Archives

by Prof. S. T. Hettige, Dept. of Sociology, University of Colombo

The establishment of a popular democratic state in Sri Lanka after independence gave rise to a widely shared hope that the collective well-begin of the general population could be achieved through a process of systematic State intervention. It also gave rise to the expectation that the State cold transcend various divisions in society and emerge as the main source of collective identity and well-being for all citizens, irrespective of class, caste, ethnicity and other divisions.

Meanwhile, the State became a dominant player in the economy, in terms of not only wealth creation but also redistribution of resources among competing groups, social strata and communities. In other words, political power or access to seats of power became the primary means of securing resources. The failure to institutionalize an equitable, universal system of resource allocation among different segments of society reinforced the existing boundaries separating competing groups and constituencies.

A faction-ridden society

These groups and constituencies, in turn tended to pursue their sectarian interests by organising themselves as political factions competing for power and a share of public resources. The State, in turn became a coalition of competing political factions, determined to take care of the interests of various groups and communities they represented.

While each regime that came to power after independence represented a particular configuration of interest groups, none appeared to take care of certain political constituencies, which in turn tended to crystallize into anti-state movements outside the framework of the Sri Lankan State. The latter thus ceased to be the symbol of collective well-being of all citizens. Instead, it became the site where political factions strived to safeguard the interests of parochial, sectarian groups. Political developments over the last several decades have continually reinforced the above tendency. So much so, today, the Sri Lankan State has lost almost all of its universalist features and is reduced to a highly volatile coalition of competing interest groups.

Why did the State lose almost all of its universalist trappings? This is a very complex question that cannot be examined in its diverse aspects in a short article. So what is attempted in the remaining part of the present article is to examine a few factors that contributed to the deterioration. They are:

Effects of development policy:

In spite of the increasingly important economic role the State played after independence, it did not succeed in eradicating poverty or creating greater prosperity. When the State played a dominant role in the first few decades after independence, the result was greater equality in terms of public welfare and resource distribution but these achievements were overshadowed by widespread poverty, unemployment and under employment leading to social discontent. When the State allowed the market to ply a dominant role after economic liberalization over the last two decades, the result has been the creation of considerable wealth, this time accompanied by unprecedented inequality.

In other words, the State has continued to be embroiled in a legitimation crisis during both phases of economic management. One could argue that the political leaders would have maintained the legitimacy of the State by adopting more universalistic measures. For instance, instead of allowing different political factions to distribute benefits to their constituencies directly, the State would have evolved strategies to deal with poverty in a more systematic manner. Similarly, when public enterprises are divested under economic liberalisation, the proceeds would have been used to provide economic opportunities to those who are adversely affected by privatisation. As we all know, nothing of the sort happened.

Nature of the political process:

Responding to poverty and lack of economic opportunities in the way outlined above would have been acceptable to politicians who either had a charismatic appeal or did not worry about getting defeated, as the benefits of sound social and economic policies are not realized in the short run. For instance, investments in health and education will take many years to produce tangible results. On the other hand, mobilization of one's own sectarian political constituency and the distribution of direct benefits can produce quicker results and support. Once such constituencies are mobilized within a faction-ridden political system, political competition, with or without the distribution of direct benefits, may guarantee the survival of politicians.

Since their political fortunes depend on the continued loyalty of their supporters, they are more than likely to pursue sectarian interests rather than societal goals, once they become part of a coalition government. To the above extent that political factions pursue their sectarian interests, the State loses its collective posture; it increasingly becomes a tool in the hands of diverse factions.

Segmented nature of the social structure:

Factional and sectarian nature of politics is partly a reflection of the segmented nature of the social structure. Modernist thinkers assumed that the modern state through a process of modernization would act as a catalyst to mobilize citizens around a set of collective goals and fundamental social values, leading to a blurring of boundaries separating different social groups and constituencies. It was felt that the pursuit of the goal of collective well-being through a universalistic program of public welfare would lead to the development of a broader national identity that transcends parochial social and cultural divisions. The modern State was conceived as a symbol of unity and collective well-being rather than an arena where diverse political factions are engaged in the pursuit of divergent interests, leading to the reinforcement of divisions in society. In other words, various factions that constitute the contemporary State offer direct benefits to their members who, in turn identify with the respective political factions and their leaders. This kind of factional politics prevents the emergence of universalistic political programmes that help build social solidarity across different social groups and ethnic communities.

Instead of affirming the secular nature of the State in Sri Lanka, separate ministries are established to promote diverse religious factions, using public resources. No measures are taken to devise schemes that would ensure equal opportunities in education, housing, health, employment, land, social insurance, etc. Instead, politicians and political factions are allowed to deliver benefits to their supporters and acquaintances, reinforcing the public perception that access to power is the way to gain access to resources. In fact, those who get into the State system, as public sector employees, public officers, people's representatives, etc. enjoy a disproportionate share of public resources, usually at the expense of other citizens. This explains why the demand for public sector positions, including various political positions, is increasing even at a time when the private sector is supposed to create and distribute wealth.

The ordinary people, realizing the fact that the State is a coalition of interests do not see the prospect of the State going beyond short-term, sectarian interests. So they are ever willing to change the composition of the coalition with short notice, following the signals given by their factional leaders. The result is continuing political instability, precluding any prospect of the State consolidating itself to preserve long-term, societal goals guided by universalist values.

These developments have been reinforced by another factor, namely the transformation of most political parties into sectarian political factions, devoid of any allegiance to universalist values and overarching ideological orientations.

Structure of political parties:

Political parties are the breeding grounds for active politicians and political leaders. So the nature of the political parties determines the kind of politicians they throw up. The nature of politics in the country, in turn depends on the kind of politicians these parties field as the candidates.

The shape of the contemporary State is very much a product of the nature and the functioning of political parties that have the prospect of joining political regimes. We know that most parties in much of the developing world are undemocratic, closed systems that act more as sectarian political factions. There is usually no internal democracy, and leaders are selected taking primordial factors into account rather than their abilities and positive qualities. Political parties treat the articulation of policy issues as secondary at best. Instead, popular support is mobilised on the basis of empty slogans and politically expedient issues. Campaign funds are secretively collected from vested interests that need to be taken care of once the party is elected to power. Candidates are chosen on the basis of their ability to win elections, whether by fair or unfair means.

So the main political parties do not even pretend to have any universalistic claims and an overarching ideological orientation. They have little to do with the notions of democracy, transparency, accountability, long-term public policy and universalistic values. Public disenchantment with such parties and their leaders is widespread. When they are in power, the disenchantment often turns into disillusionment and resentment. This naturally creates an opportunity for the opposition party which is usually no better in public perception to force people into fresh elections, hoping that the latter will reject the incumbent party, so that they could get elected to office by default. Such a victory, by default will of course be presented to the very people as a massive popular mandate, insulting the people who are trapped in a cycle of vicious politics.

Nature of citizens - State relationship:

The kind of political parties described above do not help promote the notion of modern citizenship. In fact, being highly parochial and sectarian, they prevent the development of such a notion. Those who want to be modern citizens often have no place either in the major political parties or in political regimes. More and more people are forced into political factions or interes groups, which dominate politics and political regimes. Either you are in this faction or else you are a member of the other. The only way to remain independent is to remain silent. When you remain silent, politics remains nothing but factional and sectarian. Such politics cannot produce a State, which is non-partisan and universalistic, and is capable of transcending deep social divisions, giving a sense of collective purpose and a shared future to the wider citizenry in the country.

Instead, citizens are forced to find their destiny in a political faction or a communal group, which is either within the State or outside it. One is encouraged to pursue one's own life goals as a member not of a wider collectivity, but of a political faction. In other words, the State, instead of promoting horizontal social integration, accommodates factional interests, thereby reinforcing deep divisions in society.

State apparatus and social mobility:

The discussion so far points to the fact that post-independent political developments in the country have led to the erosion of the idea of the modern State as it was presented to us at the time of independence. The high ideals and values that inspired the post-independence generation have given way to pragmatic politics of the worst kind. Politics has almost no intrinsic value today; it is simply a means to an end. Individuals and groups increasingly perceive political power as the primary means of achieving personal goals and parochial interests. All public institutions, including the State apparatus itself are there for self-seeking individuals, primordial groups and vested interests to achieve their often conflicting objectives, almost always at the expense of collective welfare.

Public institutions are mere sources of employment and other perks for those who manage to get in, not to serve the public purposes for which they were established in the first place. These include political parties, government departments, banks, transport organisations, schools and universities, hospitals and other statutory bodies established with the use of public funds. Health workers can go on strike and keep the hospital shut until the material demands are met, while poor patients remain unattended for days and weeks. Bus owners take their buses off the roads, and hold on to that position till State gives in, with no concern for those millions who remain stranded and so on.

Most politicians who enjoy undue privileges at public expense are aware of the fact that they can never do so outside expedient politics. So the chances of them, on their own taking a lead in a campaign to transform politics into a worthy social cause are extremely slim. The only way forward seems to be for those who take politics seriously to come together to launch a popular movement aimed at lifting politics from the depths it has fallen to, to a higher level where it can serve a worthy cause.

www.Pathmaconstruction.com

www.ceylincoproperties.com

www.ppilk.com

www.crescat.com

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries

Produced by Lake House
Copyright © 2003 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager