Isn’t it horribly reactionary of me to be more partial to the State than civil society? Is it not a hallmark of liberalism, progressivism, radicalism, modernity and all things civil and good you can possibly think of, to be for and with civil society against the State? That’s only if you haven’t got much reading done recently. “I believe that the theory of civil society is completely mistaken. At any rate I should say that in the break-up of Yugoslavia just as in most other conflicts between the state and civil society, I was regularly on the side of the state.” Nope, that’s neither Milosevic nor any unsavoury friend of mine who shouldn’t be tolerated on Groundviews, but “the most dangerous philosopher in the West (New Republic), Slavoj Zizek, in ‘Philosophy is not a Dialogue’, (Badiou & Zizek, 2009, ‘Philosophy in the Present’, p 65.)
A social democracy from and of the Lankan Left would be a recipe for marginality. Sri Lanka does not need a reshuffling of the deck of the Left; it needs a strong progressive-democratic centre or centre-left. There is a need for a social democratic perspective, project or socioeconomic programme and policy platform. To have the greatest impact and do the greatest good for the greatest number in the shortest time, the social democratic project would have to be accepted and implemented by the state, sooner than later. This can happen either by a top-down approach or ‘a long march through the institutions’, recognising Nicos Poulantzas’ (neo-Gramscian) point that the state is not a monolith against which to hurl social forces but a site of contradictions and contestation with changing relations and ratios of power, subject to pressures from without and shifts from within.
Lenin once termed used the phrase “advanced Asia and backward Europe”. His point was that unlike in Europe, ‘in Asia the bourgeoisie still takes a stand against imperialism’. The argument was taken to a memorable extreme by Stalin who concluded that therefore “the Emir of Afghanistan is more progressive than the British Labour Party”—a slogan approvingly quoted in more recent years by Samir Amin. It is a perspective that acquires renewed resonance in this conjunction of the ‘Mahinda moment’ and the rise or renaissance of Asia.
Social Democracy as a ‘stand alone’ project will not take root and be sustainable. Any project must be broader, more flexible and inclusionary in Asia than it is in the West. (Mao’s ‘New Democracy’ was broader than Moscow’s Popular Front/People’s Democracy). Anywhere in Eurasia and the global south, including Latin America, a progressive political project must have a greater national-patriotic (in a multiethnic sense) dimension, privileging independence and national sovereignty. Social Democracy must be a plank – even the main plank—of a platform and programme that must be something slightly different and somewhat broader; a National Democracy and a national-popular democratic bloc. At one level, National Democracy incorporates the peasantry and at another, is virtually synonymous and interchangeable with what Vladimir Putin calls ‘Sovereign democracy’: a strong, modernising, independent state, safeguarding its unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity, pursuing a “multi-vector” foreign policy, and conscious of its distinct path and distinctive destiny in the world.
My perspective and model is of a progressive, pluralist-democratic Asian Modernity. This will be both pre-requisite and resultant of catch-up with the unfolding Asian economic miracle. Sri Lanka needs greater modernisation, openness and multiethnic national integration/nation building. The country remains, in essence, a representative multiparty democracy in an uneven and still open-ended convalescent transition. Some say Sri Lanka requires regime change, others say stability and continuity. The ‘regime change’ school regard the slogan of stability and continuity as code for totalitarianism and/or dictatorship. I argue that ‘regime change’ is neither feasible nor in the national interest. What is rational and realistic is engendering change in regime behaviour and generating ‘molecular’ regime evolution through (a) a benign, positive shift in the local ‘settings’ and conditions, and (b) constructive external engagement.
Those who reject out of hand the call for stability and continuity err and exaggerate in seeing the main danger as that of (dynastic) dictatorship. The real danger in an unqualified slogan of stability (‘stability above all’, ‘stability at any cost’) is that of stagnation. Stagnation comes from the shift from a two party system to a one –party dominant system through the failure of a competitive second party to emerge, evolve or sustain itself. ‘One- party dominant’ systems are not one party or one person dictatorships. Post-war Italy and post-war Japan under the Christian Democrats and the Liberal Democrats respectively are classic examples, as was India until 1977 and Mexico under the PRI. If Sri Lanka has shifted or is shifting to a one party dominant system or is in danger of doing so, it is the result of the Opposition’s obsolescence and ossification– as Fidel declared about the collapse of Soviet socialism, “not homicide, but suicide”. The counter to stagnation is not frontal assault; a political charge of the Light Brigade. Both instability and stagnation can be avoided and a process of modernising reforms triggered by political competition, creative initiatives, new combinations and openings, which impact on the balance of social and ideological forces.
There are only two viable vehicles for social democracy in Sri Lanka, and these are the main democratic formations, the SLFP (or SLFP-led UPFA) and the UNP. Either, both or any combination of components from these parties, should be the prospective targets for efforts at social democratisation. It is obvious though, that a leader who broke with tradition and affiliated his Party with the International Democratic Union (IDU) led by the western world’s Right, cannot be the candidate for this conversion. Today, President Rajapakse is the best representative of National Democracy and the UNP reformists identified with young Premadasa, the best bet for (pluralist) Social Democracy. While the best case scenario would be a broad ideological and value consensus, with both SLFP and UNP becoming ‘modernising national and social democratic’ formations, Sri Lanka could be almost as well served by two other scenarios: (i) one of the two major parties ‘upholding the twin banners’ of national and social democracy or (ii) one of them being the party of ‘national democracy’ while the other becomes the party of ‘social democracy’. They must compete or collude to occupy neither Right nor Left but precisely a modern, moderate, progressive centre.
Politics, like life, is a matter of choices. Choices can only be made among alternatives, existing or new. Of the alternatives available, the country is safest under Mahinda Rajapakse’s leadership, who is in any case, the popularly elected (and popular) president.
Permit me a brief detour: Serbia watered down its own draft resolution to the UNGA and agreed to one which sealed the acceptance of the secession of Kosovo. Southern Sudan votes in a referendum on independence this month, under a peace agreement signed five years back. The UN Secretary –General is being lobbied that he should play a role in managing the transition from the morning after, and helping ensure that Sudan accepts a widely expected verdict of secession. Had the Ranil Wickremesinghe-Chandrika condominium of ’05 managed to prevail over the Mahinda Rajapakse challenge, this would have been Sri Lanka’s fate, via the CFA-PTOMS. Not only did Mahinda defeat the Tigers, he didn’t blink in the face of foreign pressure and external efforts to extricate them. He also managed relations with India in such a manner as to avoid another ’87.
Does my perspective evade or justify the phenomenon of tendencies towards the abuse or monopolisation of political power? When a trend towards monopoly is observed or feared in any sector of the economy/the market, some may protest and denounce, others boycott, still others may de-link from the market and opt for communal forms of small scale production. Then there are those like myself who understand that the only real or the most effective counter to monopoly is competition, and the input most worth making is to suggest measures that make existing or potential competitors more competitive. This win-win option corrects market distortions, improves the performance and product of erstwhile monopolies which could sit on their laurels, lowers commodity prices and guarantees ensures consumer sovereignty. As in economics, so also in politics, and my transparent, constructive intellectual and ideological intervention can appear as a recommendation of passivity or a tacit defence of ‘totalitarianism’, only to the ill-informed or the irresponsible.  I just want folks to think globally, think things through, because, as Eduardo Galeano says, “Sins against hope are the only ones that attain neither forgiveness nor redemption.”(‘Aguas de Octubre’, La Jornada, Nov 1, 2004)