• Political scientists and legal academics note pressing need for authorities mired in ‘economic crisis myopia’ to instead identify ‘crises’ as opposed to a ‘crisis’ and seek ‘solutions’ instead of a ‘solution’   

Although the pressing need to address the prevailing crisis situation in the country has received the attention of many parties, for Sri Lanka to garner the attention that could truly alleviate the impacts of the crisis, it is crucial that the island nation stops viewing the current conditions as a mere economic crisis and instead attempts to find solutions to the wider-scale crisis, of which the economic crisis is just a part. 

While steps to address the economic crisis are important, those alone will not end the country’s plight.

Emphasising this, political scientist Prof. Jayadeva Uyangoda opined that identifying the fact that the country is facing a combination of several forms of crises, not just one crisis, would therefore mean that it would be more apt to see it as a situation of “crises” and to hence attempt to find “solutions” rather than “one solution”,

He made these remarks during an online discussion titled “The Path to Resolve Sri Lanka’s Crisis” which was organised by the International Network for Sri Lanka’s Democracy in collaboration with the Action Group for a Wider People’s Movement. The discussion was joined by several political, social, and human rights activists such as Ranjith Henayaka Arachchi, Prof. Deepika Udagama, P. Singham, and Prof. Indrawansa de Silva.

Dissecting the crisis

According to Prof. Uyangoda, taking a wide approach to see the prevailing crises situation for what it is, instead of confining it to a mere economic crisis, is one of the key steps that Sri Lanka should take. “One of the widespread notions that exist in Sri Lanka, especially among the rulers and authorities, is that there is only an economic crisis. I think that it is merely one aspect of the crisis and that it could perhaps be the root cause that led to many other crises.” 

Prof. Uyangoda identified four forms of crises that have created the overall crisis that the country is seeing. They are the economic crisis; the governance and policy-related crisis; the political crisis, which he said many thinks has come to an end with former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa resigning and Ranil Wickremesinghe coming to power as the President; and a severe social crisis, which he added many have forgotten about. He noted that the interconnectivity between these crises, and also the fact that some of these crises begot other crises, should be analysed individually and as a whole. 

“In the mainstream discourse on the prevailing crises, there is an erroneous assumption which should be questioned. That is, at the centre of this economic crisis is the US dollar crisis or the foreign reserves crisis. That is what the President’s speeches emphasise and claim should be addressed. However, if we analyse the US dollar crisis, that is an expression of the entire economic crisis. That is connected to a structural crisis in Sri Lanka’s economy,” Prof. Uyangoda said, adding that various factors that emerged following Independence have contributed to creating the said structural crisis and that despite attempts to change the economy, no structural change has taken place. 

“Sri Lanka’s economic crisis should not be confined to a mere US dollar crisis,” he emphasised. “At the same time, there are opinions that seeking the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) assistance is the beginning of a solution to the economic crisis. Even before entering into an agreement with the IMF, the Government has commenced implementing a policy package, which the IMF is likely to propose. Those steps have placed the weight and costs of certain services such as electricity on the public. We should pay serious attention to the destructive social and economic impacts that those steps have resulted in, and there are so many experiences of other countries from which we can learn. One of the reasons that resulted in this economic crisis in Sri Lanka is the neo-liberal economic policy that the country followed during the past 25-30 years. The weight of the crisis it created is placed on that crisis’ victims, i.e. the poor, the working people, and the middle class.” 

Speaking of the social crisis, Prof. Uyangoda added that the impacts of the above-mentioned situation have triggered a certain frustration in society, which he opined worsens the social crisis. “I think that placing the weight of the solutions to the economic crisis on the poor, labourers, and the middle class cannot be considered a solution, and therefore, we should question and challenge it.”

Prof. Uyangoda spoke extensively of the importance of identifying the nature of the solutions that could alleviate Sri Lanka’s crisis situation in accordance with the different forms of crises that the country is dealing with. One of his main concerns was the ongoing discourses on these crises, even those led by economic scientists, being extremely narrow, and not paying sufficient attention to the destructive impacts of the solutions that have been sought to deal with the crises. 

He acknowledged that the crises that Sri Lanka is experiencing are extremely deep-rooted ones and that there are destructive impacts of the crises as well as solutions to the crises. “When it comes to the new income tax policy, which is to be implemented from this month onwards, policymakers think that it is a solution or at least a path to a solution. However, if we were to look into it critically, what this tax policy does is aggravate the impacts of the crisis, because it seriously pushes Sri Lanka’s middle class towards poverty.”

In this context, he added that one of the questions that needs to be addressed pertains to limiting the destructive impacts of the steps taken by the Government to address the prevailing crises situations. “We have to pay attention to limiting the destructive impacts of the prevailing crisis, regarding which political interventions or people’s movements of resistance are necessary. In addition, we have to initiate a social discourse on the root causes of these crises, as I do not see adequate discourse in that regard. Thirdly, this is a multifaceted crisis, and therefore, we have to understand the interconnectivity that exists between these various aspects.”

Getting rid of bad politicians 

Former Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka Chairperson Prof. Udagama meanwhile, said that while novel steps are important in improving the country’s situation, it is extremely essential to get rid of the politicians that have continued the political and governing system that has put the country in the crises it is presently in, in order to witness positive changes in the governing, political, economic, and social situations. 

“The economic crisis is merely a symptom of a bigger issue. The economic crisis would not have been created in this manner if the country had a governing system that is accountable to the people and is not as corrupt as it is now. The manner in which Sri Lanka’s political power is handled is highly questionable. Even though democracy exists nominally, political power is handled by political parties and individuals in accordance with various personal and narrow agendas,” she said, opining that although elements of democracy such as voting rights exist in the country, there is a lack of essence in democracy. 

“The other side of this issue is that despite various forms of diversity in the political and governing systems when compared with other countries in South Asia, our state of life and social indices remain at a higher level because of free education, free healthcare, and such. I think that we have taken our responsibilities and the governing system lightly.” 

Adding that, as has been claimed by several parties, although Sri Lankans are ardent voters, they are not strong citizens, Prof. Udagama explained: “The ‘aragalaya’ (the people’s struggle) movement is the most notable political turning point following Independence. It was a massive change, or a shock, in which the people rose up. Although not everyone participated, everyone understood that ultimately, the power lies with the people. When discussing the future, I think that what is important is not how to address the economic crisis or whether the IMF would support it, but how we change this political system. I think that we should look into how we interpret and identify the composition of the concept of ‘system change’, which was discussed during the ‘aragalaya’ movement and is being discussed even now. Despite various opinions, my understanding is that what is expected is not a change in the Constitution, but a change in how our political system is practised.” 

Speaking further, she stated that even if a proper system was created, if the nature of the people that enter politics is not changed, the country would not see salvation from the present situation. Despite the fact that constitutional reforms have been discussed for decades with the hope of positive developments, she said that what is important is ensuring that the constitutional framework is created in a democratic manner. 

“In terms of political ideologies, I think that the ‘aragalaya’ was the most powerful social democratic movement. For a long time in Sri Lanka, the people embraced social democracy. This is where we should stand as neutral ideologists, without going to extremes, and while giving more emphasis to social justice and democracy, I am of the opinion that this movement has reached a crescendo. We can talk about ideologies, structures, and constitutional reforms. Regardless, given the manner in which I have understood the concept of ‘system change’, I do not think that we would be able to maintain any system properly if we fail to initiate a powerful change in political practice. 

“In the current political system, there are many individuals who were in all Governments and even in the Parliament for decades. Even the President (a reference to Wickremesinghe) is a person who served six times as the Prime Minister. Until these individuals leave politics or are rejected by the people, I do not think that the people would find salvation. That is because those political figures are the ones that have created the existing deep-rooted political system and practice, and have created a system of professional politics. We should get rid of them. We should have a system that constantly changes by electing new persons when the former’s duty is performed. When the same persons are in leadership continually, the prevailing issue will always be there.”

Speaking of various opinions about former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s recent resignation as the Premier, Prof. Udagama questioned how many Sri Lankan politicians resign from their positions when they lose in elections while pointing out the policy-related aspects of this situation. Further discussing other necessary, fundamental changes, she opined that Sri Lanka should clean up its representative democracy system. The best way to do it, she said, is for the people to intervene in party politics and ensure that the kinds of individuals that the people prefer are fielded. Noting that the people should be committed to making such interventions, she added that otherwise, Sri Lanka’s political system would not change for the better. 

The spirit of the “aragalaya” movement, which involves the strength of the citizens, should continue, according to Prof. Udagama.