The recent presidential election has installed Anura Kumara Dissanayake (“AKD”) from the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP)-led National People’s Power (NPP) alliance as the new president of Sri Lanka. This victory is seen as a result of rising popular hostility towards mainstream parties and rogue dynasts. Consequently, we find that AKD garnered an overwhelming share of the votes from those same electoral constituencies which had earlier voted in bulk for the corrupt Rajapaksas. Prior to this presidential election, the frustrated Sri Lankan masses, plagued by growing economic and political crises, generated the powerful people’s movement – the janatha aragalaya – that ushered in a huge legitimacy crisis for the ruling elites.
While many appear hopeful that the new presidency will pave the way for better times to come, others remain skeptical. The victory of AKD is seen as a response to the rising expectations of the popular masses, while others perceive it as moment used to catapult a party to power which has suspect ideological and organizational history. AKD in his inaugural address to the nation on 25 September said: “There is one dream our people see every new day the sun rises. That is ‘tomorrow will be better than today!’” Ironically, it is expected that when a new day begins with the rising sun, people hope that the day will be better than the days gone by. However, in AKD’s speech, the better day is deferred to tomorrow. Will this better tomorrow ever come? Or are we entering into an era which posterity would mark as the Kerensky moment in the annals of Sri Lankan history?
Janatha aragalaya: a lingering spirit and the body politic of JVP
AKD’s electoral feat in the recent presidential election that saw the NPP’s vote share jump from a mere 3.8 percent to 42 percent, has been attributed to the legitimacy crisis created for the mainstream national parties by the radical people’s movement, janatha aragalaya. However, this observation may hold true only to a certain extent, given that the NPP fell short of a clear majority in this presidential election, garnering less than 50 percent of first preference votes. Moreover, the strained relations between the janatha aragalaya and JVP are themselves hard to dismiss.
The janatha aragalaya, as we know, unfolded as a people’s powerful movement against the complete failure of the Sri Lankan state to represent the interests of the people, and to administer the country in the wake of a mounting economic crisis – the worst to have hit the country since its independence in 1948. The economic crisis was embodied in the country’s growing sovereign debt, the corresponding slashing of fertilizer imports, a slump in the garment sector which has been the country’s second largest foreign exchange earner; spiraling inflation; lengthy and frequent power outages; intense fuel shortages; rising food insecurity of the vast majority, i.e. lower income households; crumbling medical facilities; and massive job losses. Notably, the scarcities and enhanced precarity enveloped not the wealthy but the country’s poor. Thus, the country’s limited and fast-dwindling fuel supply continued to be used to generate electricity in luxury hotels, fancy restaurants, high-rise apartments, casinos, nightclubs, and various other places where the rich live and entertain themselves. Likewise, when most Sri Lankans struggled to eat two square meals a day, and daily wagers, who are a significant section of the working population, were hit hardest, the rich hoarded in bulk and Sri Lankan politicians as well as corporates stashed away their millions of dollars in offshore bank accounts.
With every day revealing the differential impact of the economic crisis, it was evident that there was not one but two Sri Lankas – one for the rich and one for the poor – which were steadily drawn into confrontation with each other. By the summer of 2022, the majority of Sri Lankans – the working masses – rightly drew the conclusion that the state was not for the people but designed to protect power, privilege and property of the wealthy, and those that have its patronage. The fury of the people fueled the janatha aragalaya, which increasingly proved to be a potent force in terms of driving forth new possibilities for democracy in the backdrop of a collapsing discredited regime.
Not surprisingly, the aragalaya harbored deep suspicion not only for individual politicians, but viewed all established parties with deep suspicion and hostility. Thus, people nursed a latent distrust for the system itself. Against this backdrop, as the Sri Lankan Left forces permeated into the janatha aragalaya and infused it with greater momentum, discipline and clarity, the JVP’s interventions were driven by significant ambiguity. Instead of leading and shaping the very volatile movement towards concrete revolutionary directions, the JVP often emanated negative vibes about the mass upsurge. To elucidate, in his 7 April, 2022 speech to the steadily discredited parliament, AKD identified the emerging groundswell as a “great anarchy”, and appealed to fellow parliamentarians to cooperate with the JVP in order to “find a way out to contain the situation of this country, bring it to some peaceful position, establish the stability in our country and resolve the crisis in the economy.”
As the days progressed, contrary to the efforts of progressive forces to strengthen and steer the people’s movement, the JVP openly coordinated with bourgeois opposition parties like Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) to facilitate Rajapaksa’s replacement. Essentially then, while new revolutionary possibilities lurked in the horizon, AKD’s party simply sought to stabilize the given parliamentary system and authoritarian executive presidency. On the trade union front, the JVP leadership continued to confine trade union actions to very specific issues, limiting their political possibilities. Meanwhile, the larger sections of labouring masses remained outside trade union coverage. In many ways, the JVP trade union leadership has been a culprit of confining trade union coverage largely to the upper echelons of the labour market, and in the process also becoming a prisoner to its trade union base.
Nevertheless, the janatha aragalaya continued to unfold. Within a short period of time, it transitioned from initially demanding the mere resignation of the then President, “Gota Gedera Yanu,” to demanding the resignation of all 225 parliamentarians, “225 Ma Gedera Yanu”. The mere replacement of Rajapaksa and continuation of the extant obsolete representative system which oversaw the crash of the Sri Lankan economy clearly proved inadequate to the struggling masses. However, precisely when the collective wisdom of the janatha aragalaya asserted the dissolution of the suspect Parliament, the JVP-led NPP alliance partook in the indirect presidential election of 20 July. This was the first of its kind indirect presidential election in the history of Sri Lanka, and it represented a marked contradiction with the demands of the aragalaya that the tainted parliament had lost all legitimacy to steer the country after the exit of the Rajapaksas. By participating in the indirect presidential election and fielding AKD as a presidential candidate, the JVP legitimized the suspect election; delegitimizing, in turn, the people’s call to dissolve the parliament all together. The results of the 2022 were fait accompli, with the majority of bourgeois parliamentarians ‘electing’ the IMF’s yes-man, Ranil Wickremesinghe, as president. The JVP, hence, achieved nothing for the exploited struggling masses, but further ruin.
It is hard to dismiss the facts etched in collective memory and to overlook the tangible fears pertaining to the JVP/NPP’s many betrayals of a genuine communist agenda. As observed by many, the JVP has long disassociated itself from the phase of its insurrectionary communist past. It has crystalized into a mainstream centrist party with fleeting commitment to working-class politics, and AKD himself has been instrumental in evolving the party’s ‘pragmatic reformism’ so as to sustain a parliamentary presence. This political journey has witnessed the JVP extending support to right-wing governments as well as becoming a part of the ruling establishment, such as between April 2004 and June 2005 when it was a leading force in the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA). It was during this period that AKD served as Minister of Agriculture, Livestock, Lands, and Irrigation in the coalition government. Later, in October 2005, the JVP supported the presidential candidacy of Mahinda Rajapaksa, garnering close to 400,000 votes for him. In return for the JVP’s support, Mahinda Rajapaksa agreed to reject federalism and renegotiate the ceasefire with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). We know too well what transpired under Mahinda Rajapaksa’s decade-long tenure as Sri Lanka’s president. Ultimately, as a parliamentary party, the JVP has contributed significantly to the political career of the corrupt Rajapaksa family. Considering this, it is a sheer irony to watch AKD criticize the country’s former ruling establishment and existing political elites. He and his party have been part of the same league, and not a part apart.
AKD’s recent election campaign itself leaves little room for doubt. As is evident in the recent presidential election campaign, AKD consciously wooed a broad spectrum of voters; including those class elements which are antagonistically positioned vis-à-vis each other. His party has been seen lobbying with Sri Lankan big business, and courting the military security establishment and imperialist forces. Correspondingly, the JVP’s election campaign and rise to power has ridden the back of a seemingly radical populism sans demands for economic and other measures that actually benefit the working masses. The focus has and continues to be on issues like corruption; avoiding, in turn, the strategy of directing the anger of the working masses towards the root cause of the country’s woes; namely, capitalist loot.
Despite the massive wave of the discontent articulated by the suffering masses, JVP’s polit bureau members have repeatedly reassured the IMF masters of the party’s commitment “not to tear up the IMF deal” and to “move forward in partnership” with it. As a consequence, the JVP’s populist program has been devoid of any real commitment to a vigorous defense of the interests of the working masses, whose plight has worsened with the economic crisis and subsequent imposition of austerity measures. In fact, when unrest erupted within workers against the IMF-dictated austerity measures, the JVP worked to skuttle collective action. In the eventuality of having to sanction certain strikes by its trade unions, it worked to limit and isolate them. As the presidential election neared, the hostility of JVP unions to workers’ collective action became even more apparent. It was argued that workers should await the election of a JVP government. However, the ‘wait’ stands to yield little, given the JVP’s commitment to work with the IMF.
Now in power, AKD has been asserting that the country’s journey of “economic development” depends on the cardinal principle of “law and order”; implying that with the conclusion of presidential elections, the restive masses should withdraw from agitations into passivity and leave it to ‘their’ elected leader to steer the economy. Appeasing the middle-class constituencies, the JVP is increasingly espousing “rule by experts”; namely, academicians, professionals and entrepreneurs, as a replacement to “rule by politicians” as well as active mass politics. The party’s electoral promises of doing away with the executive presidency are now obviously shelved. Yet again, people are being directed to surrender their agency to political institutions – to the hierarchy of leader and lead – which they have long suspected and recently challenged in significant ways. Their passivity is demanded simply to pave the way for further enslavement to the IMF. Reports from AKD’s meetings with an IMF delegation on 3 October and 4 October go to show the new presidency’s continued commitment to the detrimental anti-people “reform efforts” on which the IMF ‘bailout’ has been anchored. The statement released by the Press Media Division (PMD), thus, unequivocally states: “While there have been delays due to upcoming General Elections, President Dissanayake assured the IMF of the government’s dedication to continuing the program without disruption and facilitating the third review process.” The concerned third review was to commence immediately, but appears to be strategically postponed to avoid the eruption of public ire against the new president. Importantly, the third review is to determine if the Sri Lankan government has met the conditions for the release of the fourth tranche of the ‘bailout’ loan of approximately $350 million.
JVP/NPP’s program of not seeking the abrogation of the IMF deal but a mere renegotiation of some of its provisions is reflective of a deep-seated, unfortunate assumption that functioning within the given political economy of capitalism is a fait accompli – that there is no alternative. In simple terms, the present strategy of the so-called ‘Left’ in power in Sri Lanka appears to be limited to the banal intervention of proving that they are better negotiators and managers of the debt crisis than their immediate political predecessors. The role of the Left cannot be reduced to the mere managing of the crisis of the economy. It must strive to change the very coordinates within which the economy works. Here it would be very apt to recall an old Sinhalese proverb: හිසරදේට කොට්ටේ මාරුකලා වගෙයි [Hisaradheta kotte maaru kala wagei]. One should always try to fix a problem by finding its actual cause.
The current and recurring crises of economy is rooted in the economic system within which the hapless Sri Lankan people are caught. For any genuine Left there is need to recognize the necessity of restructuring the ownership and deployment of the country’s economic resources so as to depart from the path dictated by the country’s ruling elites. The path dictated by the elites has been one of enhanced expropriation of more and more of the country’s resources by local and foreign capitalists. And its fallout has been the greater enslavement of the people and resources of the country, as well as brute imposition of newer and harsher austerity measures.
The alternative is the people’s path for the revival of the country’s economy. Many pro-people economists have proven that Sri Lanka has internal resources which can be tapped to overcome the crisis. The problem is that the resources are in the wrong hands. The current crisis is consequently not just a conjunctural one but a deeply structural crisis. What is then required is the transformation of economic structures, which makes it imperative for the people to wield political power so as to control the economy. The question of political power, i.e., for whom it is used, is ultimately crucial to the future of Sri Lankan people.
Revolutionary praxis: a united road to transformation
As we assess the consequences of the JVP/NPP victory, a palpable concern regarding strategy expectedly arises. The past experiences of revolutionary forces with the bourgeois parliamentary system should compel activists and cadres to think closely about the question of strategy. In a context of mass discontent that nurtures marked revolutionary possibilities, do we choose to become part of the system, or do we seek to transform the system? To answer this, we have simply to turn to the most potent phase of the janatha aragalaya when it was irreducible to the installing of a new Presidency, and instead, pressed forth to transform the very format of how political power is held, utilized, and for whom and for what purpose. In this way, a revolutionary situation has lurked in the Sri Lankan horizon, marked by circumstances wherein the oppressed classes no longer want to be ruled in the old way, and the ruling elites struggle to carry forward ruling in the old way. However, for such a revolutionary situation to materialize into a revolutionary mutation and widespread transformation, there is need for the emergence and spread of revolutionary political ideas and leadership.
Unfortunately, shortly after a revolutionary situation emerged in Sri Lanka in 2022, we have witnessed the consolidation of a politics which has remained tied to the logic of the incumbent representative system. Such politics assumes that the mere change of a leader, or entry of one’s own representatives into the system, triggers the desired path of transformation. In real terms, a change of guard or leadership over the existing political system transforms nothing. Nothing new emerges. In effect, routine elections and representative constitutional political institutions built on them are accompanied by the disempowerment of people and denial of real self-rule. In reality, the inner core of representative democracy remains consistent in terms of alienating the power of people and transferring it to political institutions, like Presidencies, Parliaments and Cabinets, on which the people have little control.
And so, having cast their vote in routine elections, the people are subsequently alienated from decision-making. Denying citizens the right to recall representatives from any level of government, and divesting them of any role in the executive and legislative functioning of the government, the existing constitutional representative framework continues to empower elected parliamentarians to act not as delegates of the people. It is largely up to them to represent their electors as they please. Consequently, the extant representative system or parliamentarianism intrinsically undermines the will of the people and their concrete interests, while it simultaneously allows the ruling elites to concentrate power in their hands.
Against this forgone reality of the entrenched representative system, the mainstreaming of Left politics through the route of parliamentarianism has tendentially achieved precious little in terms building on revolutionary situations that fleetingly appear. Partaking in mainstream representative democracy, ‘Left’ forces have repeatedly failed to steer the disparate, spontaneous struggles and mass unrest towards a revolutionary mutation. In fact, rather than transforming the system, the heavy investment in parliamentarianism has simply transformed the ‘Left’ forces by compelling the dilution of their class politics. This is evident in the endeavor to mobilize votes on class-sanitized issues (such as ‘corruption’ in this case), and to appeal to a spectrum of privileged social groups that are many a time antagonistically positioned vis-à-vis the working masses and labouring poor.
In this way, reduced to seeking legitimation within the existing state apparatus and consumed by the logistics of routine elections, Left forces fail to install and strengthen the organs of alternative rule, i.e., the institutions of people’s self-rule. In fact, it is to these alternative bodies embodying the aspiration of the people to control the polity that the revolutionary Left must turn to for legitimation. Such efforts of the revolutionary forces to push forth with institutions of people’s self-rule are precisely the efforts that embody the erosion of the existing state system, and the unequivocal transformation of the state.
To what do we owe the faithful allegiance to bourgeois parliamentarianism, irrespective of the collective wisdom of the masses that the parliamentary system is run through sheer manipulation of the people and usurpation of power? Indeed, against the backdrop of cynicism and skepticism of the masses with regard to the bankrupt system of bourgeois representative democracy, it is intriguing to see the Left’s preoccupation with it, and its resulting failure to generate and mainstream an alternative template for revolutionary politics among the discontented masses.
Evidently, the repeated reproduction of this form of governance has made people and several ‘Left’ forces accustomed to seeing the existing form of representative democracy as sacrosanct and the final form of democracy. The continual reproduction of representative democracy has nurtured a paralysis in thinking that compels people to reduce their involvement simply to the search for better representatives in ritualized elections held every few years. This overall process and the resulting government formation renders people powerless every five years.
The recent developments in Sri Lanka that perpetuate the same form of representative polity do not augur well for a people who desperately seek a transformation of the system. Although, it is yet to be seen whether the snap general elections in November favour the NPP alliance, the various permutations and combinations of possible electoral outcomes do not appear to hold much scope for a different, liberating future for the Sri Lankan masses. This is because the dilution of class politics itself reduces the potential of organizing any potent opposition to the oppressive rule of capital.
The cost of such dilution has already been paid in terms of a decisive victory eluding the JVP in the recent presidential election. Notably, AKD is the first Sri Lankan president since 1978 to win the presidential election with less than 50 percent of first-preference votes. Where have the 58 percent votes gone, is a crucial question. The answer is indicative of the risks which accompany the opportunistic sacrificing of working-class interests positioned across the country’s ethno-linguistic and religious divide.
Evidently, in the country’s chequered history of bitter conflicts and civil war between ethno-linguistic groups, we have seen the JVP transition from its earlier anti-imperialist, socialist avatar, embodying a commitment to transforming political, social and economic institutions, to a platform of Sinhala nationalist chauvinism. One of the consequences has been that the country’s Tamil and Muslim population harbor a deep mistrust for the politics of the JVP/NPP.
Drawing attention to this dimension does not imply that the Left needs to blindly espouse and articulate the much-hackneyed strategy of minority appeasement. After all, the Tamil ethnic minority and Muslim minority populace, irrespective of their unfortunate persecution in Sri Lankan history, have not nurtured a radical alternative vision in the terms of an anti-systemic format of people’s self-rule. In historical terms, the Tamil population’s (counter)demand for separate statehood on ethnic grounds, and later, administrative decentralization under the Thirteenth Amendment have been anchored on a politics claiming devolution of power within the same format of representative institutions, albeit under the hegemony of elites within the Tamil population concentrated in the North and East provinces – reproducing the same hierarchy of rulers and ruled. In this given form, minority claims uncannily mimic ethnic majoritarianism. With mainstream minority politics being devoid of larger emancipatory vision, even genuine political concerns of the most downtrodden sections within minority groups are unfortunately taken (and opportunistically mobilized by Sinhala chauvinists) as a sheer challenge to the national territorial integrity of the Sri Lankan nation.
In this context, what can be the revolutionary communist intervention? It is to extract the discontent of minority communities with respect to subversion of administrative decentralization/provincial autonomy, and to transform the claim into one for devolution of power to all communities. With the devolution of power becoming the aim of all communities, we would inch closer to the possibility of better and more advanced forms of people’s self-rule.
Hence, the aim of all communities should be to go beyond the so-called representative models of democracy which are of western import, and to adopt newer models of self-rule where people have more participation in decision-making and in shaping what impacts their lives. Ultimately, within the current form of representative democracy, it is not just minority communities whose voices are curtailed, but even people on the ‘winning’ side or from the majority community who come to be easily betrayed by the decisions taken purportedly in their interest by the so-called legitimate representatives.
The need of the hour for revolutionary forces is to press forth in their domains of influence with the formation of more advanced mass people’s councils/assemblies, through which people can actively participate in the making of decisions. More and more genuine revolutionaries from different parties and organizations should come forward and put mass politics above their narrow party affiliations. We must recognize that unprecedented times necessitate the envisaging of democracy in new, revolutionary ways. Mass people’s assemblies and councils could serve as bodies that enable the people to participate in ruling themselves, and constitute a crucial move towards people’s control over the economy. Through such bodies, a political system can begin to crystallize wherein no law is made without the consent of the people’s councils, and the parliament, as a representative body, is under continuous check via the people’s councils.
Expectedly, such people’s councils will not emerge everywhere or overnight, but where revolutionaries are active, and where we there is a longer history of social movements. In effect, this means a persistent effort to call for mass people’s councils on important immediate concerns. The revolutionary forces can expect an eager response most immediately from the hotspots of social movements. Nonetheless, our endeavours must be larger and more expansive as it guarantees the spread of a revolutionary political consciousness in favour of self-rule across cities, towns, villages and neighbourhoods. For the mass people’s councils to effectively deliberate on the most pressing issues in the country, committees of dedicated activists stand to play a pivotal role in taking forward the work of the people’s assemblies and in facilitating the passing of people’s resolutions that consistently underwrite the legitimacy of the state. In effect, these committees of on-the-ground activists will represent nascent people’s councils in every mass people’s assembly or regular assembling of people in struggle and their meetings.
Typically, the process of forming people’s councils requires different stages: i) calling people to partake in and form local assemblies around concrete demands, and using the site to pass resolutions; ii) gathering the consent of the people in every assembly for the formation of a people’s council within it, which will undertake all the necessary measures to assist the materialization of resolutions passed by the assembly. Once formed, the people’s council in every local people’s assembly will predictably evolve through different avatars. From an organ for organizing resistance, it will then start building more power on behalf of the struggling masses, with of course the active consent of the assemblies. It will start asserting its authority and command over local administration; public supplies; and management of schools, hospitals, markets and workplaces. It will continue to expand into more and more fields, depending on how much confidence and support it manages to garner. The mass support will provide the people’s councils coercive power against erring administrators, corrupt politicians and other enemies of the people. It will emerge as the only effective check on the existing state apparatus, otherwise what else will ensure that our ‘own’ people when in helming the affairs of the existing state will not betray and capitulate to the enemies of the people.
This is clearly a format of dual power which allows for alternative centres of autonomous people’s self-rule, and which can also provide the leverage for contesting the repressive ruling establishment. The generalization of popular power and people’s will, which will be the outcome of the Left’s embeddedness in local struggles, would then translate into an intense legitimacy crisis for the bourgeois state. There is always possibility of an unevenness in the development of radical possibilities in different regions and social groups. Yet, there is also ample possibility that the society and economy envisaged in the objective interest of the labouring poor across regions and groups develops its hegemonic influence over other sections of society sans the wealthy. In a united front comprising a cross section of society, by strengthening our base within the labouring masses and influencing other segments, we shift the balance of power vis-à-vis ruling elites in order to take and consolidate political power so as to transform the conditions of life for the majority. We must patiently and perseveringly convince people that just as they invest time and resources in their children from childhood to adulthood so as to ensure them a better life, the future of the society also requires their active investment and involvement. Given that the direction of society impacts the quality of individual lives, the future of society is everybody’s responsibility.
There will naturally be an intermediate stage where the possibility of people’s assemblies being convened, and people’s councils being subsequently formed, will emerge in certain places without such possibility existing everywhere. Somewhere it has to be the first. After this intermediate stage, when the calling of mass people’s assemblies and formation of people’s councils in them is a generalized phenomenon, we will be bound to enter the stage of centralization of people’s councils into an apex people’s council / congress of people’s councils. Through this mobilization we can issue ultimatums to the executive presidency and parliament to decide where they stand in the battle for real democracy. How much time it will take for such a moment to arrive will depend on many contingent factors, and the preparedness of the masses. More importantly, we may see the earlier arrival of such a moment based on the endeavours of determined revolutionaries. We understand that there can be, at times, loss of momentum, but we need to rise to the historical occasion to play a definite catalyst role.
To reiterate, a multitude of people’s councils and their network need to be developed from below as a medium of struggle, and as an active organ of alternative rule. Revolutionary activists need not seek legitimation of these bodies from the existing state because in themselves the people’s assemblies and people’s councils are the alternative power; the proto revolutionary state in the making. Put simply, the efforts of the revolutionary forces to spread out and consolidate through the installation of institutions of people’s self-rule, are precisely the efforts that embody the erosion of the existing state system, and the unequivocal transformation of the state. How the institutions of self-rule will concretely emerge, or what could be the names of such bodies is not certain. However, we need to be clear about the nature of such bodies. Such bodies will be an embodiment of the aspiration of the people to control the economy and larger polity.
There may be apprehensions that prevailing circumstances are not conducive for systemic change, and yet, we all would agree that all our interventions must definitely enhance the capacity of the working masses to resist and build something anew. Essentially, the people’s mass assemblies and councils will serve as the future substitutes for the existing ossified political system that has facilitated the Sri Lankan economy and the lives of citizens to be held ransom by the brute alliance of international and domestic capital. Anything short of this is the mere repetition and reproduction of the given system of representative democracy and class rule, and not its transformation.
Maya John has been part of the Left Movement for the past two decades and this piece is in response to ongoing dialogues with Sri Lankan comrades.
She teaches at the University of Delhi, India. Email: maya.john85@gmail.comsee