Archive of South Asia Citizens Wire | feeds from sacw.net | @sacw
Home > General > Sri Lanka: The ’Old Left’ writing itself out of contention

Sri Lanka: The ’Old Left’ writing itself out of contention

by Lynn Ockersz, 22 February 2010

print version of this article print version

From: The Island (Colombo), 20 February 2010

In developments that are somewhat reflective of India’s North-East, where the country’s Marxist parties are registering a steadily waning influence, Sri Lanka’s traditional or ‘Old’ Left parties seem to be finding themselves redundant and not very much in the reckoning in contemporary local politics. So much so, they have to strain every nerve, apparently, to win slots to contest the forthcoming general election. Their current effort to find accommodation within the UPFA to run for election in some selected districts bears this out.

This is a sad position to be in for political parties, such as the Communist Party of Sri Lanka (CPSL) and the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP), which were looked up to at one time for their principled politics, in regard to particularly the ethnic conflict, and the generally vibrant role they played in public affairs over the decades. It is not that the traditional Left parties were not noted for entering into opportunistic alliances with particularly the majoritarian-inclined SLFP in the past, and were thereby found to dilute their well reasoned policy positions on questions, such as, the ethnic issue, but those supporting Left principles in this country at least had the consolation of reflecting that the voice of the traditional Left parties was heard and respected. This was not less true of the South than of the North-East. This voice and authority, unfortunately, have now fallen into decline and the ‘Old Left’ could no longer be considered as carrying any substantial political and intellectual clout.

The Left parties concerned, perhaps, need hardly be reminded that commanding respect and playing a meaningful role in public affairs is not just a case of possessing the ‘required’ numbers in representative and governing fora. There was the case of the late Sarath Muttetuwegama, who as the CP MP for Kalawana and the only Left member in Parliament in the early eighties, proved to be one of the very few ‘sane’ voices in Sri Lanka’s legislature on the ethnic issue at the time. His voice was respected and heeded in literally all parts of the country. At the news of his sudden demise, white flags were hoisted in even the North, we are told. The CP, at that time, may have been represented by a single member in Parliament, but on account of Muttetuwegama’s outstanding stature as a politician, backed by his debating prowess, the Left in general came to be perceived as playing an important role in the country’s affairs.

So, wielding a beneficial influence was a question of possessing quality and not merely quantity, and the ‘Old Left’ proved that it possessed the former in abundance and was viewed with some deference by the public on that score. Nor did the Left at that time consider it all that vital to wield position and power within governing structures. It made a positive impact on public perceptions with almost negligible numbers in governing fora and this was ample proof of its ‘clout’.

It would be superfluous to mention now that the Left was instrumental in passing some of the most progressive pieces of legislation in this country’s parliamentary history, with the Paddy Lands Act of the late fifties, for instance, still standing as one of the most vital instruments of redistributive justice. One would also be labouring the obvious by saying that intellectual giants of the Left, such as, Drs S.A. Wickremasinghe, Colvin R. de Silva, N.M. Perera and Phillip Gunawardena, to name just four, were outstanding law makers in Sri Lanka’s post-independence years. Suffice it to mention that they represented ‘quality’ in the Left and they more than amply made up for any ‘deficient’ numbers.

How is it that just over a couple of decades after the demise of the above ‘greats’, the ‘Old Left’ has come to be seen in some sections as a ‘disposable quantity’, so much so, it is obliged to push its case with the currently governing UPFA, for a few positions in the latter’s nomination lists of candidates for the approaching parliamentary poll?

There are, certainly, no simple answers to issues of this kind but there is no disputing, on surveying some of the broader tendencies within the relevant parties, that the ‘Old Left’ has made it too much of a habit to go back on some of its principles. One of these is to say ‘no’ to ethno-populism. Another is to staunchly oppose capitalist prescriptions of ‘development’.

The traditional Left has not easily said ‘no’ in the past to positions and ‘employment opportunities’ offered by particularly those governments which have come to be seen as left of centre in orientation, but it could not be argued that we have had a substantial dilution of Left policy until a few years ago and this has happened amid the gathering perception in some quarters that a political solution to the ethnic issue is not exactly a crying need now. The end result is the belief that the ‘Old Left’ has nothing much to offer to the discourse on taking Sri Lanka into a more stable and wholesome future. Consequently, the ‘Old Left’ has allowed its influence to wane in the country’s politics.

This state of things, from the viewpoint of the progressive-minded, could be most discouraging, to say the least. It is not clear whether the traditional Left too has docilely clambered on to the economic liberalization band wagon. If it has done so, it certainly has no political future, for, the ‘Old Left’ could also be said to have come under the mesmeric allure of the economic prescriptions of global capitalism. However, if the ‘Old Left’ preferred to critique the ‘development’ paradigm at present thrust on the developing countries by the capitalist West, and assiduously practised worldwide, it would have more than amply given a good account of itself and proved its usefulness in the country’s public life.

This opportunity to be a constructive critic of the neo-liberal political and economic agenda is a chance going a begging because the developing countries could in no way be satisfied with the way economic liberalization has served them thus far. Has not the income gap between the minority rich and the majority poor, for instance, alarmingly widened within countries over the past two decades?

If the ‘Old Left’ chose to take a critical stance on these issues, it could not have functioned as a partner of governments which have embraced neo-liberalism, which in turn means that it would have had to be out of power. However, opting to be out of power would have been a sacrifice well worth making because the ‘Old Left’ would have played an effective role in moulding the country’s future and retained some of the respect of the public.

Given that crucial issues, such as the poverty gap and Sri Lanka’s ethnic issue, are remaining unresolved, the ‘Old Left’, it could be argued, could contest polls in this country independently and prove a positive force in changing public perceptions for the better. But secure employment with the state would need to be sacrificed.