A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Search This Blog
Back to 500BC.
==========================
Thiranjala Weerasinghe sj.- One Island Two Nations
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Monday, July 10, 2017
ULF can ride on social democratic resurgence
United Left Front recognised by Elections Commission
by Kumar David-July 9, 2017, 10:12 am
"The United Left Front (ULF),
composed mainly of LSSP members who defied the Tissa Vitarana
leadership, and dissidents from the Communist Party and Vasu’s
Democratic Left Front, has been recognized as a political party. This is
a major victory for left".
The division of the LSSP into two factions, a majority led by Dr
Jayampathy Wickramaratne (MP), Attorney Lal Wijenayake (Party Secretary)
and Professor Vijaya Kumar, and the left-behind formal faction led by
Dr Tissa Vitarana, is unfortunate and was avoidable. It is aggravated by
permanent suspension without inquiry of those who later emerged as the
Majority Group (MG) from party positions and membership. Their offence
was to have opposed the Mahinda Rajapaksa (MR) Presidency and at the
January 2015 Presidential Elections supported Common Candidate
Maithripala Sirisena. But the conflict goes further back. It originates
in the revulsion of most LSSPers at the regime’s corruption, economic
mismanagement, racism and family cronyism and the unquestioning
obedience of the Vitarana faction to MR and his clan. The majority
refused to endorse this and demanded a conference to realign and reflect
public outrage. Then pressure on Vitarana became unbearable leading to
suspensions to forestall policy reversal and prevent loss of his Cabinet
post. (This writer declares, for reasons of transparency, that he is a
supporter of LSSP(MG)/ULF).
The split was unnecessary and could have been avoided by the simple
expedient of conforming to well-established left-party norms. Vitarana
should have agreed to a conference with the majority present to debate
differences and explore compromises. If conciliation failed two
political resolutions would have been put to the party conference.
Thereafter the losers could organise itself as an internal faction if
they wished. Vitarana et al turned their back on this and organised a
fake event flooded with new "members" brought by Padmasiri now being
groomed by Vitarana and Basil (influential behind the scene) to take
over as leader when Vitarana makes a hiatus. A ULF source called it "a
fake event to pre-empt appalling decisions to support 18th amender,
white van abductor and rogue impeacher MR".
The next step
The next step for the ULF is to hold a party conference as expeditiously
as possible and formalise its programmes and policies. Till then there
is no formalised position though its views are well known in political
circles. What appears in the rest of this essay should be read in this
light. I will take up a few points in this and the next subsection. This
subsection is about how the left should position itself in the short to
medium term, conveniently identifiable with the remaining period of
this government. The next subsection of this essay deals with one longer
term perspective.
The medium-short term highlights three issues: The constitution, the
government’s economic performance and left unity. Take left unity first,
it is straightforward. The option before the left from the largish JVP
to sects, shrivelled, withered or atrophied – USP, NSSP, Maoists nodules
and tinier cults – is stark. There is no prospect, absolutely none
whatever, that any will capture state power or emerge as a large and
significant national force in isolation by itself. This is a consequence
of splits and harebrained divorces from the 1960s if not earlier. Lanka
is not alone in this asylum; it was the experience of Greece before
Syriza, Spain before Podemos, France even today and others.
The ULF and indeed the whole non Dead-Left needs to think through its
2019-20 strategy; right now it is sleepwalking. Will it remain hitched
to Ranil and/or Sirisena as national leader; will the UNP and/or the
SLFP be the link to national-level politics? Alternatively, does the
left intend to act on its own; in which case first it must become united
and second it must develop its programmes.
The condition of the Lankan left is unlike that of the British Labour
Party which for historical reasons evolved differently. Labour is
broad-based, ideologically plural, and has internalised a range of
currents – Trotskyites, Marxists, radicals, liberals, environmentalists,
greens and progressive. The minimum "qualification" seems to be a sort
of generic social-democracy. And how is that to be defined? It is not
set in any rule book or formalised in definitions; it flows from
traditions that evolved through the history of the Party – trust the
Brits to muddle along!
Although the LSSP in its heyday did accommodate a range of class, trade
union, ideological and intellectual currents, for reasons too complex to
explain here it did not become a sufficiently omnibus vehicle of left,
radical, minority and progressive-liberal politics. Hence by its mere
existence it could not avert the fission of the national left into a
thousand fragments that sectarianism is heir to.
What did not happen organically has to be done by exertion. The first
imperative of the ULF is to place on its programmatic agenda a
commitment to left unity. Collaboration will enter the currency of its
day to day discourses and percolate further into broader left rhetoric.
Such preparation will be fertile soil when opportune events materialise.
I emphasise this because some doltish leaders think the left must wait
for the right event (nishchitha sidiyak) before opening up the discourse
on unity.
The principles that the left espouses on the Constitution are known and
don’t need elaboration. In a few words they are: erecting barriers to
authoritarianism and militarisation, devolution of power to the
periphery, secularism and pluralism, a favourable climate for the
protection of less privileged classes and populations (women, children,
castes),directive principles on socio-economic rights, repeal of the PTA
and repressive laws. (Pity kicking out Wijeyadasa can’t be made a
constitutional clause!). Some of this will for sure be reflected in the
constitution now being drafted.
There is a critical imperative relating to enactment; a matter of very
short-term strategy. The country faces a dilemma at this moment.
Negotiating patiently to win wide consensus is essential since the
constitution must be acceptable to a large majority of people and all
communities. This takes time and I am realist enough to know that could
take months. But there is a time bomb ticking – provincial council (PC)
and local government elections. Grant for arguments sake that the
pro-constitution side suffers a setback at the PC polls. God forbid, but
if this happens it can be fatal for enactment. Everyone (except the JO
which is bent on sabotage) says "Now is a once in a lifetime chance",
"It’s now or never" and so on. Then the conclusion is inexorable; a
stratagem must be found to get the constitution signed, sealed and
enacted before the polls. Risking the constitution is unthinkable. What
is more pernicious, deferring the PC/LG polls till afterwards, or the
monumental blunder of aborting the constitution? Dogs will bark that
democracy is being toyed with; let them, the caravan must move on.
The third item for a putative ULF conference is a stance on government
economic programmes. Let’s face it, the left including the JVP, is
cohabiting with this government for two reasons; turning back the
Rajapaksa juggernaut hurtling to dictatorship and enacting a new
constitution. Once the latter is done both objectives are fulfilled. No
one in the left had illusions of socialistic economic achievements
issuing from a Sirisena-Ranil-led UNP-SLFP outfit. If something useful
comes of it – which seems unlikely the way things are going – it is a
bonus. If not, I guess, we will be politely told to bugger off.
Conditional support, critical support or parting of the ways are all
options in respect of the economy after the big one, the constitution,
is cleared. Let’s not make the mistake (one of the many) the LSSP made
in the 1970s – not knowing when enough is enough.
The return of Social Democracy in Europe
I may be the only person in Lanka and one of the few in the world who
has attempted to theorise and explore the rise of neo-populism in the
Twenty-first Century and its acceleration after the 2008 global debacle
of finance capital. If you have done me the favour of glancing at my
etchings you would have noticed that recently I have been taking another
step and suggesting that neo-populism may have peaked and is on a
downward path. It is true the neo-populist surge was a disappointment
for the left. We imagined that if the failure of the ‘system’ was
apparent to the population and the working class, there would be a mass
shift to the left. But hell, history is not linear! UKIP, Duterte,
Trump, Le Pen and their ilk sneaked in and managed to get themselves a
prologue.
The tables seem to be turning on Trump and Duterte. Emmanuel Macron is
only a halfway house; hand in hand with Angela Merkel the two are a
roadblock to the advance of global neo-populism. The huge event in this
discourse is Jeremy Corbyn and the rise of Labour; that is the rise of
modern, active social-democracy to centre stage. A Labour government and
Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister within two years, I am persuaded, is a
certainty. What I have my fingers crossed about is whether this is also
the harbinger of the resurgence of social democracy across Europe.
Forget the yanks for now; they have always been politically backward.
You know where I am going; I don’t need to spell it out. The rise of
European social-democracy will be an event of significance that the
perspectives the ULF should incline towards. I spent two days at
seminars at the BMICH where liberal after liberal was squealing that
liberalism is under attack on all sides. Poor sods! They still can’t
figure out that liberalism is finished; 2008 finished them. They have no
answer to the frustration and misery of millions that brought about
Brexit and propelled Trump to the presidency. Liberal values without a
socio-economic programme is a dead duck; add the programme and you have
social-democracy. I rest my case.