Connect with us


Do autocracy & kleptocracy go hand-in-hand?



JR’s despotism, Chandrika’s kleptomania; What’s the next variant?

by Kumar David

If you have not read or reread Victor Ivan’s Queen of Deceit recently it might be an idea to do so because of forebodings that the Gotabhaya Rajapaksa presidency will be an autocracy post 20A and anticipation that the constitution to be enacted thereafter will set this in stone. An allied concern is that autocracy is usually a stepping stone to kleptocracy; but is this an inevitable corollary? I make the distinction because JR was an autocrat who he did not rob the country dry; conversely Chandrika did not enjoy as formidable a stature as JR but if you accept even a part of what Victor Ivan says a better title for his book would have been ‘The Bandit Queen’. The original Sinhala is Chaura Rajna; the English version is available from Amazon, and presumably Ravaya has both.

The charge of dictatorship levelled against JR is an open and shut case. He reigned like a monarch, was venerated as a sage and worshipped by an all-stooge press. He expelled the Tamil party from Parliament, revoked a general election, egged on and rejoiced in the 1983 communal riots and drove the country to neo-liberal economics which widened inequality. He stripped Mrs B, Felix Dias and Nihal Jayawickrema of their civil rights desecrating fundamental rights but no one dared say boo to his goose. Supreme Court judges and Chief Justices who did not toe his line were shooed out. Repeated bouts of racism in Sri Lanka have removed ideological checks on the abuse of power; JR removed the institutional constraints as well. Post 20A we will have neither institutional nor ideological checks.

Re Chandrika, the first question is “To what extent should we place confidence in Victor’s indictment?”. My short answer is I believe most but not all of it. Let me state upfront, one point that is sloppy in Victor’s storyline is Chapter II (p.49-65) “Who Orchestrated the Town Hall Bombing?”. It is speculation without real evidence; it can’t stand scrutiny or challenge. He makes out that Chandrika arranged the bombing to win sympathy and turn around a flagging presidential election (December 1999), but the plan misfired and she suffered damage to an eye. Victor Ivan would have brought much credit to himself and to his book had he left out this hare-brained conspiracy theory. Another huge deficiency is that nowhere does Victor recognise that after the LSSP and CP succumbed to racism in 1965-66, Chandrika was the only national leader who made an effort – unsuccessful because of Ranil and the UNP – to go that extra mile and revisit Tamil anxieties and address legitimate demands.

It is charges of corruption – bribery, kick-backs, abuse of state facilities – that I think ring true and accusations of complicity in criminality and murder are convincingly argued. It is amazing that neither Chandrika nor her numerous explicitly named crooked partners sued or received retraction or apology for numerous stunning allegations. The implication is that none dared take the witness stand. Exposés by many people against a well known accountant, to pick an example at random, are that he masterminded on behalf of Chandrika the privatisation of Kotagala Estate where, in effect, the state was defrauded of Rs 198 million, presumably shared between the miscreants. There are many more examples; Water’s Edge for example.

Chandrika’s Presidential Security Division (PSD) was a known Mafia led by a notorious criminal Baddegana Sanjeewa and his associates; all conveniently bumped off later (shades of the Oswald-Ruby episode in the Kennedy assassination). The PSD, Victor boldly asserts, bumped off Kumar Ponnambalam and Rohana Kumara (a foul-mouthed TV producer). No election in this country has been as vile as Wayamba Provincial Council 1999, virtually run by the PSD. I do not intend to pursue criminality since my focus today is on kleptocracy. And I do believe that there was huge corruption during Chandrika’s reign. Worst perhaps were private-power projects. From friends and engineers, I know of multi-million-dollar kick-backs. Isn’t it legitimate to ask whether criminality on this scale could have transpired without connivance and benefits for the boss?

I have used these two examples to suggest that constitutional autocrats are not necessarily kleptocrats and conversely that Mafia-presidents deep into robbing with gross reputations for financial misconduct may not be formidable dictators. The Executive Presidents of Lanka have all wielded excessive power and done so unwisely but Chandrika is not the worst case of abuse of formal constitutional power; that nefarious honour goes to JR and Mahinda. Nevertheless, it is fair that I give readers access a point of view contrary to mine. Please seen an essay by Martin Sandbu in the 22 September 2020 issue of the Financial Times (UK) “Populists and kleptocrats are a perfect match”. ( It says in summary: ‘Autocracy and kleptocracy – the capture of political power for the purpose of theft and embezzlement – go together; oligarchic networks (family clans) have privatised the state for their own benefit. Use of public funds for private benefit is rife; lucrative state contracts are handed out to personal associates. Then there is the opposite problem; use of dirty money to manipulate democratic politics. Political fecklessness causes the worst damage; failure to crack down not only condones wrongdoing but also signals that it is of no great priority’. I (KD) think this is true as a generalisation but there are variations.

I am sure readers know where I am heading: What expectations should we have of the post-20A Gotabaya Presidency? Yes, you are right if you guessed that I am leaning to the view that this Presidency will be autocratic but not kleptocratic. That seems to be the style of the man – that is of course not counting hordes of venal parliamentarians and disreputable family. The downside of GR’s style lies elsewhere, it is his penchant for issuing peremptory ill-advised commands. I need to dwell on this. Yes indeed, he recognized and stuck with sound advice on COVID, but on some other matters he has not been so wise. Verbal instructions are to have the same import as formal government texts; this will lead to chaos. The President, thanks to his hare-brained advisers could end up in Mugabesque bedlam. Ex-President Tambo Mbeki of South Africa in the face of ridicule by every medical learned-society, the WHO and specialist opinion, decreed that AIDS was not caused by the HIV virus or concupiscence! This fruitcake president is responsible for 350,000 preventable deaths. The very day that he left office, the new Health Minister Barbra Hogan declared “The era of denialism is over in South Africa”. But the damage had been done!

Then for example if instructions are issued to the CEB that 80% of electrical energy shall be from renewable sources by 2030 it’s like running after a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. If no more thermal plant is commissioned and if those in operation are switched off one by one to keep thermal below 20%, it will be pandemonium in power supply and in industry. GR is fixated on 80% renewable electricity by 2030 while the CEB long-term plan puts it at 35%; an unbridgeable gap. (In my view 35% is too high, but my two-cents worth is irrelevant). This controversy is a huge techno-economic uncertainty. We can’t go on like this. Gota needs to put his money where his mouth is. May I suggest, only partly in jest, that if he is to have any credibility, he must dismantle the CEB planning unit – engineers can transfer to other branches and should welcome the move (sic!), otherwise when things flop, they will be accused of sabotaging Presidential targets.

The Cabinet, Power Minister, unschooled MPs and CEB Chairman Herath a Viyathmaga person, dare not oppose the boss. Therefore, all must put their money where their mouths are and demand that the unit be re-staffed with “experts” foresworn to upholding the 80% decree – though full-page article alternative-experts in the local press don’t even have the foggiest notion what a rolling-plan is! This lot must be instructed to commission 2,000 GWh of additional renewable energy each year starting now – every month sans action is 30 days lost! An 80% target by 2030 means increasing renewable electricity to 26,000 GWh/annum by then. Current renewable production is about 6,300 GWh/annum, consisting of 4,500 major-hydro and 1,800 novel sources – mini-hydro (1,100), wind (450), solar (150), bio-mass (100). These numbers are not exact but acceptable; I have no access to real-time data. This is the marathon these new “experts” will need to run and let’s see how President Gotabaya bridges the 35% versus 80% handicap!

Autocracy may provide cover for kleptocracy, but it may instead provide cover and immunity for irrational decision making that none dare question. Hence my expectation differs from what most others say. It is very likely that we will get much autocracy, hand-in-hand with frequent illogical decision making, but not big time kleptocracy. Insofar as the title of this essay goes, JR was a tyrant who brooked no challenge, Chandrika a base kleptocrat, MR a populist who wore a coat of many colours, and the last incumbent only half executive but surely more than half deranged. The next, after 20A and/or the new constitution will be a novel, a very novel variant on the ever-turbulent executive-despot-autocrat theme.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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


Have Humanities and Social Sciences muddied water enough?



By Maduranga Kalugampitiya

The domain of the humanities and social sciences is under attack more than ever before. The relevance, as well as usefulness of the degrees earned in those fields, is being questioned left, right, and centre. The question of whether it is meaningful at all to be spending, if not wasting, the limited financial resources available in the coffers to produce graduates in those fields is raised constantly, at multiple levels. Attempts are being made to introduce a little bit of soft skills into the curricula in order to add ‘value’ to the degree programmes in the field. The assumption here is that either such degree programmes do not impart any skills or the skills that they impart are of no value. We often see this widely-shared profoundly negative attitude towards the humanities and the social sciences (more towards the former than towards the latter) being projected on the practitioners (students, teachers, and researchers) in those areas. At a top-level meeting, which was held one to two years ago, with the participation of policy-makers in higher education and academics and educationists representing the humanities and social sciences departments, at state universities, a key figure in the higher education establishment claimed that the students who come to the humanities and social sciences faculties were ‘late-developers’. What better (or should I say worse?) indication of the official attitude towards those of us in the humanities and the social sciences!

While acknowledging that many of the key factors that have resulted in downgrading the humanities and social sciences disciplines are global by nature and are very much part of the neoliberal world order, which dominates the day, I wish to ask if we, the practitioners in the said fields, have done our part to counter the attack.

What the humanities and the social sciences engage with is essentially and self-consciously social. What these disciplines have to say has a direct bearing on the social dimension of human existence. It is near impossible to discuss phenomena in economics, political science, or sociology without having to reflect upon and use examples from what happens in our lives and around us. One cannot even begin to talk about teaching English as a second language without taking a look at her/his own experience learning English and the struggles that many people go through at different levels doing the same. One cannot talk about successful ways of teaching foreign languages without recognizing the need to incorporate an engagement with the cultural life of those languages at some level. No reading of an artwork—be it a novel, a movie, a painting, a sculpture, a poem, whatever—is possible without the reader at least subconsciously reflecting upon the broader context in which those artworks are set and also relating her own context or experience to what is being read. A legal scholar cannot read a legislation without paying attention to the social implications of the legislation and the dynamics of the community at whom that legislation is directed. The point is our own existence as social beings is right in the middle of what we engage with in such disciplines. To steal (and do so self-consciously) a term from the hard/natural sciences, society is essentially the ‘laboratory’ in which those in the humanities and social sciences conduct their work. There may be some areas of study within the humanities and social sciences which do not require an explicit engagement with our social existence, but I would say that such areas, if any, are limited in number.

Needless to say that every social intervention is political in nature. It involves unsettling what appears to be normal about our social existence in some way. One cannot make interventions that have a lasting impact without muddying the water which we have been made to believe is clear. How much of muddying do we as practitioners in the field of humanities and social sciences do is a question that needs to be asked.

Unfortunately, we do not see much work in the humanities and social sciences which unsettles the dominant order. What we often see is work that reinforces and reaffirms the dominant structures, systems, and lines of thought. Lack of rigorous academic training and exposure to critical theory is clearly one of the factors which prevents some scholars in the field from being able to make interventions that are capable of muddying the water, but the fact that we sometimes do not see much muddying even on the part of the more adept scholars shows that lack of rigorous training is not the sole reason.

Muddying the water is no simple matter. To use a problematic, yet in my view useful, analogy, a scholar in the said field trying to make an intervention that results in unsettling the order is like a hydrogen atom in H2O, ‘water’ in layperson’s language, trying to make an intervention which results in a re-evaluation of the oxygen atom. Such an intervention invariably entails a re-evaluation of the hydrogen atom as well, for the reason that the two atoms are part of an organic whole. One cannot be purely objective in its reading of the other. Such an intervention is bound to be as unsettling for the hydrogen atom as it is for the oxygen atom. Similarly, in a majority of contexts, a scholar in the area of the humanities and social sciences cannot make an intervention, the kind that pushes the boundaries of knowledge, without unsettling the dominant structures and value systems, which they themselves are part of, live by, and also benefit from. For instance, the norms, values, and practices which define the idea of marriage in contexts like ours are things that a male scholar would have to deal with as a member of our society, and any intervention on his part which raises questions about gender-based inequalities embodied in such norms, values, and practices would be to question his own privilege. Needless to say that such an intervention could result in an existential crisis for the scholar, at least temporarily. Such interventions also entail the possibility of backlash from society. One needs thorough training to withstand that pressure.

In place of interventions that unsettle the existing order, what we often see is work, which re-presents commonsensical knowledge garbed in jargon. To give an example from an area that I am a bit familiar with, much of the work that takes place in the field of English as a Second Language (ESL) identifies lack of motivation on the part of the students and also teachers and also lack of proper training for teachers as the primary reasons for the plight of English education in the country. This reading is not very different from a layperson’s understanding of the problem, and what we often see as research findings in the field of ESL is the same understanding, albeit dressed up in technical-sounding language. Such readings do not unsettle the existing order. They put the blame on the powerless. Very limited is the work that sees the present plight of English education as a systemic or structural problem. Reading that plight as a systemic problem requires us to re-evaluate the fundamental structures which govern our society, and such re-evaluation is unsettling is many ways. I argue that that is what is expected of scholarship in the ESL field, but unfortunately that is not what we see as coming out of the field.

If what gets produced as knowledge in the humanities and social sciences is jargonized commonsense, then the claim that such fields have nothing important to say is valid. If what a scholar in those fields has to say is not different to a layperson’s understanding of a given reality, the question whether there is any point in producing such scholars becomes valid.

In my view, the humanities and social sciences are in need of fundamental restructuring. This restructuring is not the kind which calls for the incorporation of a bit of soft skills here and a bit of soft skills there so that those who come out of those fields easily fit into predefined slots in society but the kind that results in the enhancement of the critical thinking capacity of the scholars. It is the kind of restructuring that would produce scholars who are capable of engaging in a political reading of the realities that define our existence in society and raise difficult questions about such existence, in other words, scholars who are capable of muddying the water.

(Maduranga Kalugampitiya is attached to Department of English, University of Peradeniya)

Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall thatparodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.

Continue Reading


Selective targeting not law’s purpose



By Jehan Perera

The re-emergence of Donald Trump in the United States is a reminder that change is not permanent. Former President Trump is currently utilising the grievances of the white population in the United States with regard to the economic difficulties that many of them face to make the case that they need to be united to maintain their position in society. He is coming forward as their champion. The saying “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty” is often attributed to the founders of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Abraham Lincoln, among many others, though Lord Denning in The Road to Justice (1988) stated that the phrase originated in a statement of Irish orator John Philpot Curran in 1790. The phrase is often used to emphasise the importance of being vigilant in protecting one’s rights and freedoms.

Ethnic and religious identity are two powerful concepts by which people may be mobilised the world over. This is a phenomenon that seemed to have subsided in Western Europe due to centuries of secular practices in which the state was made secular and neutral between ethnicities and religions. For a short while last year during the Aragalaya, it seemed that Sri Lanka was transcending its ethnic and religious cleavages in the face of the unexpected economic calamity that plunged large sections of the population back into poverty. There was unprecedented unity especially at the street level to demonstrate publicly that the government that had brought the country to this sorry pass had to go. The mighty force of people’s power succeeded in driving the leaders of that government out of power. Hopefully, there will be a government in the future that will bring the unity and mutual respect within the people, especially the younger generations, to the fore and the sooner the better as the price is growing higher by the day.

But like the irrepressible Donald Trump the old order is fighting to stage its comeback. The rhetoric of ethnicity and religion being in danger is surfacing once more. President Ranil Wickremesinghe who proclaimed late last year that the 13th Amendment to the constitution would be implemented in full, as it was meant to be, and enable the devolution of power to be enjoyed by the people of the provinces, including those dominated by Tamils and Muslims, has gone silent on this promise. The old order to which he is providing a new economic vision is clearly recalcitrant on ethno-religious matters. As a result, the government’s bold plan to set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission as promised to the international community in 2015 to address the unresolved human rights issues of the war, is reportedly on the rocks. The main Tamil political parties have made statements that they will not legitimise or accept such a mechanism in the absence of a genuine devolution of power. Politics must not override policies.


The sense of threat to ethnicity and religion looms too large once again for forward movement in conflict resolution between the different communities that constitute the Sri Lankan nation which is diverse and plural. Two unlikely persons now find themselves at the centre of an emotion-heavy ethno-religious storm. One is a comedian, the other is a religious preacher. Both of them have offended the religious sensibilities of many in the ethno-religious Sinhala Buddhist majority community. Both of their statements were originally made to small audiences of their own persuasion, but were then projected through social media to reach much larger audiences. The question is whether they made these statements to rouse religious hatred and violence. There have been numerous statements from all sides of the divide, whether ethnic, religious or political, denouncing them for their utterances.

Both comedian Nathasha Edirisooriya and pastor Jerome Fernando have apologised for offending and hurting the religious sentiments of the Buddhist population. They made an attempt to remedy the situation when they realised the hurt, the anger and the opposition they had generated. This is not the first time that such hurtful and offensive comments have been made by members of one ethno-religious community against members of another ethnic-religious community. Taking advantage of this fact the government is arguing the case for the control of social media and also the mainstream media. It is preparing to bring forward legislation for a Broadcasting Regulatory Commission that would also pave the way to imprison journalists for their reporting, impose fines, and also revoke the licences issued to electronic media institutions if they impact negatively on national security, national economy, and public order or create any conflict among races and religions.

In a free society, opportunities are provided for people to be able to air their thoughts and dissents openly, be it at Hyde Park or through their representatives in Parliament. The threat to freedom of speech and to the media that can arise from this new law can be seen in the way that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which is the world’s standard bearer on civil and political rights has been used and is being abused in Sri Lanka. It was incorporated into Sri Lankan law in a manner that has permitted successive governments to misuse it. It is very likely that the Broadcast Regulatory Commission bill will yield a similar result if passed into law. The arrest and detention of comedian Natasha Edirisooriya under the ICCPR Act has become yet another unfortunate example of the misuse of a law meant to protect human rights by the government. Pastor Jerome Fernando is out of prison as he is currently abroad having left the country a short while before a travel ban was delivered to him.


The state media reported that a “Police officer said that since there is information that she was a person who was in the Aragalaya protest, they are looking into the matter with special attention.” This gives rise to the inference that the reason for her arrest was politically motivated. Comedian Edirisooriya was accused of having violated the provisions in the ICCPR in Section 3(1) that forbids hate speech. Section 3(1) of the ICCPR Act prohibits advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, violence or hostility. The international human rights watchdog, Amnesty International, has pointed out that in the case of Edirisooriya that for speech to be illegal on the grounds of being hate speech it requires “a clear showing of intent to incite others to discriminate, be hostile towards or commit violence against the group in question.” Amnesty International also notes that “When the expression fails to meet the test, even if it is shocking, offensive or disturbing, it should be protected by the state.”

Ironically, in the past there have been many instances of ethnic and religious minorities being targeted in a hateful manner that even led to riots against them, but successive governments have been inactive in protecting them or arresting their persecutors. Such targeting has taken place, often for political purposes in the context of elections, in blatant bids to mobilise sections of the population through appeals to narrow nationalism and fear of the other. The country’s political and governmental leaders need to desist from utilising the ICCPR Act against those who make social and political critiques that are outside the domain of hate speech. The arrest of Bruno Divakara, the owner of SL-Vlogs, under the ICCPR Act is an indication of this larger and more concerning phenomenon which is being brought to the fore by the Broadcasting Regulatory Commission bill.

The crackdown on the space for free expression and critical comment is unacceptable in a democratic polity, especially one as troubled as Sri Lanka, in which the economy has collapsed and caused much suffering to the people and the call to hold elections has been growing. The intervention of the Human Rights Commission which has called on the Inspector General of Police to submit a report on the arrest and its rationale is a hopeful sign that the independence of institutions intended to provide a check and balance will finally prevail. The Sri Lankan state will hopefully evolve to be a neutral arbiter in the disputes between competing ethnic, religious and partisan political visions of what the state should be and what constitutes acceptable behaviour within it. Taking on undemocratic powers in a variety of ways and within a short space of time is unlikely to deliver economic resurgence and a stable and democratic governance the country longs for. Without freedom, justice and fair play within, there can be no hope of economic development that President Wickremesinghe would be wanting to see.

Continue Reading


Girl power… to light up our scene



Manthra: Pop, rock and Sinhala songs

We have never had any outstanding all-girl bands, in the local scene, except, perhaps…yes The Planets, and that was decades ago!

The Planets did make a name for themselves, and they did create quite a lot of excitement, when they went into action.

Of course, abroad, we had several top all-girl bands – outfits like the Spice Girls, Bangles, Destiny’s Child, and The Supremes.

It’s happening even now, in the K-pop scene.

Let’s hope we would have something to shout about…with the band Manthra – an all-girl outfit that came together last year (2022).

Manthra is made up of Hiruni Fernando (leader/bass guitar), Gayathma Liyanage (lead guitar), Amaya Jayarathne (drums), Imeshini Piyumika (keyboards), and Arundathi Hewawitharana (vocals).

Amaya Arundathi and Imeshini are studying at the University of Visual and Performing Arts, while Gayathma is studying Architecture at NIMB, and Hiruni is the Western Music teacher at St. Lawrence’s Convent, and the pianist at Galadari Hotel, having studied piano and classical guitar at West London University.

They have already displayed their talents at various venues, events, weddings, and on TV, as well (Vanithabimana Sirasa TV and Charna TV Art Beat).

Additionally, the band showcased their talent at the talent show held at the Esoft Metro Campus.

The plus factor, where this all-girl outfit is concerned, is that their repertoire is made up rock, pop, and Sinhala songs.

Explaining as to how they came up with the name Manthra, founder member Hiruni said that Manthra means a word, or sound, repeated to aid concentration in meditation, and that the name was suggested by one of the band members.

Hiruni Fernando: Founder and leader of Manthra

She also went on to say that putting together a female band is not an easy task, in the scene here.

“We faced many difficulties in finding members. Some joined and then left, after a short while. Unlike a male band, where there are many male musicians in Sri Lanka, there are only a few female musicians. And then, there are some parents who don’t like their daughters getting involved in music.”

With talented musicians in their line-up, the future certainly looks bright for Manthra who are now keen to project themselves, in an awesome way, in the scene here, and abroad, as well.

“We are keen to do stage shows and we are also planning to create our own songs,” said Hiruni.

Yes, we need an all-girl group to add variety to our scene that is now turning out to be a kind of ‘repeating groove,’ where we see, and hear, almost the same thing…over and over again!

Continue Reading