Economic
policy a political football
One expects political parties in a democracy
to have a declared economic policy. To pursue one course of action
when in power and another in opposition is a clear example of a lack
of political responsibility. All parties have been guilty of this
violation from time to time. The clearest instances are in the history
of the ethnic conflict. When a government attempted to come to a settlement,
the opposition objected. The same opposition, when returned to power
tried to come to a settlement, but the previous government now in
opposition was similarly opposed. This is history. Where such politics
led us is too well known to readers.
Our concern
today is with respect to economic policies. The same attitude of
opposing policies that could muster political support and upset
the economy appears to be the main concern of opposition parties.
The current opposition by the People's Alliance to privatisation
is a clear example of this type of political culture.
The People's
Alliance government pursued a vigorous policy of privatisation and
sale of assets both nationally and internationally. Although the
UNP government that came to power in 1977 announced privatisation
to be a key element of its policies, the privatisations that they
embarked were feeble compared to the bolder efforts of the PA government.
Besides this, the first Budget of the PA government announced a
full-scale programme of privatisation that even surprised, if not
shocked many observers.
The " selling
of the family silver" that President Chandrika Kumaranatunga
had scoffed at when in opposition became an important policy thrust
of her government. Most notable among the privatisations of her
government were: the privatisation of the National Development Bank
(NDB); the privatisation of the state owned plantations; the sale
of the gas company to Shell Gas; and the sale of a 35 per cent stake
in telecommunications and the establishment of the Sri Lanka Telecom.
There were
also other smaller privatisations as well that the PA government
effected between 1994 and 1999.
The irony is
that the party which spearheaded these important privatisations
is now providing the leadership to a joint opposition to privatisation.
In as far as the other parties are concerned they have been consistent
in their opposition to privatisation, especially the Marxist parties
including the JVP. But some of them, notably the LSSP and the CP,
were part of the PA government that privatised these enterprises.
The question
is how principled is it for the People's Alliance to lead this campaign
of opposition to privatisation, when its own policy stance was for
privatisation of nearly all public enterprises? The question of
the merits and otherwise of privatisation does not come into this
discussion, as it is the question of privatisation itself that is
being opposed. However one of the elements of the opposition is
the sale of the assets to foreigners. Here again it was the PA government
that did it on a large scale. The privatisation of the enterprises
quoted earlier, the NDB, Telecom, Gas to Shell Gas were all sales
to foreigners.
What right
has the PA to oppose the present government to sell public enterprises
to foreigners when they themselves did the same? What this clearly
demonstrates is that parties do not have policy principles. The
only principle they follow appears to be that if the opposition
to a policy could raise their popularity, then they must mount a
vociferous protest to embarrass the government.
This is indeed
a dangerous and irresponsible political culture. All political parties
have a moral duty to make a clear statement of their policies and
to act in accordance with them, when in government as well as in
opposition. Economic policies should not be a political football
that is kicked anywhere to gain political popularity. People must
expose the hypocrisy of the People's Alliance that opposes the very
policies they themselves pursued when in power.
|