In a few days, the National People’s Power (NPP) will mark two years in office. After much political upheaval, long periods of poor governance, and an economic meltdown, the Sri Lankan public propelled President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and the NPP to an electoral win with high hopes. Many were willing to overlook the disdain they held for the NPP’s core, which remains, functionally, the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), a movement that has twice attempted to overthrow an elected government through violent insurgency and terror tactics, only to be brutally put down by State counter-insurgency efforts.
While the NPP Government today trumpets its own success, concerns about the messaging echoed by many of its elected officials continue to fuel doubts about the democratic trajectory which Sri Lanka may be on. The citizenry should not lose sight of such messaging, as it may be indicative of what the driving forces behind the NPP’s inner corridors desire in the long run – State capture.
Some observers have argued that the messaging is only rhetoric, coming from ideological stances which core elements of the JVP have long preached, and therefore should not be taken seriously. Some Left-leaning pundits have opined that the terminology used in such statements regarding State capture is due to linguistics. Nevertheless, Sri Lanka can ill afford not to take such statements seriously or focus only on the positives the Government has delivered thus far.
The nation remains in an economically disadvantaged situation. The regional and international arena is in disarray, and our domestic social fabric remains strained with many fault lines, leaving the island nation in a vulnerable situation, struggling to withstand internal and external shocks. When Members of Parliament – who are duty-bound to uphold the Constitution as well as ensure that democratic values are reinforced and that the sovereignty held by citizens is not abused by them as custodians – begin to speak of State capture, the red flags become quite clear, no pun intended.
The Government’s track record of two years in office is a mixed bag, with progress made on anti-corruption measures and exorbitant expenditure of the political elite being cut down significantly. However, on most other critical issues, the NPP Government’s delivery has varied. It seems that the Government will act expeditiously and with resolve when it suits the outcomes which the regime wants, and with painstaking, slow, and lukewarm enthusiasm when it comes to the changes the voters wanted.
The recent statements by Minister of Agriculture, Livestock, Land, and Irrigation K.D. Lalkantha and Deputy Minister of Transport and Highways Prasanna Gunasena about State capture should not be taken lightly. The statements come hot on the heels of the NPP’s efforts to railroad the 22nd Amendment, which has drawn strong opposition from the legal fraternity and watchdogs, who have raised concerns about the impact it would have on judicial independence, separation of powers, and the possibility of an attempt to lock in a court for a lengthy duration. The 22nd Amendment was moved by the Government with remarkable speed, behind a smokescreen and with no consultation with stakeholders, making a mockery of the electoral pledge to be more transparent in governance.
The language of State capture was also delivered with conviction at public rallies, with no efforts by the Government or the NPP to roll it back. Such statements also come at a time when the NPP is struggling to answer questions about some of its own being involved in corruption and scandals, forcing some elected officials to resign from their posts. Blunders and scandals linked to the NPP appear to be processed by the Government with little enthusiasm, causing concerns about accountability.
The statements that advocate State capture are delivered alongside statements by others in the NPP and JVP about holding onto power for the next two decades. Such statements, drunk on the power at hand, have been heard before by those who led Sri Lanka in the past. Let us also not forget that Sri Lankans voted to extend the tenure of Parliament during the regime of President J.R. Jayewardene, which saw the island descend into ethnic violence and a full-blown insurgency which only ended in 2009.
The statements about State capture and holding onto power also come as the NPP Government takes apart the defence apparatus of the nation, with the armed forces left to attrition into a smaller, weaker, ceremonial force. While the rest of the world moves towards operational synergy of armed forces, Sri Lanka moved to remove the joint operations mechanism under the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS), and has also not moved to establish a constitutional structure for the office of a national security adviser, a role which is vital in the modern security arena and necessary to better coordinate with regional and international security architecture.
Collectively, the actions of the NPP Government appear to point to a structured approach to removing resistance and dismantling those pillars that can oppose a style of governance which is neither democratic nor what the public voted for. State capture is not system change. If only one party, or a small core element in it, controls the state with no checks and balances, that is not a democracy; it is an elite-controlled one-party state masquerading as an agent of change with popular support. If the NPP is serious about democracy and the sovereignty of the citizens, it should check itself and clarify its position.