DISRUPTION AND CONSOLIDATION OF POWER

FROM THE OUTSET-INCLUDING AFTER THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS -THE UNITY GOVERNMENT DISREGARDED ITS PROMISES

The economy, which should be critically debated in the run-up to the next round of elections, will once again be displaced by the recent manoeuvre, where the upcoming provincial, general and presidential elections, are likely to focus on personalities, betrayal and corruption

The power grab and subsequent events over the last ten days are but the culmination of a plan of action that Mahinda Rajapaksa put into place following his defeat at the Presidential and Parliamentary Election s of 2015. The strategy was one of disruption of the Sirisena-wickremesinghe Government and power consolidation through mobilisation and elections, including a major victory at the local government elections in February this year.

The success of Rajapaksa’s strategy is also, thanks to the failure soft he Si rise na wick re me sing he Government, within a political environment susceptible to and set up for disruption.

From the outset, and including after the Parliamentary Elections of August 2015, the Unity Government has disregarded its promises to the public.

Over the last four years, the trade and financial liberalisation policies carried forward by the Rajapaksa regime were accelerated, placing the national economy and working peoples’ lives in a precarious situation.

Instead of putting forward a coherent political vision towards strengthening the democratic body politic of State and society by, for example through Constitutional reform, the political bickering between the Wickremesinghe led UNP and Sirisena’s faction of the SLFP led to rising political instability.

The economic troubles and the political instability constituting the crisis facing the country today has many aspects. I focus here on three facets of this crisis, particularly shrinking democratic space, ethnic polarisation and economic dispossession.

DEMOCRATIC SPACE

Regardless of the criticisms, one may have of the Sirisena-wickremesinghe Government from 2015 to its recent collapse, one undeniable characteristic of this period was the tremendous opening of democratic space.

The decades of war and the authoritarian post-war years under Rajapaksa undermined freedoms of expression and association. Protests were brutally suppressed, dissent was silenced and the media came under attack, all amidst a climate of fear.

Although student and trade union protests continued to be dealt with harshly by the Sirisena-wickremesinghe Government, the fear of extrajudicial means of repression had, for the most part, receded in recent years.

By democratic space, I mean the political environment that is conducive and enabling of peoples’ direct participation and action, including struggles and protests.

In the North and East, the opening of democratic space in January 2015 was akin to night and day.

From militarised surveillance where people felt wary to even speak in small meetings, the climate of fear dramatically lifted and protests and struggles emerged on a range of issues.

While the Government may not have addressed the demands of such struggles, the right to protest has contributed greatly to the security and dignity of the minorities in the country.

The question is whether another period of Rajapaksa rule may lead to the shutting down of this democratic space.

INTER-ETHNIC RELATIONS

It was the Tamil communities in the war-torn regions and the Muslim communities throughout the country that faced the brunt of repression under the Rajapaksa regime.

A Constitutional political solution was dismissed by the Rajapaksas claiming that mega development was the answer to the grievances of the minorities.

State power was usurped by the Executive Presidency with the passing of the 18th Amendment even as the militarization of civil administration, particularly governance of the war-torn regions and urban development throughout the country came under the security apparatuses. Instead of fostering co-existence in the postwar environment, communities were polarised to consolidate the power of the Rajapaksa regime.

An ideological war was initiated against the Muslim community making them the scapegoats for economic woes. Violence including riots was instigated against Muslim shops and businesses. Drawing on global and regional Islamophobia, the crass attacks placed the Muslim community in a terrible state of fear. While the regime change in 2015 did not succeed in addressing the grievances of the minorities and did not mean an end towards the violence against Muslims, at the very least there was recognition of addressing such concerns at the policy level. The efforts towards drafting a new Constitution and the various reconciliation mechanisms set a trajectory conducive for dialogue. In this context, the stalling Constitutional reform process and meagre progress in addressing the legacy of war-time abuses as well as the failure to prevent more recent antimuslim violence, have been both causes and symptoms of increasing ethnic polarisation over the last two years.

The Joint Opposition led by Rajapaksa in no small measure contributed to such polarisation, and the logical question to ask is how their divisive nationalist politics will impact minorities if they consolidate state power.

ECONOMIC PROBLEMS

The political crisis that we face today is very much linked to the economic instability and crisis that has troubled the country over recent months but has a longer trajectory spanning a few decades.

The broader economic policies taken forward by the Si rise na wick re me sing he Government were not very different from the Rajapaksa Government. Urban development concentrated in Colombo, plans for an international financial centre, financialised sovereign loans, mega development projects with Chinese support and even free trade agreements, particularly with India, were all initiated under the Rajapaksa Government.

Rising indebtedness as a result of financialisation, ruined livelihoods due to neglect of agriculture and fisheries, investment in large infrastructure over small industries, have all contributed to the dispossession of the working people. Their cost of living has been rising while incomes have fallen with many out of work.

In the past, both Governments have sought the support of voters through populist measures prior to elections. As we approach a year of elections, the UNP’S Colombo-centred view of the economy and the anti-incumbent mood among the population are likely to translate into greater support for Rajapaksa who is pledging to solve the economic problems of the people.