Disruption and Consolidation...

This will not happen, as Rajapaksa’s economic policies are no different in substance, with the continuation of Sri Lanka’s neoliberal integration with global markets and finance capital.

The 2015 election ousted the Rajapaksa regime through a protest vote. The election debate then focused on challenging authoritarianism did not seriously address economic concerns, and reduced any discussion of the economy to corruption and nepotism.

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, Parliamentary and Presidential Elections, are likely to focus on personalities, betrayal and corruption.

In the near term, the Programme for Economic Revival (2 November 2018), released by the Finance Ministry under its new leadership, outlines measures including subsidies and tax relief that will be provided at the behest of President Sirisena and newly appointed Finance Minister Rajapaksa.

These measures stick to IMF dictates and aim to boost investor confidence through measures of fiscal consolidation. They will merely disrupt ongoing development projects and transfer capital expenditure allocated in the 2018 Budget towards populist measures to shore up support.

Instability and crisis will be costly for the economy, and in the absence of a credible economic vision, those costs will only be transferred to the people.

State power consolidation under a Rajapaksa regime will make it much easier to implement Neoliberal Policies that require repressive State power, including those of further financialisation and privatisation, than was for the weak Sirisena-wickremesinghe coalition government.

For those who say that Rajapaksa will be different this time around, there is nothing to suggest this given his leadership of the Joint Opposition and the absence of self-criticism about his authoritarian stint in power. In fact, the deterioration of our political culture including in parliament and the politicisation of state institutions to a large measure are consequences of the decade-long rule of the authoritarian Rajapaksa regime

PROGRESSIVE PATH

As the tussle for power continues with forces aligned to Wickremesinghe, Rajapaksa and Sirisena, what would a progressive path of engagement look like?

While we all know the limitations of our parliamentarians who are often up for sale, the parliament should be reconvened immediately. Parliament is often the first line of defence before peoples’ rights are abused, and the manoeuvre to hand Rajapaksa a government needs to be challenged in Parliament and on the streets.

For those who say that Rajapaksa will be different this time around, there is nothing to suggest this given his leadership of the Joint Opposition and the absence of self-criticism about his authoritarian stint in power.

In fact, the deterioration of our political culture including in parliament and the politicisation of state institutions to a large measure are consequences of the decadelong rule of the authoritarian Rajapaksa regime.

Wickremesinghe has failed as Prime Minister consistently, from his short stint in power that ended in 2003 to the current term. His politics and policies only elicit popular contempt.

It is high time the UNP holds its leadership responsible for its failures and prepares a leadership capable of dealing with the worrying times ahead.

The TNA led by Sampanthan abdicated its role as formal Opposition when it failed to oppose the attacks on the student movement and trade union struggles over the last few years. The TNA itself and its constituencies are facing the prospect of fragmentation, with its leadership done little to mobilise its base in recent times.

Former Chief Minister of the Northern Province C.V. Wigneswaran and other narrow Tamil nationalist forces are gleeful at the current crisis, as their fortunes depend on further ethnic polarisation, but their suicidal politics drawing on the legacy of the LTTE will only setback the Tamil community.

Presidente Sirisena has come a full circle from challenging Rajapaksa in 2015 to delivering him a government.

His role and power are likely to be drastically reduced as the unified SLFP consolidates under Rajapaksa and he increasingly faces the ire of those opposed to Rajapaksa. History will judge Sirisena harshly for this manoeuvre, especially for letting down his mandate from the people for a democratic change.

The citizenry cannot depend on any of these personalities and for that matter their party machines, which have been self-serving.

Nor are international actors sitting on their high horses with their share of dirt in their stables going to provide an answer. If anything, a national political crisis only enables international actors to manipulate the country. The international actors who seem so opposed to Rajapaksa today will fall in line if he consolidates power and toes the Neoliberal line.

Moreover, their visible opposition to Rajapaksa at this critical juncture will only strengthen his Sinhala-buddhist Nationalist base, who claim to “save the nation”.

This is where the media get it so wrong—the current moment cannot be reduced to the acts of national leaders and international actors.

Against the odds, it is once again time to grapple with difficult questions. We need to ensure that the space for democracy is not shut down, and find avenues to expand democratic space including through substantive debates about the state and the uses of state power.

Rebuilding fragile inter-ethnic relations are crucial even as we challenge the divisive politics of ethnic polarisation. Finally, a meaningful economic vision on the principles of equality and justice for the people who are still looking for relief in the North and South is urgent. If these concerns are raised in broad-based campaigns by peoples’ movements, in national debates and the upcoming elections, they may provide critical resistance to the consolidation of State power by a repressive regime.