100-day revolution: Mandate of the people must be upheld by those elected
1948 agenda
At the time of attaining independence from Britain in 1948, the main topics in our National Agenda were eliminating the authoritarianism and servitude which had infiltrated into the society; establishing national unity, integrity and equality among comunities; revival of national languages; improvement of the livelihood of the people by eliminating rural poverty that had reached their zenith, solving the disparity in national income and wealth distribution and bridging the gap between the village and the city; transformation of the dependent economic system to a national economic system by developing agriculture and ensuring food security and developing national industries; establishing a national education system; establishing a national management and administration system; implementation of a national health policy and health care system; and regional co-operation, etc all of which were interconnected. However, this national agenda had not been properly and duly recognised in its entirety.
President Maithripala Sirisena addresses a gathering at the conclusion of his 100 days in office.
When we attained independence in 1948, one of the main items in our lengthy agenda was to get rid of the authoritarianism that the natives were subjected to under colonial rule and to eliminate servitude. What we have so far achieved in these spheres is not adequate. The whole socio-economic fabric is afflicted with discrepancy as a result of which authoritarianism continues and has engulfed the whole society. Most of the political parties, to take a simple and obvious example, although they called themselves either “socialist” or “people-friendly”, still pick their candidates in an authoritarian manner. Nominations are hardly given to representatives of ground level organisations. What usually happens is that, people carry on their shoulders, candidates selected by the party hierarchy. Thus, the most powerful weapon of universal franchise has been made a blunt weapon, with no power, no say and no choice from the point of view of the people. This happens in many arenas in selections to high posts. That’s one reason why fast track implementation does not take place and we end up with futile people or robber barons.
Rejuvenation of national languages, to take another example, has not been fully implemented yet. Based on the then prevailing socio-economic environment, Sinhala was rightly made the official language in 1957.
However, it would have been more sensible if Tamil language was also given its due place, i.e., parity of status. The proposals brought forward in this regard by far thinking national leaders were ignored. It was too late when our national leaders realised their folly.
We began working in English, without first learning how to make use of English and without a clear understanding of how to work in English.
Thereby, we have almost cut down by half our capacity to work and our ingenuity. We have failed to reap the real benefits of free education and we have embarked on to a path where our resources have been wasted. While acquiring English as a key to knowledge, we should simultaneously acquire the key to the great ocean of oriental wisdom. All should be given the opportunity, if they so wish, to acquire a university degree or an equivalent qualification right throughout in the swabhasa medium. Such a facility should be afforded to everyone as a constitutional right and should be included in the fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution. By not doing so, we are allowing authoritarianism to continue and shutting the avenues for full development of human resources.
Extractive economics
Now, 67 years after gaining independence, we have reached a historical juncture to re-think and reassess our future. After implementation of two constitutions, we have reached a stage where we have to re-think and reach a consensus about how to bring in constitutional changes. After a 30-year war where we wasted our national resources, we are anxiously waiting to reach a consensus as to how to attain national unity. We are determined to completely change the set-up that allowed extraction of our national wealth.We are determined not to allow the recurrence of such extractive economics, which plundered national wealth and disposed them surreptitiously to the advantage of a few powerful people. We are determined to take measures to prevent such plundering and set up and develop institutions to fulfill our national goals. Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson argue that countries which have attained economically prosperous and stable positions, have neither reached those positions as a historical, geographical, ethnical or cultural causality nor as a result of what Maha Brahma has decreed. They raise the question, for example, as to whether it was inevitable that the Industrial Revolution would get underway in the 18th century in Britain, and then spread to Western Europe and Europe’s offshoots in North America and Australasia. We can see that certain nations have reached very high levels and standards of economic development. Certain other countries have experienced downfall and stagnate in poverty. As described in their work “Why Nations Fail’ ( Crown Publishing Group, United States of America, 2012) destiny of a nation had not been earmarked or predetermined based on its geography, culture or ethnicity, etc. They conclude that nations with inclusive economic and political institutions prosper while nations with extractive economics and political institutions fail and remain poor.
We will be able to analyse and understand the situation we have fallen into by applying this theory. A critical juncture we passed was our struggle with the European nations which culminated in our total defeat and surrender to the British in 1815. Although there was a counter attack (Rebellion) in 1818, it did not succeed. After this critical juncture, Sri Lanka was subjected to extractive policies and extractive economics. As a result, we were endowed with a plantation economy, a railway and road network, a harbour, and an insurance and banking network. The surplus in plantation agricultural sector did not form the capital base for industrial development in contrast to what happened in Europe and America. We were not endowed with an industrial and service economy that benefitted economic and living conditions of the whole population. This was the inevitable outcome of an extractive economy and extractive policies that was dominating. Destruction of the subsistence agricultural economy, waste land ordinance under which rural peasantry’s lands were plundered and bought at a price of Five Shillings (50 cents) per acre by the British planters (1840), bringing the country under the yoke of an import-export economy, subduing industrial development (a person who invented a bicycle was charged in the court) and capital flight were the key features of the then extractive economics. In 1946, after more than a century of British colonial rule, 64 per cent of the wage earners received less than Rs.40 per month (Census of Population – 1946)!
A Sri Lankan elite class that supported the colonial economic system had emerged after the British conquest of the country. They were in fact a pseudo elite that didn’t possess the national pride and cultural foundation that the national elite possessed before their subjugation to the western colonial powers. The economic foundation of national pride is interwoven with the national state. The elite who depend on the national economy engage in lifelong struggles to protect that economy because their pride is rooted in the national economy. The pseudo elite that came into being during the colonial administration did not inherit such a legacy because their very existence depended not on the existence of the Sri Lankan state but on the British Empire. Although we attained independence in 1948, we were unable to free ourselves from the yoke of colonial economic apparatus and its administrative regime.
We were unable to bring forward the national agenda that was due at that time. Instead, we were complacent with the continuation of the same extractive policies and extractive economics. As a result, the unresolved problems that existed in the Sri Lankan society got further aggravated. The election of S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike as the people’s Prime Minister in 1956 was facilitated to find solutions to hitherto unsolved problems. It was a symbolisation of the then national aspirations. Although nationalisation became a popular economic programme, it turned to be a state capitalism paraded as socialism. What resulted was the creation of a new class of people under the guise of “Socialism” who continued with the extractive economics. Those who had no understanding whatsoever about “Socialism” and who from generations opposed socialism, labelled their economic policies and programmes as socialist. By promulgating the 1978 constitution, they changed the name of the country to “Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka”. That itself shows how they disgraced the intelligence of the masses.
Black Hole
Extractive economic formulae have engulfed the whole economic set-up of the country and the task of relieving the whole nation from this grip is still unfulfilled. The serious income disparity that prevails today across the nation and the stagnation of the economy is clear evidence of the prevalence of an extractive economics and extractive institutions. According to a survey done by the Department of Census and Statistics in 2009/10, the poorest 10 per cent of the households received only 1.6 per cent of the national household income; the richest 10 per cent received 39.5 per cent of the total income. The annual growth in the household income does not commensurate with the growth in per capita income which is derived by dividing the total population into total national income. It is this paradox that was referred to as the “black hole” of growth (Thomas Piketty – Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Harvard University Press). This is partly due to inclusion of bribery and corruption coupled with overestimates of government contracts to alarming heights. The possibility is that this part of the “national income” has gone to the most highly remunerated individuals.
The pillage of national income from what has come to light during the past 100 days shook the minds of patriotic people of the country. Some such revelations were four Sri Lankans in Dubai transferring US$1,935 million (16 per cent of the 2014 national budget of our country) which had been deposited in that country to a bank in the Bahamas (Sunday Lankadeepa of March 15, 2015), overestimation of the construction cost of the Northern Highway by Rs. 6,000 million (Lankadeepa, 2015.03.12, Page 12) and offering construction contracts to Chinese companies at exorbitant prices. The burden of these economic crimes has to be borne by the ordinary people of this country. During the last several years, the unfortunate ordinary public had to bear the weight of these corrupt deals. The purchasing power of the ordinary man has drastically come down, thereby weakening national economic growth. The ordinary man resembles a truck with a heavy load plying with a motor cycle engine.
Extractive economics operates in the private sector, as well. When ownership gets increasingly distanced from the management, management cadres take an upper hand and start clamouring for higher salaries and other perquisites.
Very often, these higher salaries coupled with other perquisites do not reconcile with the socio-economic conditions of the country and are not in any way proportionate to the output of the entity they manage. This results in pressure being exerted on such entities to raise the prices of their goods and services. It affects the consumer market. Exorbitantly high management salaries increases income disparity, diminishes business profits available for reinvestment and pushes businesses to go for borrowed capital. The total combined result of these consequences tends to weaken the progress of the private sector.
Maname Kumaraya
Now, 67 years after independence, a wonderful and harmonious concord has been established. Leaders of the two main rival political parties have come together. Having established this concord, they have taken upon themselves a great national mission, a mission only one political party cannot undertake. This is actually a miracle, a miracle with no precedent. Now, to turn this miracle into a beneficial action we have to act with wisdom, compassion, dauntless courage and extreme patience. If we are to indulge in any activity for the benefit of the country, we have to aim at the welfare and benefit of all and the co-operation of all. We have to implement, in brief, inclusive economics and create inclusive institutions. If we attempt to fulfill the lust or the desire of a few, we will definitely ruin ourselves or end up in frustration
The 2015 people’s mandate is entangled with numerous challenges as those faced by the people’s mandate in 1956, at the dawn of a people’s era. In order to carry out transformation and revival in the spheres of governance, economy and income distribution, public administration, education and culture, people have given a mandate at a high cost to them accumulated over several years. Therefore, such mandate should not be abdicated or turned upside down. It should not be devolved to anyone else. It should not be relinquished. We should not allow power hungry and greedy parties to continue further the extractive politics they were engaged in. The task of implementing policies and programmes should not be left in the hands of a bureaucracy claimed to be independent but only procedure oriented and not result oriented. We should take all possible steps to prevent the recurrence of the fate that Maname Kumaraya (Prince Maname) encountered.
(The writer is a chartered accountant by profession and can be reached at
countbest@gmail.com)