Opinion
How governments use IMF bailouts to hurt political opponents – new research
By M. Rodwan Abouharb
Associate Professor in International Relations, UCL and
Bernhard Reinsberg
Reader in Politics, University of Glasgow
Sri Lanka received a bailout from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in March amid soaring inflation, debt and a sovereign default.
In exchange for US$3 billion (£2.4 billion), the government committed to spending cuts and tax and financial sector reforms. These have prevented Sri Lankan wages from recovering after they fell by almost half in real terms during the preceding financial crisis, leading to protests in the streets of Colombo.
Sri Lankans’ experience of these measures has been far from uniform. Emerging evidence indicates that the government — led by Ranil Wickremesinghe, part of the Buddhist Sinhalese majority — has concentrated the burdens primarily on ethnic minorities, who are the poorest in Sri Lanka and typically support the opposition.
The government has sought to protect the elite, which is primarily Buddhist Sinhalese, by avoiding imposing wealth taxes and only making small increases in corporation tax. It has placed the costs of austerity on low-income people by doubling the value-added tax rate to 15%.
It has also doubled the tax that people pay on pension-fund returns. Again, this hits poor ethnic minorities hardest because they frequently earn too little to pay income tax.
Unfortunately, this experience is part of a worldwide pattern. Our new book, IMF Lending: Partisanship, Punishment and Protest, shows how governments lump the burden of adjustment on opposition supporters while shielding their own backers – in other words, using IMF programmes for political gain.
IMF programmes and past research
Scholars have long noted that IMF restructuring programmes create winners and losers, but always in relation to different sectors of the economy. For example, the fact that programmes attempt to strengthen exports has been shown to favour farmers and business owners over urban middle-class state employees like civil servants.
The problem with purely comparing sectors is highlighted when you look at citizens’ experiences. One segment of the survey data we used in our research, covering nine countries in Africa, showed that three out of ten civil servants actually thought IMF reforms made their lives better, while a similar proportion observed no difference.
Admittedly this data is from 1999-2001, since none of the more recent surveys that we used asked this question, but it raises an important point: if IMF reforms are entirely bad for the civil service, why are so many civil servants upbeat about the effects? Politics is likely to be the missing piece of the puzzle.
Citizens’ views of IMF programmes in their countries
(See graph 01)
Based on 659 civil servants from Afrobarometer (1999-2001), covering Ghana, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Afrobarometer
An extensive academic literature already shows that governments often use their discretion to play politics over development loans. For example, a recent study found that projects funded by Chinese money are more likely to be undertaken in the birth region of a political leader.
With IMF programmes, it’s commonly assumed that they narrow borrowing governments’ policy options, but that is an oversimplification. Borrowers certainly have less overall freedom over economic policy, but they maintain broad discretion in how they implement loan conditions. Our study is the first to quantify how they use this discretion and examine the consequences for protests within the countries in question.
Our study
We collected individual survey data from over 100 countries from four widely used sources: Afrobarometer, Asian Barometer, Latinobarómetro and the World Values Surveys. It covers a 40-year timespan up to the late 2010s, with periods varying from region to region.
We first examined whether opposition supporters had different experiences of reforms than government supporters. Sure enough, these were indeed more negative.
We worried this might be because these people are more critical of their governments in general. So we compared countries which had just experienced a restructuring programme with others which had not, and found that sentiment among opposition supporters was much more negative in borrower countries.
The following graph provides an explanation, showing that opposition supporters in countries on IMF programmes suffer relatively more deprivation than government supporters compared to countries not in programmes.
Partisan deprivation in IMF v non-IMF countries
(See graph 2)
Based on 101,055 individuals from 46 countries surveyed in 2011-18. World Values Survey
This “partisan gap” was also wider in countries who went through a more burdensome recent IMF adjustment, which points to the same conclusion.
Partisan deprivation by severity of IMF restructuring

(See graph 3)
Based on 101,055 individuals from 46 countries surveyed in 2011-18. World Values Survey
The effect on protest
We expected that this highly unequal treatment would increase the chances of protest – especially when stoked by opposition politicians. This too was robustly supported across the surveys.
In Africa, people who reported being worse off due to the structural adjustment programme were more likely to protest. Opposition supporters as a whole were also more likely to protest, especially if the country had just experienced a more severe IMF programme.
Again, this data was from 1999-2001. Nonetheless, the other surveys also showed that protest was more likely among opposition supporters, especially during times of high pressure for adjustment.
What can be done
Scholars normally blame the increase in inequality caused by IMF programmes on the loan conditions, but the effects are clearly amplified by governments’ policy choices. How could this situation be improved? The IMF could require borrower countries to impose loan conditions in a non-partisan way, but would probably argue that its mandate prohibits considering domestic politics. Policing this would also be very difficult and time-consuming.
An alternative would be for the IMF to tame its demands on borrower countries. This would reduce the burdens that could be inflicted on opposition supporters. Economists might warn that this could encourage countries to be more financially irresponsible. Equally, however, it ought to make it more likely that adjustment programmes will be completed, thereby making the borrowing country more economically resilient for the future. It would also avoid any adverse reaction from the financial markets against a country breaking conditions.
Another potential avenue is to let opposition parties and civil society organisations participate in bailout negotiations. This would ensure everyone “owns” the bailout, and might even make it harder for incumbent governments to exploit policy conditions for political gain. (This article first appeared in Conversation)
Opinion
‘From Galkissa to Tambuttegama’: A response
by Sena Thoradeniya
I Refer to the article published under the above title in The Island of 14 Sept. It was written by Dr. Uswatte-aratchi, whose insights into art, literature, and culture have long resonated with mine. In those domains, we have shared similar views; yet in matters of political theory, political leadership, and governance, our perspectives have not converged.
I do not intend to discuss the entire article by Dr. Uswatte, for he is entitled to his views on our politicians, even to the point of publicly attacking them when opportunity arises. I am neither an apologist nor an agent of any among those he has named. My concern here is solely to highlight Uswatte’s curious attribution of his knowledge of mathematics and physics to a person who, in his public addresses, has revealed no trace of intellectual capacity.
Dr. Uswatte says: “Unlike the earlier rulers Dissanayake (referring to the President) attended government schools in Tambuttegama and Kelaniya University. He studied science and mathematics. He can differentiate an equation for you and speak intelligently about Paul Dirac and Higgs Boson with the same felicity as accusations against former politicians”.
We are waiting for a theoretical or scientific publication by the current President that might justify such a claim. To ascribe scholarly depth to one whose record is not noticeable is absurd. It is a gesture that compliments without foundation and confers laurels where none have been earned.
This is what Dr. Uswatte says about the Prime Minister: “There is a Prime Minister who can talk to you impromptu about Auguste Comte and Claude LéviStrauss”.
A person who is said to have studied sociology should be knowledgeable about Comte, regarded as the father of sociology and the founder of positivism, and Claude Lévi-Strauss, a leading figure in structural anthropology; yet we remain uncertain whether she speaks of them with genuine familiarity and scholarly understanding, or is merely name-dropping them in an impromptu fashion. What on earth is she saying about these men on public platforms?
Since I possess no knowledge of either physics or mathematics, it was sheer curiosity that led me to consult AI only to discover what a marvelous President we have!
Paul Dirac was a pioneering English physicist, who helped establish quantum mechanics, co-founder of quantum electrodynamics and contributed to quantum field theory. In 1933, he shared the Nobel Prize in Physics. The Higgs boson is a fundamental particle discovered in 2012 that explains how particles acquire mass, solving a central mystery in physics. Peter Higgs, a British theoretical physicist won the Nobel prize for physics in 2013, decades after Anura Kumara obtained his degree.
Trying to rediscover theoretical physicists among ordinary science graduates who left university decades ago is indeed a futile exercise, like looking for a needle in a haystack. Theoretical physics thrives on continuity, requiring sustained engagement with evolving mathematics, new theories and experimental findings, and is a discipline that demands lifelong intellectual engagement.
Dr. Uswatte should listen to speeches made by his new found friends at public meetings and see the reaction of social media activists. As Chairman Mao observed, theory divorced from reality is useless. “No investigation, no right to speak (“Preface and Postscript to Rural Surveys” -1941).
For the time being, I refrain from commenting on some of the President’s promises, such as ‘producing graphite from graphene’ (which ought, of course, to be the reverse), producing sulphuric acid using seawater, fortifying the stem of the banana through advanced research, devising lifesaving remedies for cancer, or unveiling the world’s first app for locating shoals of fish. The list is too long to reproduce here. An exaggerated parade of claims and the sheer implausibility of such boasts are not the stuff of theoretical physics.
Opinion
A journalist who wrote across the divide
by Jehan Perera
There are some journalists whose work we read and then move on. And there are others whose writing makes us stop, think and look at the country differently. D. B. S. Jeyaraj who passed away on 17 May 2026 was one of them. Whenever I saw an article by DBS, as he was widely known, appear in a newspaper, it was the first I read. He was primarily a columnist and political analyst, with a deep knowledge of the history of Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict. But his columns were not simply analysis or opinion. They were rooted in what was happening in Sri Lanka and in what people involved in those developments were saying. We could see this in his frequent references to first-hand comments from people he had spoken to. He did this both when he lived in Sri Lanka and later, when he was living in Canada. That was no easy task.
In a 2013 interview, after returning to Sri Lanka for the first time in 25 years, DBS described how he had continued to report on Sri Lanka from Canada by maintaining contacts at home. He said that he broke his rest daily to communicate with contacts in Sri Lanka and that this dual existence of living physically in Canada and mentally in Sri Lanka took a heavy toll on his health and finances. But that commitment mattered and allowed him to write about Sri Lanka from afar without losing touch with what was happening on the ground. His writings gave readers a sense of what was happening in the north and east, as well as of politics more generally in Sri Lanka.
Speaking at the commemoration and book launch organised by the Tamil Media Alliance last week, Vijitha Yapa, the founding editor of The Island and Sunday Times, under whom DBS worked, captured an important quality of his journalism when he said, “DBS had no venom. That was his greatness.” He also recalled how DBS stood up to pressure and threats and continued writing about the Tamil community while insisting on fair play irrespective of race or religion. M. A. Sumanthiran, General Secretary of the ITAK, put another aspect of DBS’s contribution even more directly: “Truth is the first casualty of war. DBS fought to keep the truth alive.” He recalled that DBS always cross-checked his news and noted that even those who hated him read his columns to find the truth.
These observations capture two qualities that made DBS special. The first was his commitment to truth and, second, was his ability to write about a deeply divisive subject without venom. DBS was a Tamil writing about the north and east and the Tamil national question in a deeply polarised environment. Yet he wrote for the mainstream English-language press and was widely read not only by Tamils but also by people from other communities. His writing helped make the concerns, political aspirations and historical experiences of the Tamil community accessible to readers beyond it. His importance was not limited to his being a Tamil journalist. His writing mattered because it addressed the country as a whole. Issues and perspectives that might otherwise have remained within particular communities could become part of a wider national debate.
Another noteworthy feature of DBS was his ability to be realistic in his assessments. With his wide knowledge of history, he understood that each side in the national conflict had its own history, fears and perceptions of threat. He recognised that the conflict could not be properly understood through the narrative of one side alone. He understood that there could be no unilateral solution imposed by one side or the other. That realism is particularly important in a country where political positions have often been presented as if the concerns of one community could be resolved without addressing those of another. A journalist who understands this complexity needs to do more than simply take sides. He or she can help readers understand why the conflict has endured, why trust has been so difficult to establish, and why lasting peace requires more than one dominant story.
There was also something revealing about DBS’s return to Sri Lanka in 2013. In the interview he gave during that visit, he said he deliberately avoided politics. He wanted to experience the country from the perspective of an ordinary person rather than through the views of politicians or political associates. He observed a disconnect between the needs of the people and those of the political class. In retrospect, that observation was remarkably prescient. The disconnect he identified in 2013 would become dramatically visible in the Aragalaya of 2022.
In the same interview, he offered an observation that deserves to be remembered. A journalist may not be able to write all that he or she wants because of external constraints, he said. But no journalist should write what he or she does not want to write because of external pressure. His commitment to independent journalism came at a considerable personal cost. He was arrested and detained by the Sri Lankan Police in 1987 after his reporting on the war in Jaffna, and in 1993, while living in Canada, he was brutally assaulted by LTTE supporters who fractured both his legs.
For all these reasons, I consider DBS to have been a mentor of mine. I never said so to him. Mentors are not always people who formally teach us or with whom we have a close personal relationship. Sometimes they are people whose work we follow, whose judgement we respect and whose example helps shape our own understanding of what we should strive to do. DBS was such a person for me. His passing has left a gap. His journalism was informed by history but connected to the present, rooted in facts but open to interpretation, and concerned with the realities of all communities.
The collection of his writings launched in his memory by the Tamil Media Alliance is therefore more than a record of an important period in Sri Lanka’s history. It is also a reminder of what journalism can be at its best. DBS showed that a journalist could understand one community without becoming confined to it, analyse conflict without being partisan, and take a position without losing sight of complexity. Above all, he showed the value of journalism that seeks to keep the truth alive. For those who read him regularly, the greatest reminder of his absence is the absence of his next column.
Opinion
Who committed genocide and created mass graves in Sri Lanka?
by N. A. de S. Amaratunga
At a time when the word genocide is used with political motive and defensive war misconstrued as genocide, and a brutal genocide is taking place on a global scale with impunity, one should reflect on genocide committed by those who falsely accuse the Sri Lankan armed forces and the government for such crimes. The British who systematically annihilated people including “babies suckling”, in Uva-Wellassa in 1818 and the LTTE, which carried out numerous massacres to drive away the Sinhalese and Muslims in the so-called border villages are now shamelessly levelling unsubstantiated allegations of genocide against the Sri Lankan military. The British, jointly with the US, massacred about a million people, including children, in Iraq on a fabricated charge of possessing weapons of mass destruction. The British helped the LTTE continue their genocide of the Sinhalese and Muslims in the North and the East in an attempt to drive them away and grab their lands, and such crimes constitute genocide according to 1948 Genocide Convention.
“Slaughter every man, woman and child”
“Slaughter every man, woman, and child (including babies suckling at the breast)” was the order given by Governor Robert Brownrigg (3rd British Governor of Ceylon from 1813 – 1820) to Maj. Gen. Hay MacDowell in 1818. The British left the entire Uva-Wellassa region in a state of famine and starvation. The British used the scorched earth policy including mass murder and genocide of Sinhala civilians to crush the rebellion. British human rights campaigners now pointing accusing fingers at Sri Lanka have forgotten the Madulla Massacre, which led to razing and annihilating entire villages. In the entire Uva region members of the male population above the age of 18 were killed in revenge for resisting British imperial occupation under Governor Brownrigg.
Britain at present is leading a core group at the UNHRC Geneva, which bashes Sri Lanka for alleged human rights violations. Britain seems to have no remorse about its genocidal violence in Sri Lanka and happily leads the way in castigating Sri Lanka on unsubstantiated allegations of human right violations during the war against the LTTE. The US, which is the biggest war criminal in the world, is supporting these neo-colonial strategies to control and exploit the poor countries.
The Chemmani mass grave
The Chemmani mass grave has become a political tool liberally used by the pro-LTTE groups and their supporters in the West and also their local agents to pressure the government to take action against the war winning armed forces. Let the government be urged to get to the bottom of the mass graves found in the North and elsewhere. People of this country owe it to the armed forces who saved their country to ensure that the name of the national military is cleared. And if there are any war criminals among them, punish them after conviction. Sri Lanka is not Israel, the US or the UK.
The Genocide Convention was conceived largely in response to World War II, which saw atrocities such as the Holocaust that lacked an adequate description or legal definition. Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term genocide in 1944 to describe Nazi policies in occupied Europe and the Armenian genocide, campaigned for its recognition as a crime under international law. Lemkin also linked colonialism with genocide, mentioning colonial genocides outside of Europe in his writings. The Convention defines genocide as any of five “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.” These five acts include killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.
Genocide in Gaza
However, Israel in collaboration with the United States, which has the worst record in genocidal warfare, has violated this Convention with impunity in Gaza, knowing that the rest of the world cannot act against it except condemn its actions. The UN has miserably failed to take any action against Israel, though it has the necessary tools like the Convention mentioned above. Its Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk visited the Chemmani mass grave and issued a strongly-worded statement calling for investigation under international supervision. He has not visited the place where genocide is currently taking place in broad daylight. Neither has the UNHRC made any worthwhile response in respect of Iraq, Syria, Libya and other parts of the world, where the US and Europe have been engaged in genocidal warfare. This type of double standards will further erode the credibility of the UNHRC, and if countries tend to ignore its writ, it has itself to blame.
We still don’t know the identities of the people whose skeletal remains have been found in the Chemmani mass grave. It was a prolonged war situation that created these graves. There were allegations of killings, including civilians, by both parties to the war.
The Office of Missing Persons has received about 10,000 complaints about missing persons from the north and east and investigations into these complaints are ongoing (source – reports of the OMP). Apart from verbal complaints there is very little incriminating evidence, if at all, against the armed forces. A few isolated incidents where excesses were committed have been investigated and action is being taken against the suspects.
Campaign by Pro-LTTE groups
Pro-LTTE groups are trying their utmost to connect the missing persons with the mass graves. They claim that the people who went missing were buried in the Chemmani mass grave. The Island journalist Shamindra Ferdinando dealt with this matter comprehensively in the Midweek Review on 9 September. He shows that the narrative built up by the pro-LTTE groups and the Western imperialists regarding the alleged disappearances could be more myth than fact.
The LTTE massacred hundreds of civilians in cold blood in many places, such as Sri Maha Bodhi, Aluth Oya, Aranthalawa (where the victims were Buddhist monks), Kattankudy mosque, Palliyagodella, Eravur, Gonagala and Kebethigollewa. Most of those killings, committed outside the war zone, were aimed at terrorising the ordinary people, and that amounts to genocide according to 1948 Genocide Convention. The LTTE carried out many bomb attacks on civilian targets, such as the Central Bus Station in Pettah, the Central Bank, crowded trains and buses. In the eastern villages people were bludgeoned and slashed to death so that ammunition could be saved.
Apart from killing and injuring, the LTTE chased away Muslims and Sinhalese from the Northern province, which amounted to ethnic cleansing, an act of genocide according to the above mentioned Convention. The people who were chased away have not yet returned to their homes and property, perhaps because of the memory of terror they had experienced in the North. Aren’t these acts of genocide ? The 1948 Convention defines genocide as any of five “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.”
Attacks on centres of worship like temples and mosques and killing of priests are unpardonable acts of terror aimed at destroying religious groups. Similarly murdering surrendered police officers is butchery of the worst kind. It was such acts of naked terrorism and insane mass murder that made the FBI label the LTTE “the most brutal terrorist organization in the world”.
Silence of UNHRC
Isn’t the UNHRC keen to ensure that justice is done for the victims of genocide committed by the LTTE? Perhaps, we should not make such a request to an organisation that keeps mum while genocide is rampant in the contemporary world ? Palestinians are being systematically murdered and driven away from their country with the UNHCR doing nothing to protect them. The US President is threatening the countries which support the Palestinians.
Sri Lanka must call for an international investigation into genocide committed by the LTTE.
-
News6 days agoGnanasara Thero absconding after SC ruling
-
Opinion5 days agoFrom Galkissa (Mount Lavinia) to Tambuttegama
-
Business6 days agoHNB Finance strengthens Board with four independent directors
-
News2 days agoUS embassy won’t comment on IGP’s probe into joint drug raid
-
Sports6 days agoCulture within cricket team worrying authorities
-
Features5 days agoSri Lanka’s university crisis: Brain drain and union action demand urgent reform
-
Features4 days agoThe emptying university: why are academics leaving?
-
News6 days agoHouse to debate 22A, Judicature Bill next week
