Erik Olin Wright, in his interesting and insightful article entitled “Compass Points: Towards a Socialist Alternative†(in New Left Review No. 41, Sep-Oct, 2006), dissects the term “social†that has been present in both socialist and social democratic politics. In general, the term- “socialâ€Â- “is invoked to suggest a commitment to the broad social welfare of society, rather than the narrow interests of particular elitesâ€Â. The debate on constitutional reform in Sri Lanka has been so far carried on in the dominant language of constitutionalism. All three main streams of constitutionalism, namely, liberalism, nationalism and communitarianism, subscribe to this meta-language of constitutionalism that privileges the state, nation and citizenship. On the other hand, emancipatory social science that Olin Wright proposes to uphold calls for “a systematic scientific knowledge about how the world works†and explains how its central purpose of “the elimination of oppression and the creation of condition for human flourishing†be achieved. In this article, I deploy emancipatory social science approach in dealing with the current constitutional reform proposals. The emancipatory social science, in Olin Wright’s words, does not simply show that there is suffering, injustice and inequality, but demonstrates that the explanation of these ills lies in the specific properties of existing institutions and social structures, and identifies the ways in which they systematically cause harm to peoples. In this article, I argue that in developing constitutional principles, an emancipatory social science approach provides a better theoretical framework than the three main streams of constitutionalism mentioned above.
“Social†in Emancipatory Social Science
In both socialist and social democratic politics, the term “social†embodies three inter-related meanings. First, it means that society consists of multiple and segregated elements that are dialectically related so that the understanding and deciphering the “social†call for disaggregated and de-constituted analysis. In this sense, nation, people and citizenship are not homogeneous entities or their differences are not confined to the private sphere. Those entities are polyvocal, heterogeneous and operate very much in the public sphere. Secondly, it refers to hierarchical and hegemonic nature that dominates the social. In this, heterogeneity is not horizontal and is vertically arranged by socially generated structures and institutions. Thirdly, it posits that the empowerment of “social†needs a qualitative transformation of the current societal relations, structures and institutions, not just the inner self. Marx has brilliantly analyzed these characteristics of “social†with special focus on its economic dimension. And his diagnosis of other dimensions of the “social†is marginal his treatment of colonial rule and dominance of the British over Ireland notwithstanding. However, it was quite legitimate to extend Marxian analysis into other spheres of social since his analysis of social goes beyond the sphere of the economy. When applying to the principle of governance, the emancipatory social science challenges the hegemonic language of constitutionalism in their dealing with citizenship, nation and community and posits that the apparent uniformity and forced homogeneity with regard to citizen, nation and community misleading and act as a cover for oppression and subjugation in multiple forms.
The two dominant languages through which the current constitutional discourse in Sri Lanka is carried out are the languages of liberalism and nationalism. While the liberals cognizes that the genesis of ethno-political conflict is a result of the organization of the post-colonial state deviating from “liberal†principles, the nationalists identifies a lack of nationalist patriotism as the cause of the conflict. The respective solutions also stem from these prognoses. Conventional liberals advocate non-ethnic nationhood, Sri Lankanness, while reformist liberals campaign for in Kymlicka’s words “taming liberal nationhood†that recognizes and respects diversity. On the other hand, nationalist writers of Sinhalas claim that the leadership of the state (state people =sinhalas in the Sri Lankan context) is critical in building a nation-state while nationalist writers of numerically small nations, especially Tamils seek self rule or autonomy for themselves.
In my opinion, both nationalists and liberals in the Sri Lankan discourse focus on the legal-institutional structure of the state and how it would be designed in order to meet their respective norms. In this sense, they operate within the broader Weberian framework that highlights the differential capacity of the state. Emancipatory social science, on the other hand, focuses on the social structural content of the state and posits that different players of the heterogeneous social structure aspire to use the state in order to satisfy their interests. This heterogeneous group may include social classes, nations, gender and other multiple social groups. Of course, different social groups have varying objectives. Some may try to influence the state by acting as pressure groups while some may try to capture the state to gain complete control. History has shown so far the social classes and nations belong to the latter group.
James Tully, in his excellent book- Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in Age of Diversity-, argues that the modern constitutionalism has to mediate two goods that may appear irreconcilable. The two goods he mentioned are freedom and the belonging. People aspire to be free from multiple bindings that may also include their own culture, place and traditions. Secondly, people also have aspiration to belong to culture, traditions and place. Tully (on page 32) writes:
“The tension between these two goods cannot be resolved or transcended, and it cannot be overcome by a rootless cosmopolitanism on one side or purified nationalism on the other. The twentieth century is a graveyard of failed attempts.â€Â
From the perspective of the emancipatory social science, two more public goods can be added to this list, namely, justice and equality. People desire to have a reasonable degree of equality in society. Social justice people are aspiring is associated with justifiable distribution of power and wealth. In the last two decades, the distribution justice was put in the back burner by emphasizing the importance of social recognition.
Taxonomy of Sri Lankan Discourse
In the Sri Lankan political discourse, liberals while standing for power-sharing arrangement to make the state more accommodative with regard to national groups posit that increased integration with the current globalization process, privatization of the economy, and the reduction of government involvement in social welfare provision would promote freedom and social justice. In one sense the “taming liberal nationhood†political project appears to be contradictory in the sense that they view the belonging as a necessary public good in the internal polity, they seem to assume the reduction of the decision-making power of the national state as natural. On this point, they encounter the nationalist agenda as it gives priority for national independence. In this sense, liberals have been painted as the agents of international forces led by metropolitan capital and controlled by the financial markets of New York, London and Frankfurt. Hence, their political proposals for power-sharing are also depicted as a part of this global project of capital. Both the JVP and the LTTE for their own reason oppose to this liberal agenda as it in their view support the over-internationalization of Sri Lankan polity. On the other hand, nationalist calls for patriotism and freedom from imperialist world forces, but argue against any system of substantial power-sharing to met the demands of numerically small national groups.
Three positions are depicted in Figure 1. The position of the JHU is not included here as I coupled social emancipation and national independence together. If social emancipation is excluded in the equation, then JHU will be located at the same place where the JVP located. If National Independence is taken out, the JHU will stand at Low-Low segment of the diagram. Emancipatory social science does not propose to reduce national oppression as something subordinated to class oppression. It posits that society is segregated on multiple grounds and in different historical conjunctures one kind of segregation may be relatively predominant. So the hegemony in such social context may be exercised in different forms. What emancipatory social science proposes is that just and humane society can me built by continuous struggle against all kind of oppression whether it exercised through the market, the state, and other institutions of social.