Photo by Reuters, via South China Morning Post
The term ‘Colombo liberal’ is one that’s almost always used as a pejorative. Elitist, out of touch, NGO-kaarayas and foreign agents are among the many accusations frequently levelled at this group who are typically native English speakers, middle-class, educated, civic minded, and readers of this platform.
Often these accusations are baseless. The criticisms are often levelled by the emerging power elite who are yet to break out of a colonial hangover which leads to deep insecurities on how they speak English (helped in no small part by the unpardonable elitism of some who fallen within the moniker of ‘Colombo liberals’). More often, the liberals value proposition is anathema to anti-democratic, ethnic majoritarian political actors who (rightly) see the liberals as political adversaries. However, contrary to popular belief, most liberals are not rich in dollars. They also do not enjoy the perks of board positions in SOEs, government vehicles, preferential tax breaks and other highly lucrative perks that their politically patronaged adversaries enjoy. Many of them are political, but not partisan and therefore opportunities personal enrichment enjoyed by their political opponents. In short, in a flawed world, the civic-minded Colombo liberal is a plus to society, rather than a minus (or so the authors would like to believe).
However, recent events, the authors will argue, have exposed a serious flaw amongst the otherwise benign lot that is lumped together as ‘Colombo Liberals’.
Ranil’s Recalcitrance
Ranil Wickremesinghe, 5-time Prime Minister and leader of the UNP for 25 years, is widely regarded by liberals as the ‘last liberal’ leader in mainstream politics. Mr. Wickremesinghe is viewed as the only bulwark standing against a tide of undesirables that will wreak ethnocentric, illiberal, havoc in the country, should this last bastion of liberalism fall. However, the authors will argue that Ranil is not a liberal and has not served the liberal cause well. We believe, that our own biases towards someone who speaks the language of liberals (both English and liberalism) has been allowed for too long to masquerade as its champion, when, in fact, he has done it a great disservice and now stands to damage it further.
The examples of this are too numerous to discuss, but let us examine five of unique significance;
Yahapalanaya failed because of Ranil, not just the president
It is easy to blame the ‘village yokel’ for the failed promise of good governance but a fair assessment would surely place as much or more blame of yahapalanaya’s failure on Ranil. It was Ranil who let the bond scandal slide by appointing crony committees instead of a credible investigation that eroded the confidence in government to a point of no return. All the government’s good will and political capital was spent on defending a scam, not on constitutional reform or transitional justice.
Ranil set fire to a liberal constitution, literally[1]
History matters, and Ranil’s history reeks of illiberalism. Compared to the hairsplitting interrogation of statements and parental history of other UNP leaders that have had no opportunity to build a national track-record such as Sajith Premadasa, we never force ourselves to confront Ranil’s deeply chequered past when evaluating his liberal credentials. Sajith and others may not speak to liberalism in cocktail parties the way Ranil does. But, neither have they led the sabotaging a window to meaningfully advance a liberal agenda the way Ranil has when he sabotaged the most liberal document our parliament has seen, the draft constitution of 2000. That he repeated this in 2015 is surely unpardonable, but yet we pardon him without a second thought.
Ranil tried to muzzle the media
A now long forgotten move in 2016/17 was that Ranil tried to bring in an act to give government discretionary power to muzzle the media. The act, titled in blatantly misleading fashion as the ‘Independent Council for News Media Standards Act’ was an unashamed attempt to replace by law, the control previously exercised over the media by fear and violence. While Sri Lanka’s media leaves much to be desired in form, content and honesty, this act did not attempt to create rules of principles. Rather it attempted to give the media minister discretionary power, who in turn could to appoint a council with discretionary power to control the media. Another such illiberal amendment to the penal code on hate speech is waiting in the wings as this article is being written. Such acts in a Rajapaksa era would have led to a frenzy of liberal panic, not so under Ranil.
Ranil’s ‘backdoor liberalism’ has failed us more than we realize
We also forget that Ranil has never really championed liberalism in the public sphere. While a handful of yahapalanites like Mangala Samaraweera, in blustering fashion, have actually spoken up for/paid lip service to the liberal view, Ranil never has. Digana, Wayamba and other attacks on religious minorities offered a space for liberal leadership as did the constitutional reform process, but Ranil avoided the political costs of confronting illiberal ideas and instead led us down a path where any liberal policy is vulnerable to a complete reversal the moment an illiberal government comes to power (as it does in any democracy). In denying others a chance at leadership and not leading himself, Ranil has silenced liberals in favour of a foolish Faustian bargain of promising liberal ends through illiberal means.
Ranil is the worst autocrat in the UNP’s history (arguably)
We all know that today, any vaguely democratic process within the UNP would see neither Ranil nor other candidate liked by liberals (i.e. Karu) become the UNP nominee. Any conversation with party activists, public declarations of UNP coalition partners and a majority of the MP group all signal that any semblance of party democracy would see the UNP name its deputy leader as their presidential nominee. As liberals, we do not have to like this, but we should not deny this in favour of illiberalism. We should also again not forget Ranil’s history of ruling the party for 25 years through changing the rules, fear, and expulsion of dissenters, thereby converting the UNP to an autocratic model that would be envied by the Rajapaksas. (a UNP dissenters account can be found here http://www.themorning.lk/time-is-running-out-for-our-grand-old-party/ )
Yet, despite all the evidence and red flags, we liberals continue to amplify Ranil’s propaganda and ignore basic facts. A clear example is the obvious reality of how a secretive attempt to abolish the executive presidency after an election has been announced is surely suspicious, definitely illiberal and potentially ruinous. How have none of us asked to see a draft or demanded consultation on the arrangements that will follow? How are we comfortable of the obvious political chicanery at play and don’t even frame our support for it as pragmatic rather than principled? We also ignore the fact that some among us are now holding positions of authority and power and owe those appointments to Ranil; something we surely would question more if they were political appointees of any other politician.
Conclusion: the license we’ve afforded Ranil has now gone too far
What we the writers hope from this piece is not to criticize, but to prompt genuine introspection among those who identify as holding liberal value. It is also not a bid to call for supporting a specific candidate. The UNP does not belong to liberals and there is no need to support the party to identify as a liberal. Rather, this is a plea coming from those who share liberal ideas and know that we are a minority in this country; a plea to reflect on whether we want to be liberals first, and then seek a champion, or to compromise our liberalism for an illiberal liberal. Finally, we’ve kept ourselves anonymous as this is, in the language of the internet an ‘unpopular opinion’ and we hope the readers can focus more on the arguments, and not the writers.