Democracy With Sri Lankan Characteristics

By Aravinth Kumar –January 21, 2018

Multi-party democratic rule in Sri Lanka and socialist rule in China commenced around the same time in the late 1940s. Both political systems proved to be complete disasters, stifling the growth and development of the two nations. Fortunately for China, the visionary Deng Xiaoping fully understood that the socialist system was failing his country and adapted “socialism with Chinese characteristics”. In doing so, China went from a poverty stricken nation to becoming the second largest economy in a generation. In fact, it has transformed so rapidly that it has been predicted that China will have the largest economy by 2040 (if not sooner). Sri Lanka on the other hand has persisted with a flawed multi-party democracy, trapping itself in a cycle. If Sri Lanka has any intention of breaking this trap and emulating China, Sri Lanka too will need to adapt its “democracy with Sri Lankan characteristics”.

How has a multi-party democracy trapped Sri Lanka’s economy? Well, since gaining independence from the British in 1948, Sri Lanka’s democracy has charted the following disastrous political cycle:

• An election is called. All political parties issue their mandate of what they wish to achieve if given power. Usually, these political parties offer a populist manifesto completely disregarding the impact on the economy (or national unity). During the campaign, political parties provide all thoughts of tangible goodies to entice the citizens to vote for them. As Lee Kuan Yew famously stated, Sri Lanka’s elections are an “auctions of non-existent resources”.
• The people vote in a party which is usually either an UNP or SLFP led alliance. The party forms a government for a period of 5 years.
• Once in power, the UNP/SLFP looks to pay back those who helped with their election win, as well as help family and friends. This is usually through providing jobs in the public sector thus depriving the state of competent individuals. Unaffordable populist measures as stated in their manifesto are enacted, such as public sector pay rises or fuel subsidies, requiring the government to borrow high interest loans creating economic instability e.g. balances of payment crises, increasing inflation and currency collapses.
• In the rare case that a government does attempt meaningful development, be it from a change in law or a physical infrastructure project, the opposition parties will block it just to prevent their “enemy” taking credit for helping the nation to develop. In doing so, the opposition can then claim that the current government has done nothing of benefit and the people should vote them into power.   
• With the economy suffering and the next set of elections around the corner, the government of the day starts scapegoating and trying to turn people’s attention away from their poor mismanagement by stroking nationalistic/ethnic/religious sentiment and/or (further) offering economically damaging policies.
• With the government not having made any meaningful action to improve the country, come the next election, the people usually turn to the opposition (i.e. if it’s an UNP backed government then power shifts to a SLFP backed government and vice versa).

Whilst the above political cycle is somewhat generalised, on the whole, it is fair to say that for the last 70 years, Sri Lanka has mostly seen its economy move forward only to falter and move three steps back.  This is primarily down to the multi-party democracy practised in Sri Lanka which consists of three fundamental flaws:

1. Firstly, it’s too short term focused. Governments are only interested in making quick short term changes which can be easily seen and felt by the citizens before the next round of elections. They therefore have no incentive to take any notice of the impact on the country or economy in the mid/long term.
2. Secondly, the opposition will always oppose anything even if it brings benefits. Allowing their rival to develop the country would be like shooting oneself in the foot i.e. preventing them obtaining their primary goal; political power.
3. Lastly, whilst citizens of a country demand improvements in their life, most are scared about the impact of major but necessary changes. Opposition parties latch on to this inherent fear and play the political card. There are numerous times when parties have tried to introduce well meaningful laws only to feel a hostile reaction from some in the voting public backed by opposition members. Wanting to retain power, many governments have scrapped and fallen to the demands of the people, which usually creates/furthers a negative impact on the economy.   

It probably explains why, of all the newly independent nations which have become developed countries in the last 30 years, such as Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea etc., none of them operated an open multi-party democracy like in Sri Lanka. In fact, it even fails in the countries which first embraced democracy! However, in such countries, which are usually already a developed nation, the model of democracy is not a major hindrance. This is mainly because significant changes are not required as compared to a developing country like Sri Lanka. Take for example the UK. There have been ongoing proposals to create a third runway at London Heathrow Airport. However, there is a large amount of opposition from certain citizens as well as some political parties. However, let’s assume building this runway is a good thing, not constructing the runway is not going to have a major impact as there is already two other runways in operation.  Additionally, there are numerous high class airports situated around the country including three situated in close proximity to London.

Now, compare this to a developing country like Sri Lanka where the need for infrastructure is vital.  Take travelling between Colombo and the second city, Kandy. Whilst there are methods of travelling between the two cities these aren’t on the scale as in a country like the UK. Travelling by public transport is not the most enjoyable trip, with the infrastructure old and dilapidated and buses/trains leaving at irregular times. If one where to drive this 71 mile journey, it could sometimes take the same amount of time as it would to fly from Colombo to Singapore! Thus, any improvements of either a road or a new rail link would create major economic benefits.

So, considering the benefits which can be gained, why has Sri Lanka not invested money into improving transport links? Answer: Sri Lanka’s multi-party democracy. Sri Lanka has two major parties that power has alternated between since independence. Both parties are keen to develop the country (or they state), yet at the same time both parties are keen to prevent their rival from being the one in charge of such development.

Thus, the intention of the SLFP/UNP when in opposition is to oppose just so credit is not given to the government of the day. A case in point is the construction of the Colombo Port City, a large 269 hectare of sea filled land being built by the Chinese at a cost of $1.4 billion. The project was initiated in 2014 by the previous Rajapaksa government with much objection by the UNP. So much so, that during the parliamentary election campaign in 2015, the leader of the UNP, Ranil Wickremesinghe, stated they would stop construction on the grounds of environmental concerns. Whilst there was a standstill for a year after the UNP gained power, construction is back in full swing with the Prime Minister having made a site visit in the first week of January 2018. Funnily enough, even though Ranil Wickremesinghe had proposed scrapping the Port City project during the 2015 election campaign, it was actually he himself who had initially proposed the idea in 2002 whilst he was Prime Minster. However with the loss of power in the 2004 election, the actual credit for commencing the project was to be taken by Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Read More