• How the Right has been wrong about everything

Senior Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) MPs and former MPs have openly discussed the possibility of uniting the parties of the Right wing of Sri Lanka’s politics, the traditional preserve of the United National Party (UNP), particularly under the leadership of Ranil Wickremesinghe. SJB Spokesman S.M. Marikkar noted as much in an interview last week, reiterating that talks were underway to “unite the parties of the Right wing under a broad alliance”. 

This is an interesting pivot, for it was in the aftermath of the Presidential Election and in the run-up to the General Elections that there were reports such as from WION, name-checking UNP loyalists Navin Dissanayake and Ruwan Wijewardene as potential defectors to the SJB, noting also remarks made by Gampaha Organiser Waruna Rajapaksha. 

A matter of months later, a press conference seemingly led by the newly appointed General Secretary to the UNP, former MP for Ratnapura Thalatha Atukorale presented the all-star cast of the UNP to call for an alliance with the SJB. 

Let us first consider the other participants: defeated presidential candidate Wickremesinghe, UNP Deputy Leader Wijewardene, and Sagala Ratnayaka. Together with Atukorale, none of these leaders of the UNP were able to secure their seats at the election. It certainly makes perfect sense for the UNP to seek an alliance; it has one seat to the SJB’s 40, while the SJB is also the main Opposition in Parliament. 

The UNP, having been decimated now at consecutive elections, cannot even be considered a major party anymore; it has no intellectual foundation, no thought leaders. The Chairman of the Party is Wajira Abeywardena, representing the same loyalist elements that have prevented more talented individuals from rising up the UNP ranks. 

The right stuff?

So what has changed in the UNP and what has convinced the SJB to seemingly negate its own raison d’être by suggesting a potential alliance with a deeply unpopular party representing a political wing that voters and supporters have deserted? How does a political party that campaigned on a platform of social market economics and democratic socialism now form an alliance of all Right-wing parties? 

It is this ideologically ambiguous and malleable trait that fails liberal parties more generally, especially those that undertake moderations in every direction without ever actually meeting the voters where they stand on any single issue. 

There is also a worrying contradiction of strategy that one can only assume is at best the result of a disengagement from or disinterest in the movements of global politics, or at worst a strategy generated by superficial analyses of Right-wing populist waves across Europe: think France and Italy and the forthcoming Donald Trump presidency. 

The only winning coalition of the Right wing of politics at this moment is the ‘New Right,’ the populist Right in the US and Europe, which only further complicates the project for ideological consistency or strategic reconciliation which is crucial to the SJB’s reformation. 

We will avoid using the term New Right as there was a distinct movement of that same name in the 1960s, led by William F. Buckley and the National Review. The modern populist Right may trace its roots back to before Trump’s first term, almost nine years ago in 2016, when Marine Le Pen’s nationalist party had been gaining seats even prior to the Brexit Referendum. 

The thing that puts the ‘New’ in this New Right is populism, which is why the populist Right is the common term, much maligned by scholars and commentators from Francis Fukuyama to Nathan J. Robinson. The populist Right is overtly nationalist and it is this nativist form of nationalism, what Fukuyama calls “exclusionary” nationalism, that has been most difficult to digest for liberals. 

In his 2018 book titled ‘Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment,’ Fukuyama notes that while Trump “has been careful not to articulate overtly racist views… he has happily accepted support from individuals and groups that hold them,” reminding us of Trump’s reluctance to criticise former Leader of the Ku Klux Klan David Duke, laying the blame on “both sides” for a white nationalist riot in Charlottesville, Virginia in September 2017. Fukuyama further notes that “since his rise, white nationalism has moved from a fringe movement to something much more mainstream in American politics”.

Rage against the ‘establishment’

There are recurrent themes common to these movements across Europe, the UK, and the US; the nationalism of the populist Right is partly derived as a response to ‘globalism,’ the arch enemy of the New Populist Right. 

The anti-globalist wing that dominates Right-wing populist flag-bearers, Make America Great Again (MAGA), is not a reaction just to globalisation and neoliberalism but also to international agreements and institutions such as the United Nations, World Trade Organization (WTO), or North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) – anything that might act as a constraint on national imperatives.

The other dominant strain of the New Right is a rhetorical populism that takes the form of anti-establishment posturing, against both liberal cultural and economic elites, those from the tech world or Hollywood. It is this anti-establishment posture that can take a political party far in a context of dissatisfaction of the electorate with political elites. 

Once again, this is a contradiction in the context of a potential reunification of Sri Lanka’s Right wing; the SJB has struggled to build a credible anti-establishment ethos while the UNP is the definitive ‘establishment’ political institution in Sri Lanka, so where is the anti-establishment appeal? 

The SJB lent credibility to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) programme and by extension, to Wickremesinghe’s presidency through a technocratic critique of the programme. The Opposition Leader and the ‘economic trifecta’ attempted to negotiate a fine line between what they perceived as being responsible custodians of the economy, while also generating an effective oppositional narrative. 

This is not a straightforward task; however, Dr. Harsha de Silva was clear in his critique of both the IMF programme and the debt restructuring deal, both of which, in his words “treat all debt in the same way and all revenue in the same way”. 

The overwhelmingly consistent critique of the IMF programme is that it is using fiscal constraints to solve a current account imbalance, not placing direct limitations on Sri Lanka’s external debt stock, but only on foreign exchange Gross Financing Needs (GFN). Debt sustainability should be about adequate real net foreign currency inflows to the economy instead of an oblique USD Gross Domestic Product (GDP) measurement. 

The SJB was largely perceived as being IMF-friendly, posturing as a moderate party that would improve upon the current programme but would nevertheless support the Wickremesinghe-led ‘establishment’ project instead of negotiating a more people-friendly version. Furthermore, during the election period, the SJB opted to brand itself by the name of an extended alliance, the Samagi Jana Sandhanaya (SJS), which included more establishment figures with explicit links to the Rajapaksas. 

Thus, the SJB could not sufficiently distance itself from a much-maligned establishment; building an alliance that includes the UNP only sets the party further adrift, away from the anti-establishment mood in the country. 

Flogging a dead elephant

If we were to leave behind the New Right and instead view SJB calls to “unite the Right” as uniting a broader Right wing of Sri Lankan politics, it is important to acknowledge the policy implications of such a positioning.  

The traditional Right wing is distinct from Trump or Giorgia Meloni. It is conservative; Centre-Right to moderate; in favour of limited or small government, low-tax, and free markets; and against government programmes and state-funded subsidies. 

The Centre-Right is situated quite far away from Trump’s critique of the global free trade regime or the wave of American re-industrialisation that began under President Joe Biden. Business and financial deregulation are also key to the objectives of the traditional Centre-Right. 

How does the SJB now take on a posture of limited government when the IMF has explicitly called for an expansion of social safety nets and protections for the poorest, even indicating a minimum spend relative to GDP? How does the SJB emphasise a fiscal consolidation without increasing tax to GDP? Can the SJB reasonably call for limiting government programmes in a context of record poverty and a cost of living crisis?

A victory for any party led by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) is a victory for and mandate from the working classes of the country. Thus, with urgent reforms necessary, how does any Right-wing formation reconcile an anti-trade-union bias with rhetoric that is supposed to resonate with workers? How would the SJB retain its pro-worker emphasis in the face of the UNP’s long-standing critique of worker unions in Sri Lanka?

American author, Current Affairs magazine Editor Nathan J. Robinson has been vocal in his criticism of the so-called populist Right, rejecting its ‘populism’ and labelling it a “fraud” in an interview with progressive journalist Glenn Greenwald. 

During that interview for The Intercept, published in 2021, Greenwald states that there are numerous issues around which the populist Right and populist Left can converge: “curbs on executive power to bomb foreign countries” – a reference to (unsuccessful) bipartisan legislation brought by Senators Mike Lee and Bernie Sanders, “breaking up tech monopolies,” “auditing the Fed” (Federal Reserve), and reforming the criminal justice system.

Then President Trump presided over a more belligerent US military: personally signed away authority to the military leaders by changing the rules of engagement; removed requirements for reporting of casualty rates from foreign military operations; increased drone strikes by 400%, resulting in civilian deaths spiking by 250%; bombed Syria, the first US President to do so; dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb in human history in Afghanistan; and assassinated an Iranian General. 

Consider that the Biden presidency generated the most aggressive anti-monopoly administration in recent history, with institutions like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), led by Lina Khan, providing strong resistance to the exercise of monopoly power and corporate consolidation, specifically in the tech industry. 

Under Khan, the FTC brought major anti-trust lawsuits against large corporations including Amazon and challenged several mergers including a $ 8.5 billion merger between fashion brand owners Tapestry and Capri as well as other consolidations of grocery chains and pharmaceutical companies. Khan’s position as head of the FTC is under threat under a Trump administration, with close Trump associate Elon Musk posting on X in November that Khan “will be fired soon”.

Noblesse oblige

The lack of any clear strategy surrounding a reunification of the UNP and the Right wing begs the question as to what lessons have been learnt by the SJB from successive defeats. Everywhere you look, it is either a rampant, virulently nationalist populist Right wing – Trump, Reform UK, Marine Le Pen – or a shrinking, increasingly aimless Centre-Right, such as in the UK, France, or Germany. 

In one sense, the SJB may seek to generate what is known as paternalistic conservatism, popularised as ‘one-nation conservatism’ by British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, which conveys some positions that are more acceptable to populism, departing from certain conservative traditions. 

Paternalistic conservatism emphasises the need to avoid the extremes of laissez-faire capitalism while rejecting socialism, all with the intention of preserving social harmony. This tradition stems from the concept of ‘noblesse oblige,’ which suggests that the wealthy and affluent in society have an obligation or duty toward those less fortunate. 

Disraeli was keen to appeal to the working classes of the UK and focused on worker rights, protections, and wages as well as social reforms; the concept of ‘one nation’ related to creating a more equitable consciousness across class lines, whereby the elites in society would be required to reconcile the needs of both workers and management. 

The UK Conservative Party has shifted away from paternalistic conservatism and towards the type of free market capitalism that peaked with Thatcherism and has left that once powerful political institution in its current state of disrepair. 

This trajectory of the UK Conservatives shows that the traditional Centre-Right space is no longer desirable, it is not part of the political zeitgeist. The US Republican Party has taken itself away from traditional conservatism, as Trump reminded one audience during his campaign in 2016: “This is called the Republican Party, not the Conservative Party.”  

The UNP transformed from a liberal conservative party, as it was originally imagined by the likes of D.S. Senanayake, to a neo-liberal, Centre-Right, corporatist, cosmopolitan party under Wickremesinghe; it has never recovered. Even under ‘Yahapalana,’ elected on the explicit purpose of bringing to justice members of the political elite who were supposedly involved in grand corruption, we witnessed instead a protection of the corporate classes and their interests. 

The emphasis was on a fiscal adjustment at the cost of the ordinary citizen, not the wealthy or the industrialist classes. What do you call a primary account surplus with a Government tax revenue to GDP ratio of 11%? Austerity. That is what members of that 2015 Wickremesinghe administration boast about to this very day – the two consecutive years of primary surpluses. 

Two tales, one nation

The UNP led by Wickremesinghe should have taken a leaf out of Disraeli’s book regarding his ‘one nation’ ethos: one nation, not one country for the rich and another for the poor. The Right wing of Sri Lanka’s politics, as exemplified by the UNP of Wickremesinghe, reflects all the failures of modern traditions of the Centre-Right. 

Under his leadership, the UNP had no concern for growing wealth disparities and income inequality, no care for rising poverty and underdevelopment of townships, systems of health, and education. 

There has never been a Right-wing analysis of Sri Lanka’s hierarchical structures, the influence of money and corporate power on public policy, and the inverted incentives thus created. No Right-wing party in Sri Lanka has ever commented on economic power imbalances or the diverging fortunes of the working poor and the upper-class segments of society.

The traditional Centre-Right in Sri Lanka has still not developed a substantive discourse related to poverty alleviation and rural development; no vision for industrialisation of the export sector, no overarching policy agenda to address the crumbling systems of social services. This position on the political spectrum is dying a slow death and in many parts of the world it has already been superseded. 

There is simply no discernible benefit for the SJB in a reunification with a party that has been consistently rejected by the electorate. Why would an organisation make a move that dilutes or negates its very reason for existence? Unless, of course, the SJB can shift the UNP’s political centre by extricating it completely from the clutches of Wickremesinghe and placing it on a progressive path towards Sri Lanka’s natural political centre on the Left of Centre, where a majority of Sri Lankans in the electorate reside. 

(The writer has 15 years of experience in the financial and corporate sectors after completing a Degree in Accounting and Finance at the University of Kent [UK] and also holds a Master’s in International Relations from the University of Colombo. He is a media presenter, resource person, political commentator, and foreign affairs analyst. He is also a member of the Working Committee of the Samagi Jana Balawegaya [SJB]. He can be contacted via email: kusumw@gmail.com and X: @kusumw)