Skip to main content


Will Maithree be forced to Commit Political Harakiri?

Power and tradition destroy good people. In Sri Lankan standard, Maithreepala Sirisena (MS) is a good politician. Resigning from the post of the general secretary of the SLFP and announcing that he will stand against President Mahinda Rajapaksa (MR) at the forthcoming presidential election would appear as a very courageous decision. Nonetheless, the events as unfolded may also give the impression that MS had become a secondary actor moved by other powerful political forces. In the political arena we have seen in the last ten years two parallel conflicts. Dynastic politics is not uncommon in this part of the world. Since independence we have witnessed many a political conflict between leading dynasties, Senanayaka- Bandaranaike, Bandaranaike-Wijewardena after the decline of Senanayakas in the late 1960s. Since 2005, we saw an emergence of a rural small dynasty that was ‘no-body’ and did not go beyond its power of influence from remote Giruwa Pattu as a leading political dynasty in Sri Lanka. Rajapaksa dynasty has been able to defeat effectively both Bandaranaike and Wijewardena dynasties in the arena of Sri Lankan politics and to rise as a formidable opponent to the existing political dynasties. The second conflict is blurred and not clear. This conflict is between traditional bourgeois and the novae rich that emerged in the neoliberal phase of Sri Lankan capitalism. The conflict between these two contenders has focused on the issues such as who gets the bigger share? whose economic interests dominate in decision-making? Traditional bourgeoisie no doubt supported political parties during elections but did not actively play a role in political conflicts. For them, of course with exceptions, economics and politics are separate specialties. Since 1977, we have seen a rise of new economic grouping that I call in the absence of a better phrase economico-political bourgeois class. They were equally active in both spheres. A phenomenon that Prof. Wendy Brown recognized some time ago as a new development in world politics. As she argues this new group not only help existing parties, but they themselves involve in political parties. In the Sri Lankan political scene, these two conflicts, namely, (1) conflict between political dynasties, (2) conflict between two bourgeois groups, were visible especially in the last ten years. However, these conflicts have surfaced not in explicit form but as conflicts between various binaries such as civilized/ uncivilized; orderly/ disorderly; clean/ dirty; urbane/ baiyas.
The system of executive presidency that was crafted by late President J R Jayawardena in order to maintain the power of Wijewardena dynasty for ever has failed to achieve its objectives partly because of the ‘unanticipated’ events. Exceptional situation invariably requires unconventional aberrations! The brief rule by a commoner, President R Premadasa, was the outcome. Power shifted, Bandaranaikes came to power once again for 11 years. Once again, two leading dynasties had shown they could not handle the Tamil uprising by the LTTE. A new leader with strong Sinhala-Buddhist support was required. A rural dynasty was brought in, and Rajapaksa government’s success in defeating the LTTE contributed to consolidate its power while addressing to the new needs of the emerging economico-political bourgeois class. President Rajapaksa was able not only to consolidate his power but also to consolidate his and his extended family as a new ruling dynasty at the center eclipsing both Bandaranaikas and Wijewardenas. After so many defeats, two dynasties have realized new Rajapaksa dynasty cannot be confronted by adopting conventional political mechanisms. A new room for a new aberrations so the two dynasties together brought in a ‘common’ common candidate from Polonnaruwa. In this sense this is a very Machiavellian move and all the credit should go to President Chandrika Bandaranaike.         
Maithree’s Political Future
If the summation is the only law in mathematics, there is a reasonable chance that MS wins the presidential race on January 8, 2015. The issue that I am trying to raise is what would be the political future of MS. How does this exercise affect the country, especially its multitude? There are many ‘black elephants’, (if I use the term recently coined by someone combining black in ‘black sawn’ and elephant in ‘elephant in the room’). How would Maithree regime address these ‘black elephants’? Since Maithree would most likely to be a stop-gap person, may be it is not pertinent to expect from him to address all these issues. But he is ambiguous even on the issues people around him want to address. He stated at the outset that he would abolish the executive presidency in 100 days, but he changed this position at Horagolla Bandaranaike Samadhi a couple of days ago by saying that he will reduce the power of the executive president. What would be written finally in his election manifesto is yet to be seen. In case, he abolishes the executive presidency in hundred days and if he signs MoU with the UNP that Mr Ranil Wickramasinghe will be appointed as the Prime Minister, Maithree would be just a rubber stamp after 100 days. After winning the presidential election, if he forms a cabinet consisting the prominent UNPers and SLFPers, this so-called national government would not be qualitatively different from the present government headed by MR except the absence of Rajapaksa family members. Hence, my submission is that the way in which Maithreepala Sirisena emerged as the presidential candidate will not allow to make a big turning point in Sri Lankan recent political history notwithstanding the brief respite it would generate after the presidential election. Let us ask the following questions? Will his regime abolish the executive presidential system or scrape its some executive powers? Will his regime ensure full implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution? Will he open up the files kept by MR and take actions against all the corrupt elements in the UPFA government? Will he allow UN Commission to come and continue the enquiry on war crimes? Will he implement LLRC recommendations? These are in fact BIG questions even we leave out the question about the neoliberal economic policies that have been adopted since 1977.      
Correct Decision but Incorrect Path
I believe that Maithree-Rajitha took a correct decision by quitting the Rajapaksa government that has been increasingly moving towards authoritarianism. Sri Lanka needs a strong social movement to counter three main trends in its recent history, namely, towards authoritarianism, towards economic policy framework that is biased towards the interests of the upper classes and layers of the society, and towards majoritarianism. Both Maithree who came from rural peasant background and Rajitha who continuously stands for the rights of the marginalized and oppressed layers of the Sri Lankan society have the potential of leading such a movement for democracy, equality, social justice. Of course one important dimension that has to be added to this list is ensuring ecological balance. However, the two have entered oppositional politics not from this perspective but from the short term perspective of presidential election becoming secondary actors in two bigger, but parallel, conflicts mentioned above. If they took a different path in or after taking the decision to quit MR government, Maithree would have become a real organic leader of a Sri Lankan first ever peasant party raising all the issues faced by the downtrodden rural masses. Such a part together with the urban lower classes and marginalized nations, ethnic groups and social groups would have been the real force that can address the issues outlined above.          




The writer is the co-coordinator of the Marx School. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

සාකච්ඡාව සදහා වැටුප් ශ්‍රමිකයා කවරෙක් ද? සුමනසිරි ලියනගේ
වැටුප් ශ්‍රමිකයා කවරෙක් ද? නිර්ධන පන්තිය ලෙස සැලකිය හැකි පංති තීරූ මොනවාද? විප්ලවවාදී පක්ෂයක පන්ති පදනම වන්නේ සහ විය යුත්තේ කුමන පංතීන්ගෙන් ද? මා මෙම ප්‍රශ්නය මතු කරන්නේ න්‍යායාත්මක ප්‍රශ්නයක් හැටියට නොවේ. ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ වර්තමාන සන්දර්භය තුල දේශපාලන ක්‍රියා මාර්ගය සකස් කර ගැනීමේදී ආසන්නව මතුවන ප්‍රශ්නයක් හැටියට ය. පසුගිය වසර දෙක තුල ඇතිවුන මා සහභාගී වූ දේශපාලන සාකච්ඡා කිහිපයක දීම මෙම ප්‍රශ්නය මතුවිණ. එහෙත් එම ප්‍රශ්නය මතු වූ අවස්ථා හැම එකකදීම වාගේ අපි එම ප්‍රශ්නය සමග නිශ්චිතව පොර බැදීම අත්හැර දැම්මෙමු. ඒ එය දිගට ගෙන යාමෙන් අප මාක්ස්වාදයේ ශුද්ධ වූ පාඨයන් ගෙන් බිදී යාදෝ යන බියෙනි. මෑතකදී වෟත්තීය සංගමයක් තුල ඇතිවූ සාකච්ඡාවකදී මෙම කරුණ වඩාත් සංයුක්තව මතුවිණ. වෟත්තීය සංගමයක් විසින් සංවිධානය කළ යුත්තේ කවුරුන් ද යනුවෙන් පැන නැගුන එම සාකච්ඡාවේදී සෟජු ලෙස නොවුන ද මතු වුයේ මෙම ප්‍රශ්නය ය. වැටුප් ශ්‍රමිකයා, නිර්ධනයා, සහ කම්කරුවා යන පද වලින් ජනප්‍රිය ලෙස හැදින්වුව් ද නැත ද වැටුපට වැඩකරන කොටස් වෟත්තීය සංගමයක් විසින් සංවිධානය කළ යුතු ය යන්න සාමාන්…
කම්කරු පන්තියේ විප්ලවවාදී පක්ෂය ගොඩ නැගීම සදහා අරගලය


1, මෙම මාතෘකාවේ දැක්වෙන මූලික පද දෙක -කම්කරු පන්තිය සහ විප්ලවවාදී පක්ෂය- මුලින්ම පැහැදිලි කරගත යුතු ය. ධනේශවර සමාජයක් තුල විවිධ පන්තීන් සහ උප පන්තීන් දැකිය හැක. විප්ලවවාදී පක්ෂය කම්කරු පන්තියේ පක්ෂයක් විය යුත්තේ මන් ද? මෙම කරුණ තේරුම් කිරීමට නම් විප්ලවවාදි යන්නෙන් කුමක් අදහස් කරන්නේ ද යන්න පැහැදිලි කර ගැන්ම අවශ්‍ය ය. සමාජ විප්ලවයක් යනු පවතින සමාජ ක්‍රමයයක් වෙනස් කොට -රූපාන්තකරණය කොට- ඒ වෙනුවට වෙනත් මූලධර්ම මත ගොඩ නැගුන සමාජ ක්‍රමයයක් බිහි කිරීම ය. එය දිගුකාලින ක්‍රියා දාමයකි. මෙවන් රූපාන්තකරණයක් වැඩවසම් සමාජ ක්‍රමය වෙනුවට ධනේශ්වර ක්‍රමය ගොඩ නැගීමේ ක්‍රියාවලිය තුල සිදුවීම ගැන අපි කියවා ඇත්තෙමු. අප අද කථාකරන සමාජ වෙනස මෙයට වඩා වෙනස් එකකි. වැඩවසම් සමාජ ක්‍රමය වෙනුවට ධනේශ්වර ක්‍රමය ගොඩ නැගීමේ ක්‍රියාවලිය තුල අප දුටුවේ එක් පෙෳද්ගලික දේපොල ක්‍රමයක් වෙනුවට වෙනත් පෙෳද්ගලික දේපොල ක්‍රමයක් ඇති කිරීම ය. අද අප අරගල කරන්නේ පෙෳද්ගලික දේපොල ක්‍රමයම නැති කරන සමාජ විප්ලවයක් සදහා ය. මෙය පරිපූර්ණ රූපාන්තකරණයක් ය. එක් පෙෳද්ගලික දේපොල ක්‍රමයක් තුල වෙනත් …
Is The Constitution A Key?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share