Thanks. No worries. I do not take it personally. There is plenty of truth in what you say. Perhaps I will eloborate some of these points in another article.

Cheers
Jude

Dear Mr Liyanage

Thanks. Actually, the article is a critical of the government (Perhaps I should have been little more clear about that). But the point of the article was only to show that the JVP and UNP are unable to give leadership to a social movement that will create democracy and good governance, because they are entrenched within the same system that seek to transform. A same time the notion of good governance and democracy need to be understood (not reducible to) in relation to historical development of capitalism in the country. I totally agree with your criticism of the government, including what you say about Rail’s role in breaking Karuna from the LTTE. No one can deny these facts. But I have no reason to believe that the JVP and UNP can make a difference. I think that we have to think about these issues outside the context of two parties. What is happening today is that the notions of good governance and democracy have been hijacked by the two parties and they do not mean much!

Cheers
Jude

Your article indirectly try to appreciate the Govt.as a winning party which rule the country successfully.But where is democracy and good governance. Before the elections every politician and political parties strongly emphasis the need of doing away with presidential rule.(SLFP, JHU, Chandrika JVP, Maha Sanga ) but what had happened so far. Why all elections are not held simultaneously.What about the corruptions, media freedom, open violation of election laws, crime committed by Mervin attacking people in public, gun culture – violation of human rights.
I never hesitate to appreciate the victory over the LTTE, but it must be treated as great effort of all: people, all forces,Sarath Fonseka even Ranil whose creation of disunity by breaking out Karuna from the LTTE. These are some of the criticisms which I like to adduce.

Dear Jude,
Nothing personal was meant. It was merely a perspective of a consumer who had difficulty reading it as quickly as he would normally prefer to read an article. Mostly I could not quickly come to a conclusion about the basic thesis of the article and thus lost interest. It does not mean that your ideas are irrelevant but I just did not take the time to read them after trying to get through the first paragraph and quickly browsing through the rest. Hope this helps. Perhaps my confusion arose from the article being a condensed version of what should be a book with detailed chapters. Some of the detailed thinking is missing and seem to require a capacity in the reader to read between the lines.

e.g. the statement “The JVP and the JHU are alike in the sense that they both provide ideological legitimacy for the capitalist project. The only difference is that the JVP does it by using Marxist rhetoric” requires the sort of elaboration and justification a reader would demand, before coming to that conclusion (as interesting as it may be).

Thanks. Partly, I agree with you that in the article there are too many ideas, they are somewhat disconnected and need further development. This is partly due to time and space constraints.

BTW, I find your notion of word-salad is very interesting as a metaphor. You see the contemporary political cultures are like salads. They are fragmented, fluid, and full of mystifications and many different social movements demanding many different things etc. Many in these cultures celebrate difference, relativism, and contingency. Yet none of these can escape the universality and the colonizing logic of capitalism. Today capitalism is showing remarkable capacity to discipline (even by using the language and practices of its opponents) the diversity, fragmentation, contingency etc., to make them function according to the logic of capital. It is the heterogeneity, not the homogeneity of political practices that better explain the survival of capitalism, at least for now! This is precisely what explains the current election results and the survival of the MR regime.

Hi Dayan

Your observation further explains my point about nationalism. Anyways, if the children practice the ideals of their Leftwing parents, then this world would have had more sincere and progressive intellectuals.

Cheers
Jude

Yes, I agree with you that there were too many ideas in the article, and they were somewhat disconnected and need further development. This was partly a matter of space and time limitations. However, the basic message of the article is clear i.e. historical failures of the UNP and JVP to facilitate a space for democracy with justice and equality. The article does not say that “UPFA will achieve justice and equality.” It seeks to generate a dialogue outside the two main parties, particularly without the UNP.

1-If you understand the government in terms of Michael Foucault’s notion of “governmentality, the notion of a de facto national governmentis a reality in practice, not simply a theoretical construct.

2-“No reason is given for this limitation so what he really is saying is that if we focus only what UPFA has achieved then they are the achievers – obviously.”

It is limited because such nationalism is not about justice and equality, but their misplacement and lack of respect etc.

3- “Which does not explain where the voluntary or involuntary non participation of Tamil voters figured in the victory”

Yes, this is a valid point. Still it does not negate the fact that the war against terrorism was a powerful voter mobilizer.

4-“ how can a government that tries to ‘remove barriers (like civil rights)’ achieve ‘democracy, equality and justice’? Which he argues the UPFA will achieve after the UNP and JVP are defeated. Unless of course its democracy, equality and justice without the barriers of civil rights!”

This is completely a wrong observation/misreading of the article
The article does not say that the Rajapakshe government will achieve democracy with justice and equality. It simply says that defeat of the UNP and JVP could create a space for democratic politics provided there is new thinking.

The point repeated in the article is that the politics of of the UNP and JVP are obstacles to guide the society towards such political culture.

Democracy with equality and justice and capitalism do not go together or can coexist. Both the UNP and JVP do not engage with this incompatibility due to their respective ideological orientations. Ironically, both acheive the same results.

5- “but that is not what the UN has to say about good governance”

The UN (for that matter WB, IMF, WTO) and NGO definitions of good governance need to be understood in relation to neoliberal policies. One has to go beyond the language and discourse, although discourse analysis matters. One has to historicize and contextualize the notion of good governance.

The popularity of the government does not mean it is just and fair!

1. The article starts of by saying that another ‘humiliating’ defeat ‘would certainly improve the country’s future prospects for democracy with equality and justice.’

This is not just difficult to sell in theory, it does not make sense in practice. I think the author knows this and so makes the exclusion that,

‘In fact, what we have today is a de facto national government…. This fact is clear if we think about the government in terms of governance: that is, the configuration and exercise of power relations, as opposed to the machinations of political parties and individual politicians.’

In other words if we ignore reality i.e. – machination of political parties and individual politicians – we have a national governement – hurrah – in theory.

2. And then he says that UPFA gets things done ‘if we limit the scope of the nationalism project to defeating the LTTE and Tamil sub-nationalism, delaying demands for devolution, state control over the political and economic affairs of the northeast’ [and a few similar UPFA achievements]

No reason is given for this limitation so what he really is saying is that if we focus only what UPFA has achieved then they are the achievers – obviously. If we look only at all the races I won – I would have won all the races and so the best runner!

3. Then he writes –

‘President Rajapaksa’s victory in 2002 was not only an expression of public frustrations over his predecessors’ handling of war against terrorism’ – which does not explain where the voluntary or involuntary non participation of Tamil voters figured in the victory – unless they are not part of ‘public frustrations’.

4. He then argues:

‘The UNP and JVP critiques of a Rajapaksha “dictatorship” and the militarization of Sri Lanka are simply masks the fact that the government’s main commitment and agreement with the international community are to remove the barriers (like civil rights) that prevent them from adjusting society, culture, economy, religion, morality and environment to the dictates of capital.’

The factural acuracy of this is in doubt – because from what I read in the press the Int’l Comm is for ‘rights’ – but yet looking at it theoretically – how can a government that tries to ‘remove barriers (like civil rights)’ achieve ‘democracy, equality and justice’? Which he argues the UPFA will achieve after the UNP and JVP are defeated. Unless of course its democracy, equality and justice without the barriers of civil rights!

5. This is a bit bizarre:

‘ “Good governance” is about ensuring that state action will not lead to market failures or a reduction of efficiency….’

Who defines it this way? Apart from the author of course.

6. Then he says

‘Proponents of “good government” are disinterested in or silent in instances where good governance requires justice and equality. It is the antithesis of government in which people’s needs are placed above their ability to pay.’

but that is not what the UN has to say –

see ‘http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp’

Are we still talking about the same good governance is it a theoretical good governance with the ‘ifs’ and ‘limits’?

In any case how does that go with your start that UPFA will achieve justice and equality?

These are some key points – many more can be highlighted.

Jude at least writes with a passion. His arguments makes more sense to be than yours. You write your articles out of getting big posts and settle old scores.