Can the LSSP be Revived?:
Reflecting
on 79 Years of History
I live in Negombo. In 1956, this citadel of the UNP that was
at that time supported by the Church was captured by LSSPer, Comrade Hector
Fernando, a medical doctor by profession. When Lanka Samasamaja Party that is
the oldest political party in Sri Lanka celebrates its 79th
anniversary this month, the party seems to be in total disarray with two
factions openly fighting with each other. A majority of the LSSP Central
Committee has decided to support Mahinda Rajapaksa at the next presidential
election while the minority wanted to back opposition candidate. When the
decision was taken, it was not clear who the opposition candidate would be.
Elsewhere (Vame Handa) I called the former LSSP (M) and the latter LSSP
(R). It is imperative to note that letters M and R do not stand for Marxist and
Revolutionary respectively. I used them for Mahinda and Ranil (at that I
thought Ranil Wickramasinghe would be the main opposition candidate). I am
extremely sad to see that the party that contributed immensely to Sri Lankan
political culture has deteriorated to this extent that not a single member of
the central committee of the party stood against both factions of the party on
the basis of its past Trotskyite tradition.
I was once a member of the political bureau of the LSSP and
I resigned in 1994 when Comrade Bernard Soysa accepted a minister post in
Chandrka Bandaranaike’s government. As a footnote, I should also say that I was
expelled from the party in 1973 for struggling against its coalition politics. The
LSSP in its history has faced many splits, but until 1964, party was able to
withstand those splits primarily because the party was on the side of correct
political position. In 1964, when the majority of the party decided to join a
coalition government with the SLFP, the LSSP faced a split from which the party
was not able to come out although its numerical strength grew 1965-1970 period
and the number of parliamentary seats it won in 1970 General Election was
increased to 14. When I say that the LSSP has failed to come out of its 1964
split, I mean it became politically weak and ineffective. Comrade N M Perera,
my mentor, realized this in 1975 when he decided to quit the coalition to form
a left front.
While reflecting on the history of the LSSP, it suddenly came
to my mind a person who was vey much interested party’s theoretical grounding, comrade
Reggie Mendis. Once he gave me a small booklet written by Comrade Colvin R de
Silva, anther stalwart of the LSSP. It was in Sinhala and the title of which is
‘Unge
Deshapalanaya saha Ape Deshapalanaya’ (their politics and ours) a
thundering attack on the political line of the Ceylon Communist Party headed by
Comrades S A Wickramasingha and Peter Keunman. It is interesting to note the
title of the book had shown a close affinity to the book by Leon Trotsky, Their
Morals and Ours, a splendid work. The principal tenet of the ‘Unge
Deshapalanaya saha Ape Deshapalanaya’ is that the political party of
the working class left should not join to form a political front with bourgeois
parties even those bourgeois parties show here and there a semblance of
anti-imperialism and/or a support for peoples’ democracy. A similar view
expressed by Indian Marxist M N Roy against the position taken by V I Lenin in
the Third International. Roy argued that forming front with the Indian national
bourgeois would not help the working class movement and their struggle. Of
course, there may be exceptions. So for LSSP, forming fronts with this or that
layer of the bourgeois does not flow from its principled position on which its
foundation was laid especially after 1938. For the Communist Party, it is
different. The idea of formation of fronts with bourgeois parties directly
flows from its theoretical position.
In my view, the LSSP’s theoretical position was grounded
until 1964 on Colvin’s above mentioned book. In this sense, 1964 decision was a
deviation from this theoretically correct position to which the party was
adhered to since the late 1930s. However, the party leadership realized by the
mid-1970s, the experiment of 1964 was a mistake. With the demise of NM, Colvin
and Leslie, and the failure of the party to attract cadres that left the party
in 1964 and after, the LSSP failed to reinvigorate the party returning to its
previous position. Party did not conduct classes to train its members and
discussions within the party were on immediate issues like who should hold the
minister post. It is unfortunate that there is not a single member of the party
who could write a book like Unge Deshapalanaya saha Ape Deshapalanaya
or to return back to this writing in central committee discussion.
Two positions taken by two open factions revealed the
theoretical poverty of the political party that was well known in the past for
advancing Marxist theory in relation to underdeveloped world. Today Tissa
Vitharana faction claiming that MR regime has been anti-imperialist had decided
to support MR candidacy while Lal Wijenaika-Jayampathy Wickramarathna
identifying MR regime as fascist or near-fascist has decided to support the
so-called democratic faction of the bourgeois led by Chandrika Bandaranaike,
Ranil Wickramasinghe and Maithreepala Sirisena.
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. Although these
three trends emerged prior to MR coming to power and directly stem from
neoliberalism, they have consolidated and strengthened under Mahinda Rajapaksa
regime due to multiple reasons.
What is relevant to my present submission is to look at the
question of what social movements were actively engaged against the MR regime
and its policies and actions. I recognize two counteracting forces in Sri
Lankan society that questioned policies and actions of the MR regime. The first
group, primarily urban, posed the issue of democracy, rule of law and good
governance in their orthodox meanings. The most important group in this
category was the Sri Lanka Lawyers’ Association that came forward strongly
against the removal of the Chief justice, Dr Shirani Bandaranayaka. It
organized many fora to discuss the matters that fell within its purview. Later,
Citizen Forum also raised similar issues with strong political orientation.
These views had been finally crystalized in the movement for Just Society led
by Rev Maduluwave Sobhitha raising two main demands, (1) abolition of the
executive presidential system and (2) reactivation of the 17th
Amendment by repealing 18th Amendment to the Constitution. These
protests by these groupings received so much attention by the media partly
because of their elitist character.
The second opposition against the MR regime came from
subaltern movements. There are four groups, (1) student movement; (2) trade
unions and workers’ movements; (3) protests by peasants and rural masses; and
(4) movements by numerically small nations and ethnic groups. Second and third
movements were scattered and sporadic. The same can be applied to the fourth
movement after militarily defeating the LTTE in 2009. Hence the consistent
opposition to the government, especially against its policies on education, has
been guided by the Inter-University Student Federation (IUSF). IUSF launched
many a struggle in the recent past against cuts of student subsidies, educational
reforms, commodification of education and so on. It is interesting and
encouraging to note that IUSF was able to defeat government plans to reform
education by encouraging private investments to enter into the field of
education with the motive of profit. In the last year or so, it won almost all
its struggles. The IUSF while struggling for free education also widened the
democratic space that the elitist groupings failed to achieve. I remember very
well when the march in Colombo city by the IUSF was banned by a court order at
the request of the Police, Najith Indika, IUSF President decided to defy the
order and continue the march. It proved to be a great victory. The following
week, a district judge warned the police not to come forward with such requests.
This, in my view, was a most significant victory for the democratic movement in
Sri Lanka and all credit should go to IUSF.
The other subaltern movements that were capable of forcing
the MR government to retreat include the anti-pension scheme by private sector
employees in Free Trade Zone, peoples’ movement against water problem at
Rathupaswala, protests by slum people against forcible eviction from their
houses, peasants’ opposition to seed and water bills and micro opposition by
villagers on their problems.
Both factions of the LSSP have made a fundamental mistake by
not taking into account the subaltern movements and their struggles. While the
first is not even concerned with recent political trends, the second has
refused go beyond elite demands against MR regime. So my submission is if the
LSSP and its politics to be revived, it needs a third faction to counter
remaining factions grounding itself on Colvin’s Unge Deshapalanaya saha Ape
Deshapalanaya.
The writer is the co-coordinator of the Marx School.
Comments
Post a Comment