I don’t see this happening in Sri Lanka because it is at a stage now when politics takes precedence over economics. The military too is politicised. Politicians are largely lawyers, journalists or those trained in the humanities/social sciences. It seems to be still at the stage where it is working out its political forms, where the foremost concern among politicians is identity politics, not economics. Sorry to say, I see it as heading more towards Zimbabwe than East Asia and the Tiger economies. An alliance between Wickremasinghe and the left-wing movement, the democratisation of the left-wing movement, is the only way this path can be avoided and some political stability established, long enough for economic progress to get underway. The ethnic issue needs to be sorted out, and ethnic claims never allowed to become an issue again. In Singapore, the Tamil rights issue would never have been allowed to become so big as to lead to the LTTE. There would have been negotiation. Which is why, I suppose, I’m partial to Wickremesinghe.

Liyanage scoffs at the East Asian, South-east Asian path. Granted it meant a compromised form of democracy, but what Liyanage fails to mention is that currently, in these countries, the dynamics of globalizing are forcibly liberalising these countries (and not only in the neo-liberal manner, where the focus is only on financial, business liberalising). If Sri Lanka goes along the East Asian path, that greater democratisation will inevitably happen.

This discourse of East Asian, Southeast Asian authoritarianism is really old and tired.

A further step in the logic is that these slaves need not have the right to elect their governments. Here we are reminded that even in ‘developed’ countries it was at one time only sections of the society that had the right to elect a government. Thus, is Asian and South Asian democracy one which will have that kind of condition for the majority of the people? Here again we are reminded that ‘the middle class’ likes this style of governance. Therefore the advocacy is to have this kind of democracy for some and virtual misery for others.

Indeed, a brave new world with theoretical consistency and empirical soundness and bye-bye to civil liberties. And these civil liberties we are reminded are good only for activists! So much we have learned from the Burmese Junta.

Burmese Model

According to Mr. Liyanage in this new model freedom of expression is not a significant factor and one political party can dominate. Inner party rivalry is much more important than the existence of several parties.

Yes indeed! People have been waiting for some rivalry in the Burmese military junta to emerge for many decades now and I suppose there are a lot of inner party rivalries in Singapore. In this new East and South Asia Democracy model India and South Korea will have no place. In these countries there is still freedom of expression and multiparty democracy. Naturally, these are just following the western model. China I suppose is the model of the East Asian democracy where inner party rivalry is what the people can hope for.

Indeed, we are walking towards the brave new world of the ‘East and South Asian model’ which we hope, Mr. Liyanage will explain with great theoretical consistency and empirical substance in his future writings.

you have merged the idea of Democracy ‘people choosing to govern themselves’ with the idea of ‘civil liberties’. Democracy can exist without the absolute and unfettered exercise of civil libertise. This is a view ‘advocated’ by many western states, who themselves did not allow the same extent of civil libertise to their citizens during the development period. “have you heard of slavery in the USA”.

As you said in your article yourself, the people in Sri Lanka freely choose this ‘authoritaria’ government on their own accord. they came to their choice rationaly, choosing to compromise certain liberties on the short term for enhanced liberties, material prospertiy, economic development and long term peace. This is many democratic nations have had to make in times of war and crisis.

Prehaps, your brand of activism will be better served to correct your own kind, and your own mistakes than seeking to correct the political culture of the country. e.g practice balanced and unbiased ethical journalism.