The Liberal Review in Retrospect

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, MP

The Liberal Party of Sri Lanka had incorporated material from The Liberal Review in a book to mark the 25th anniversary of the party. Also included are excerpts from a couple of later publications, including a book called ‘Conflict - Causes and Consequences’, the theme of the last seminar series the Council for Liberal democracy conducted.

The other book is represented in larger degree, since it was intended as a handbook on Liberalism for the region. This is Liberal Values for South Asia, subsequently updated in a publication by Cambridge University Press in Delhi entitled Liberal Perspectives for South Asia. Most important in this were two seminal essays about Liberalism that Chanaka Amaratunga, the Founder of the Party, wrote for the volume. They were the last essays he wrote, and express forcefully his reasons for being a Liberal, as well as the importance of Liberal principles in contemporary Sri Lanka.

The articles from the Liberal Review make clear what a bold innovation it was. Reading through its columns 25 years later, it is astonishing to see how much was covered, and how much what appeared then is still valid today.

Writing skills

Most of the articles were written either by Chanaka or myself. We did try to get others to write, but getting our colleagues to put pen to paper was difficult, and it ended up easier to do most of the Review ourselves. Included however are samples of what was provided by our colleagues in the party such as Tissa Jayatilaka and Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu who had writing skills and were prepared to exercise them occasionally.

Between us Chanaka and I wrote practically all the pieces on topical news, which we termed ‘News Analyses’, given our commitment to more than mere reportage. The same was true of what we called the ‘Foreign Report’, which included brief accounts of important events in other countries as well as records of meetings of Liberal International. There was also a ‘Culture’ section which was again largely us, though this was a field in which a little more was forthcoming.

Unlike news reports, those last articles were signed, as were the ‘Points of View’, which were the weightiest part of the Review, and for which we did get significant contributions. We sometimes used papers written for the seminar series on ‘Constitutional Reform’, which were later published in the seminal collection ‘Ideas for Constitional Reform’ a couple of decades back. The more important ones appeared in a revised edition a few years ago, published by International Book House.

In the last few issues we included a series of interviews which provide interesting insights into the thinking of influential politicians. Two of the most distinguished, Gamini Dissanayake and Neelan Tiruchelvam, were assassinated by the LTTE, while there are questions too about the death of Ashroff. Unfortunately the Review also included a number of obituaries. Some were of victims of the LTTE, the leader of the main Tamil political party Amirthalingam and Rajiv Gandhi. We also dedicated one issue to Richard de Zoysa a year after his murder. In addition we had not infrequently to regret the passing of dstinguished politicians and thinkers of an older generation. The last item from the Review is the moving obituary Chanaka wrote for Hugh Fernando, who was the first President of the Council for Liberal Democracy.

Political parties

The essays republished illustrate both the milieu in which we functioned and the values we kept reasserting in all contexts. Three articles in the first issue deal with topics that are still relevant, the need for coherence in educational policy, a castigation by Neelan Tiruchelvam of the class from which he sprang, for ignoring human rights violations, and an exhortation by Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu to moderation, given the potential of extremes to take over. There is also a report of one of our first ventures into Liberal International, with extracts from Chanaka’s speech in which he described the crisis in Sri Lanka in terms of values, and not the easy racial dichotomy that was belied by the violence that burst out in the South of the country within a couple of years.

Included also is the report of Liberal International urging elections when the UNP started talking of postponing elections yet again. I believe we were the first party to pursue such interventions and to propose international monitors for elections, which were essential given the manner in which the UNP had conducted elections in the early 80s. I should add that, with the more powerful nations backing the Jayewardene government, the few interventions that occurred were neither patronizing nor gratuitous. The government characteristically reacted aggressively to our efforts at drawing international attention to the absence of democracy, claiming that those who advocated international monitoring should have their heads examined, and refusing a visa to the Executive Vice-President of Liberal International.

Public statements

That episode prompted a statement by several political parties, a strategy that we initiated. The colleagues with whom we had begun discussions, on an initiative of the MEP to bring Opposition parties together, were not in the habit of issuing public statements, but we were able to push the idea, drafting most of these ourselves. Otherwise abuses such as the manner in which President Jayewardene avoided appointing the most senior judge as Chief Justice might have gone largely unremarked.

Whilst we were able to achieve consensus in many areas, one statement which was emphatically our own was that on the Indo-Lankan Accord. Re-reading it now, I am impressed how we alone seem to have judged the matter aright, and have been able to continue to advance the same ideas about devolution, whereas others have shifted over and over again.

Foreign policy

Our position was that we were in favour of devolution, but on the basis of nine provinces. The principle that guided us was that of subsidiarity, on the grounds that power needed to be exercised by the people whom it affected. Liberalism was grounded in the primacy of individuals, and therefore devolution required manageable units rather than entities based on collective identities.

Similarly, our attitude to India has been quite consistent. We deplored what seemed impositions in the Annexures to the Accord, but pointed out that these were our own fault, given the adventurism of the Jayewardene government during the Cold War. The need to recognize our limitations, and conduct foreign policy sensibly, bearing in mind India’s proximity as well as its basically positive attitude provided its own interests were not threatened, was our constant theme. In that light, I should note, Tissa Jayatilaka’s article on US policy in the region is well worth reading even today, with its reminder that ‘the US must also learn not to behave in a manner that gives the impression that it believes it will perish as a nation if other nations of the world disagree on issues of interest to the US or choose not to follow the US lead in all affairs of the world.’

Public enterprises

But I suppose we should not be surprised that so little has changed. The article on Air Lanka raises issues that recur, as I have found in serving on the Parliamentary Committee on Public Enterprises. We continue to suffer from delays in formulating and implementing plans for education. And we cannot repeat often enough Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu’s assertion, with regard to ethnic problems, that ‘a military solution… cannot of its own suffice. A punitive peace enforced by the government will only breed a new generation of Tamil militants in its wake. This is not to suggest that the military component of policy be disbanded altogether - the particular mode of militancy dictates otherwise. What it does suggest however is that the military component should not be exaggerated to the extent that it obscures political purpose. Military force must be commensurate with that element of the problem that responds only to force. It must be harnessed in the service of clearly defined political objectives.’

The ideas and the principles then continue with little change. What has changed is that Chanaka is no longer around.

The Council for Liberal Democracy was his idea, so was the Liberal Party, so was the Liberal Review. Going through past copies again now, after nearly two decades, I am overwhelmed, to use his words about Hugh Fernando, by ‘memories of a man of remarkable moral strength, a man of childlike honesty, a very, very, good and decent man. The memory of his friendship and my deep affection and regard for him will remain forever. For me now, there is “a lonely place against the sky”.’