was present for the voting) and the motion was defeated, many said that it was a waste of time and resources.

“Rambukwella won the vote on the motion, but we saw what happened to him after several weeks and where he is passing the time now. Likewise, this NCM too would have repercussions and they would be detrimental to SLPP members including Abeywardena,” he said.

“Just because the motion was won, that does not mean Abeywardena was exonerated from the charges against him. The most prudent thing for him to do is resign if he has at least an iota of self-respect, MP Vijitha Herath told a group of journalists at the Jayanthipura entrance to Parliament complex.

His colleague Harini Amarasuriya said that people do not recognize this parliament. The government has its numbers as we saw today. After all this parliament does not reflect the public will. It seems that this would be same for couple more months,” she said.

Gampaha District SJB MP Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka said that the opposition had charges against the Speaker but the SLPP has its MPs in the House and win a vote. That won’t be the case at a national level election where they won’t have a ghost of a chance.

The other event that grabbed the attention was the resignation spree of opposition members from COPE. At the end of sitting week, 11 MPs out of 31-member committee have resigned. SJB MP Eran Wickremaratne began the parade of resignation followed by MPs Dayasiri Jayasekara (SLFP), Charitha Herath (SLPP), S.M.Marikkar (SJB), Shanakiyan Rasamanickam (TNA), Hesha Withanage(SJB), Gamini Waleboda (SLPP) Anura Kumara Dissanayake (JVP/NPP), Duminda Dissnaayke (SLPP), Wasantha Yapa Bandara (SLPP) and Dilan Perera (SLPP).

Opposition MPs said Abeygunawardena had his first meeting held on Thursday and will soon be left only with his SLPP colleagues. One MP recalling Sinhala proverb, ‘horage ammagen pena ahanawa’ (i.e., inquiring about the thief from his mother), said that now there was no longer the need to inquire from the mother as they could ask from the thief himself (Ammagen nevei apita horagenma ahanna puluwan).

Abeywardena won’t be in difficulty to find his quorum, which is only four members.

Champika Ranawaka told the House that there is a growing frustration among the public regarding current political practices. He said that parliament must lead by example if MPs wish to avoid public backlash. When considering Ranawaka’s statements alongside the following Facebook quote, it becomes evident that a looming crisis is imminent: “When a government declares right to be wrong and wrong right, obedience ceases to be a virtue and resistance becomes a moral duty.”

Continue Reading

Features

The Election-Economy Nexus and the Politics of JVP Apology

Published

on

Anura Kumara Dissanayake

by Rajan Philips

The economy is the base; everything else is superstructure. That is the old Marxian concept, simply put. The base ultimately determines what goes on in the superstructure, which includes among other things the state and its institutions, as well as their processes and functions. Included are the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, and their elections and appointments. Over time, there have been modifications to the old concept.

Borrowing from Freud’s psychoanalysis, Louis Althusser, the French Marxist, used the concept of over-determination to suggest that there are multiple causes producing an effect, i.e., political outcomes are ‘over determined’ by many causes besides the economy, although the economy could be singularly significant. Neo-Marxists have provided another angle in that just as the base could determine the goings on in the superstructure, what goes on in the superstructure also have implications for the base.

I believe it was in his political obituary of JR Jayewardene (in the Lanka Guardian) that Dayan Jayatilleke quite remarkably described the outcome of JRJ’s open economy project was to drag the Sri Lankan economic base into alignment with the superstructure that had already drifted into alignment with global changes. This is not to absolve the architects of the open economy of their untoward intentions, unintended results and ill-gotten gains, but to use that experience as a backdrop as we come to view the emerging dialectic between the economy of Sri Lanka and the politics of the JVP/NPP. And in this election year, all politics is electoral. Hence the election-economy nexus.

Yet the JVP’s project is quite different from that of JRJ. The task is now to salvage the economy and not to embark on any realignment. For the electorate it would be a question of JVP’s competence as much it would be of its attractiveness as a new alternative. So, it is fair, reasonable and necessary to question the JVP/NPP on its approach to and experience in matters economic.

But it is a worthless red herring to demand the present leader of the JVP/NPP to apologize for the doings and misdoings of the pre-NPP JVP under the leadership of his predecessors. Put another way, if the JVP/NPP were to win the next pair of national elections, it should be because it is able to persuade a majority of voters on what it can do in the future as government, especially for providing economic stewardship; and not because it says sorry for what the JVP did in its insurrectionary past under a different leadership.

Schoolmasterly Politics

It is also school masterly politics to ask Anura Kumara Dissanayake to say sorry for the ways of his predecessors before he can be admitted in class. Not to mention the preferential school masterly treatment in allowing convicted murders to sit in parliament because they belong to the right parties and perhaps the same ‘class.’ It is not my purpose to prescribe what Mr. Dissanayake should or should not do or to predict what he may or may not do, but to critique, if not poke fun at, the moral hypocrisy and the political idiocy of the current crop of apology seekers.

Globally, there is a body of literature on political apologies following the so called “age of apologies” – the two decades of 1990s and 2000s, when 186 political apologies were rendered in comparison to 16 apologies over the previous four decades from 1947 to 1989. Decolonization obviously provided the primary site for rendering political apologies. Other instances include oppressive states and regimes using apologies as a framework for reconciliation and restorative justice between state oppressors and the oppressed populations. The most celebrated example of the latter is the truth and reconciliation experience of post-apartheid South Africa.

The offering of apologies is still continuing and in significant numbers, but a number of apology academics are becoming weary of dispensing apology by state actors who cynically use apologies to rhetorically accept responsibility without institutional commitment to change. The ethos of apology is now credited for the American response to the 9/11 Al Qaeda attacks that targeted the perpetrators of the attack while rejecting Islamophobia and without infringing the rights and freedoms of Muslim and Arab American citizens. Bundling Al Qaeda and Islam is the handiwork of Donald Trump, but that is an altogether different phenomenon.

Germany has perpetually placed itself in apology mode for the horrors of the holocaust. But where continuing restitution for even such an epochal tragedy as the holocaust can easily morph into a new and subjectively no less horrific tragedy is what the world is now watching in Gaza. The political fallouts from the Gaza tragedy are manifesting themselves in every Western country. To wit, the historic trouncing of all the major political parties in the recent Rochdale bye-election in Britain. Not to mention the domestic pressure on the Biden Administration in the US and its desperate efforts to effect an immediate ceasefire in Gaza while insisting on the two-state solution for the long term. Be that as it may.

Sri Lanka is not an automatic site for political apologies. Some Western academics have noted that Sri Lanka is not the typical authoritarian state that is transitioning to democracy, with political apologies becoming part of the transitionary phase. Sri Lanka, if at all, has been moving in the opposite direction. A reasonably functioning democratic state that has been more than occasionally careening into authoritarian spells. One significant shortcoming that academics have noted is the absence of judicial review of legislation that have prolonged the life of draconian laws without checks and challenges. There is homework to be done in putting these checks and balances in place through constitutional reform. But nothing is going to come out of asking for and accepting apologies.

Historically, the oppressive instruments of the state have been used against working class organizations and minority groups. No apology was given, and nothing was asked for. The 1971 JVP insurrection was the first instance when the state was systematically challenged and forced into an authoritarian mode. The insurrection was defeated, and its leaders were tried under new laws, convicted and jailed. No one asked for apologies. There were of course significant political fallout. The whole program of the United Front government was irreparably set back. The brutal put down of the insurrection by the UF government became an electoral weapon for the opposition UNP in the 1977 elections. The UNP’s payback was the freeing of imprisoned JVP leaders, not all of whom were ready to grow out of their insurrectionist proclivities.

1983 came and went without any apology, and in an aside President Jayewardene declared the JVP Naxalites, and ordered their arrests. The JVP went underground to launch its second coming, and it came with worse brutalities and matching putdowns. The JVP was again defeated to a point that its third coming could only be non-violent and even democratic. Should President Jayewardene be asked for a posthumous apology – for triggering the cycle of JVP violence – now that there is a kinsman of his in office as President?

At the other side of the ethno-spectrum, the Tamil militants engaged the state in bouts of war that went on for over 25 years. Even the Indian army got in the act, and the whole island became a killing field. People perished in their random tens of thousands. There have also been hundreds of targeted killings, including a dozen or so emblematic ones using state resources for political reasons as well as for personal reasons. None of them have been solved and the perpetrators are perpetually at large. In the scheme of things, who is one to ask for apologies and who is to give?

What might be more concerning is the reported mobilization of ‘retired tri-forces’ by the JVP/NPP apparently as an electoral phalanx. The SJB is reportedly going after officer-level retirees, while Ranil Wickremesinghe has staked his ground from top, as usual, by taking care of the current tri-forces with state bounties. The tri-forces, whether on the job or in retirement, have become an important part of the Sinhalese social formation, as well as a numerically critical voting bloc.

The socialization of the tri-forces has served the positive purpose of keeping them away from temptations to overthrow democratically elected governments. But the ever lurking danger is in the ethno-politicization of the tri-forces that pits them against non-Sinhala members of the Sri Lankan society. The Rajapaksas were often accused of ethno-politicization of not just the tri-forces, but of all forces. Even that did not help them in the end, a lesson that the JVP/NPP can ignore only at their ultimate peril.

The Election-Economy Nexus

Turning to the elections and the economy, Sri Lanka is among quite a few countries that are facing rather consequential elections this year. But there is no consistent picture of the election-economy nexus that one might see in the countries with upcoming elections. Understandably so, because beneath the over arch of the global economy, the world’s societies are seething with their socio political specificities. The two big ones are India and the US. The Indian economy is strong. It is the economic engine that is propelling South Asia to be the leading growth region in a somewhat sluggish world economy. The world economy is “neither sick nor strong” is the assessment of a political economist, John Rapley. He even compares it to long Covid – the lasting aftereffects of Covid-19 that selectively impairs some but not others.

India struggled during the pandemic, but now it is surging. India’s growth has been upwards of 7% and 8% in recent quarters and is projected keep going for now. In comparison to others, India’s manufacturing sector is sustainably strong. Modi inspired government spending on infrastructure and incentives to boost the production of electrical and electronic goods have been positively catalytic. He is poised to win a ‘threepeat’ election victory, which he could have done on the strength of performance of the economic base alone without monkeying with India’s secular superstructure.

China, on the other hand, is literally on a downward trajectory. The country does not suffer elections, but it is currently suffering the drastic reversal of its once runaway economic growth. So much bad news, that the government canceled Premier Li Qiang’s news conference that traditionally accompanies the annual sessions of the National People’s Congress.

At the other end, the US economy is going strong; in fact, the only western economy that is positively growing in every sector. Britain and Japan are officially in recession, and Germany is reportedly at economic ‘standstill.’ President Biden delivered his election year State of the Union address on Thursday. He ripped into Trump; chided the Justices of the Supreme Court who were in attendance for rescinding women’s right to abortion; called upon women to show their power with their vote; and joked that he may not look old, but he has been around for a long time.

It was quite a performance at the pulpit for an 81 year old, with hardly any stumble. It certainly would enthuse his base, but whether it would be enough to stop Trump in his tracks is a different question. The November election will be a repeat of the last one between Biden and Trump with their positions reversed. But Biden is not ahead of Trump in opinion polls, as he should be on account of the economy alone. That base is not helping Biden, at least not yet.

On the other hand, Trump who should be reviled and rejected for orchestrating an insurrection against the Congress on January 6, 2021, among other crimes, has taken over the Republican Party, the party of Abraham Lincoln. No one has asked him to apologize. The state of American superstructure is quite shaky in spite of its strong economic base.

There is not much to say that is not already known about either Sri Lanka’s economy or its politics. The assurances of the two elections happening, starting this year, have given room for some optimism and hope. The arrival of Anura Kumara Dissanayake as a presidential contender has spurred the public mood. But it is still a long way to go. And there will be many questions asked of Mr. Dissanayake, and rightly so. Let them be questions on the economy, on ending crime and corruption, and on constitutional reform. Not about apologies.

Continue Reading

Trending