The SLFP and the Middle Path

Our front page lead story yesterday, which would have warmed the hearts of many, in a way, speaks eloquently about the SLFP's continuous and encouraging commitment to social welfarism. Essentially, our story indicated that the healthcare budget, which has been on a steady rise over the past few years, would top the Rs. 100 billion mark next year. This is a watershed in health spending and to the ordinary men and women of this country a budgetary allocation of these proportions is of inestimable value.

There was certainly a 'Cultural Revolution' in this country in 1956 with the coming to power of the MEP coalition headed by SWRD Bandaranaike, but what was equally important was that social welfarism established itself as a durable feature of governmental socio-economic policy. To be sure, there have been times when welfarism went into decline, as in the immediate post-1977 years, which were characterized by a de-emphasis on social spending, and an unprecedented recognition of the free market, but even in those heady 'open market' years, there was some recognition that public sector spending could not be rolled back drastically on some important heads.

Certainly, the contentious rice ration, which proved very handy for the poorer sections, was done away with by the JR administration of 1977, but spending in important areas, such as, education and health remained by and large.

However, it was clear to the public in the late seventies that social spending was no longer going to be a top priority of the state.

The development philosophy of those times, essentially, was that the market was the primary means through which the principal economic needs of the people were to be met. This market-oriented vision has endured but welfare spending on essential heads has survived too and the current emphasis on substantial health spending, under President Mahinda Rajapaksa, is the proof that the state continues to consider the quality of life of the people as of fundamental importance.

Until the establishment of the SLFP under SWRD Bandaranaike in 1951, the people and their most vital interests did not figure as the principal preoccupation of the state. The UNP which was in the saddle of governance in the immediate post-independence years were proponents of predominantly market-led economic growth. Consequently, the masses of the people, as such, were not viewed as the drivers of socio-political change. Not so in the case of the SLFP which saw the people as the drivers of history and consequently came to emphasize social spending as one of its priorities.

All this does not mean that SLFP-led governments were fundamentally opposed to individual enterprise and business. Rather, it was a question of emphasis. While individual enterprise was encouraged there was a keenness on the part of SLFP governments, to ensure that these enterprises mainly met national needs and aspirations. Besides, priority was given to those enterprises that used local material and human resources and helped in bolstering an import substitution industrialization strategy. In other words, the policy on such matters was to avoid extremes and to follow what could be called a Middle Path.

As the SLFP celebrates its 60th anniversary, it would be worthwhile reflecting on these policy trajectories. The middle course that it traversed in socio- economic policy, it adopted in configuring political and foreign policy too. For instance, SWRD Bandaranaike was a Founding Father of Non-alignment and this policy has won emphasis in the years SLFP-led governments have been in power. And NAM is proving a valuable policy tool in these times when Sri Lanka is up against some unprecedented challenges on the foreign relations front.

The Middle Path is, of course, a Buddhistic concept and here too we see the degree to which the SLFP has been influenced by philosophical and religious traditions that are indigenous to this country. In other words, its spiritual closeness to the people could never be in doubt. Our hope is that this indigenous ethos would continue to inspire the current administration's exertions in peace-building.

The adoption of the Middle Path would dictate that the state balances the vital interests of all relevant parties in helping to work out a solution to our conflict. It would not blindly follow the urgings of those who are seen to be in the majority, nor would it unthinkingly say 'yes' to those who are considered to be minorities. It would need to balance the interests of all these actors and arrive at a solution that encompasses the legitimate interests of all.