Of professionals and politicians
View(s):In the 1990s, when the country was on fire with two conflicts on the ground – the JVP revolt in the south battled by government troops and militancy in the north-east region with Indian peace-keeping troops in the vanguard – there was no real space for intellectual discourse.
This was more so during the crackdown on JVP militants in which many innocent youngsters were said to have not only been killed but slaughtered. After President Ranasinghe Premadasa’s untimely death at the hands of the LTTE, Prime Minister D.B. Wijetunga took over as president until elections were called in 1995 which maverick Chandrika Kumaratunga won.
One of the main planks of Kumaratunga’s election campaign was to bring professionals into politics. Sensing a new era of freedom and freer political space, many professionals – at the time mainly university academics – openly took out advertisements signalling their support to the opposition candidate (Kumaratunga). Separately professionals like accountant Rajan Asirwatham were involved in hectic canvasing reaching out to the likes of legal luminaries like Lakshman Kadirgamar and G.L. Peiris, and many journalists, among others. A lot of water has flown under the bridge since then but one mustn’t forget that it was the 1990s that triggered the first serious attempt to bring professionals and intellectuals into the political mainstream and start a discourse on developing the nation.
Today the second wave of that process is taking place. While the late 1980s to early 1990s was a challenging period for professionals and intellectuals who were reluctant to raise their voice, the past 10 years (barring 2015/16) have been very traumatic for those who risked raising their voices in dissent, some would argue worse than the earlier mentioned period. Be that as it may the fact of the matter is that professionals and intellectuals no longer need be afraid of being labelled (then) as JVP ‘activists’ or sympathisers, or in 2009-2014 as ‘economic terrorists’ among many demeaning labels. Today medical doctors, architects, engineers, lawyers and other allied professions speak out fearlessly again any legislation, proposal or decision that runs counter to the promises of the Maithripala-Ranil administration.
There is no fear of ‘white vans’, intimidation or harassment from some ‘hidden’ government force. Talk is not dangerous anymore; it carries some value as the government, on many an occasion, is reversing decisions in the face of opposition on various issues. On the other hand, changing course so fast on complex budget proposals is also not good and reflects badly on confidence and sustainability of the regime, and calls for more disciplined management. The freedom of expression without fear by professionals and intellectuals should also be non-partisan, unbiased and politically neutral. Unfortunately that is not the case as seen on both occasions (then and now).
The 1990s discourse was a watershed as professionals and intellectuals entered public life as consultants, advisors or diplomats to government – after campaigning for freedom and democracy – which in many ways hindered their ability to operate as independent persons. Many were trapped in this dilemma while others willingly took this route to enjoy the perks and trappings of office, losing credibility on the way. Today professionals, many of whom campaigned openly or behind the scenes to win power for the Maithripala-Ranil combine, are similarly ensconced in state positions with just a few expressing independent views on a range of troubled issues like the proposed Indo-Lanka trade and services agreement, the Colombo Port City, or the slow pace of investigations against the Rajapaksa regime and their cronies on alleged corruption.
Some have learnt the hard way that maintaining an independent posture is of no benefit while holding office like Prof. Jayadeva Uyangoda and Dr. Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri who were unceremoniously eased out of the Council of the National Institute of Education (NIE). Another official – frank with his views is Asoka Abeygunawardana, Chairman – Strategic Enterprise Management Agency and an electrical engineer by profession, though how long he continues in his official position until the government gets tired of tolerating his public opposition on some issues is a matter of time. Sri Lanka needs all the expertise it can get and the services of the best brains in the country towards becoming an economic powerhouse – somewhere in between Singapore and Dubai.
Yet the partnership between independent thinkers and the government is going through some testing times particularly since the same problems – corrupt deals, inefficient public service, backtracking on decisions, etc that the former regime was infamous for – are evident today. Learned academic Sarath Wijesuriya, in the forefront of the national movement for change which was headed by the late Maduluwawe Sobitha Thero, has in recent times expressed his disappointment at many developments. Prof. Wijesuriya was among the few who declined a government post to remain neutral, a similar stance taken by the JVP when it supported the government in January to August 2015 but refused any positions.
But one needs to give the devil its due. A judiciary freed from the fetters of presidential control or perks, is responding to the wishes of the majority – delivering judgments that are fair and just. The 18-month old government has not resorted to any form of intimidation which, if there is, won’t be tolerated in an environment where civil society has transformed into a strong force, as powerful as the government. Professionals are coming together on many issues. A new umbrella organization called the United Professionals Movement (UPM) has been formed to ensure their voice is heard. Debates and counter-points on many issues are heating up the political arena, frustrating the government as many of its efforts seems blocked one way or the other. Engineers are flexing their muscles, professionals are organizing open rallies – unheard of earlier -, doctors are taking to the streets and architects are speaking out.
These are signs of a healthy democracy becoming embedded rapidly in society and tough, one would assume, to overturn even if the country returns to the dark days of an era when an outspoken Sri Lankan was called a ‘JVP terrorist’ or picked off the streets in a white van. The challenge for professionals and intellectuals is to set aside political affiliations when dabbling in national issues. So far that hasn’t happened with chinks in the armour of some professionals, prompting organisations like the UPM to defend its role as a movement purely working for the interests of the country. Freedom is easy to lose but hard to get. Professional groups need to keep pushing on issues that are detrimental to the country but not rock the boat if vested political interests get in the way. Striking that balance is the key to the country’s future.