Today in ‘Inside Story’ we feature Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, the founder and Executive Director of the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA). He is currently a member of the Board and Bureau of South Asians for Human Rights and a member of the Board of the South Asia Regional Office of Amnesty International. In 2010, Dr. Saravanamuttu was awarded the inaugural Citizens Peace Award by the National Peace Council of Sri Lanka and in September 2013, was invited by President Obama to attend his “High-Level Event On Civil Society”, in New York.  He was appointed Secretary of the Task Force on Consultations on Mechanisms for Reconciliation (2016). In October 2019, he was invited by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to be a member of its Civil Society and Youth Fellowship  Programme at the Annual Sessions of the IMF and World Bank. He served on the Commonwealth Election Observation Teams to Malawi  (2014) and Guyana (2020).

Dr. Saravanamuttu is a Founder Director of the Sri Lanka Chapter of Transparency International and a founding Co-Convener of the Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV) and the civil society alliance the Platform for Freedom. Dr. Saravanamuttu is an alumnus of the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), University of London.

Q    There is no doubt that the Rajapaksa governments fully exacerbated the situation and drove the final nail into the coffin of Sri Lanka. But would you agree with the general view that consecutive governments of Sri Lanka have contributed to this economic meltdown with short-sighted and bad governance policies?
Yes, I would agree. Consecutive governments have treated citizens as voters and made unrealistic promises to them, which they know they cannot keep.  We have therefore a politics of paternalism and populism which breeds corruption and misgovernance.

Q    As a good governance advocate, if you were to turn back the clock, what specific government policies of yesteryears would you roll back and find alternatives for, to reverse the fate of SL? 
We need a new social contract and constitution which embeds and celebrates the diversity of Sri Lanka.  We need to dispense with in its entirety, the politics of majoritarianism, the politics of hurt and harm and hate and eliminate the cancer of impunity in our public life.  There has to be transparency in public affairs and accountability for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity and for corruption.  We must have a social contract for a decent and civilized society -one in which institutions do not humiliate citizens and citizens do not humiliate each other. Human rights must be protected and strengthened and the rule of law must prevail. There has to be a political and constitutional settlement of the ethnic conflict. At present no agency of government functions – we are in effect a failed state.  The executive presidency has to be abolished because it is the most egregious and insidious impediment to governance in the country and we need to disperse power throughout the land.   

We have to wean ourselves away from the culture of subsidy which breeds entitlement – of being looked after from cradle to grave by the state. I would prune the public sector and halt further recruitment. For a population of 22 million, we have over 1.5 million on the public payroll. This is unsustainable and moreover unnecessary.  Every political party promises 10,000 more jobs if they get into government and Rs10,000 salary increases for everyone in the public service.  This will take us from being a Greece to a Lebanon! Furthermore, after the war, we have not demobilized. Consequently, we have over 250,000 under arms.  Again, this is unnecessary and unsustainable.  The military budget is huge and keeps rising, eclipsing the amounts spent on health and education. Why do we need such a large army – where is the national security threat that it is meant to meet?  I will also sell off the gigantic loss-making, state-owned enterprises. Reform of the agricultural sector too has to be seriously considered as well as root and branch reform of education – particularly the curriculum.  We should have a tri-lingual school system and the choice of medium of instruction made available to all.  Very importantly, children should be taught how to be citizens of a functioning democracy, and religion, if it must be taught in school, must be comparative religion.  The two-mile limit for school admissions must be scrapped as it invites corruption.
We must be aware that we are an aging population of which 52% are women and be alive to the consequences of this.  We cannot afford to miss the bus yet again as we have done with depressing regularity.

Q    Would you agree that  PM SWRD’s official language policy of making Sinhala the official language, to have been the genesis of the 30-year war? And if so would you also rest the blame on him for perhaps striking one of the first nails in the coffin?
Yes, the Sinhala Only Act was a key contributory factor for the ethnic conflict. Mr. Bandaranaike alone though should not be held solely responsible for what followed although he was primarily responsible.  His pact with the Federal Party leader Mr Chelvanayagam, should have been implemented. Mr J.R. Jayawardene and the UNP opposed it along with members of the Sangha.  No subsequent government sought to undo this damage. It was only the Indo- Sri Lanka Accord of 1987 that led to Tamil becoming an official language – the version in our constitution is that Tamil will “also” be an official language! – and brought in provincial devolution, however flawed. It was the Chandrika Kumaratunga government that brought in proposals in the Constitution Bill of August 2000 for a Union of Regions and meaningful devolution. 

Q    How will you compare the socialist regime of Mrs. B of 70 to 77 vis-a-vis the capitalist free economy introduced by JRJ in 77 et seq? That is to say, where in these two regimes did the two governments err in policy terms that may have contributed towards this eventual economic death of the country, if you do view some of their policies to have contributed towards this result in any measure? 
The economic policies of Mrs Bandaranaike’s regime were in the main, disastrous and were compounded by the JVP insurgency and the oil price shock.  Stifling the initiative of the people, food rationing and the ‘chit’ system for employment nurtured corruption under the misguided notion of self-sufficiency and economic autarky.  The republican constitution introduced by the regime also enshrined the unitary state, made Sinhala the official language of the country, and gave Buddhism the majority religion, the “foremost” place.  Although the economic situation under this regime was not as devastating as the current situation, it is still referred to as the worst we have experienced in the past. 

Q    Mrs B nationalized profit-making private ventures such as the estate sector and chased away the foreign oil companies who went and started their ventures in Singapore (and see today’s result). On the other hand, JRJ introduced a free economy without setting up safety nets to prevent corruption, and look where that got us. Also, JRJ introduced 78 constitutions...
The Jayawardene regime’s open economic policies were the right way to go. In government for 12 years, I believe the policy of privatization was skewed and we ended up with state capitalism and less genuine capitalism of the citizen. The space for corruption was magnified in comparison to the petty corruption under its predecessor- ‘let the robber barons come’, the president was quoted as saying. Governance too was dealt a major blow by the introduction of the Executive Presidency, which according to its architect gave him all the powers except that of changing the sex of a person!  The rationale for the executive presidency was that economic development required strong government – however, whilst Mr Jayawardene was President we had civil wars in the north and in the south of the country.  Politics and economics cannot be separated.  We are still paying for the opportunity costs of the economic investment foregone by the majoritarian and populist policies of these two regimes, laced with a not inconsiderable dose of authoritarianism. And very fundamentally the ethnic division nurtured and exacerbated by these regimes, deepened divisions amongst the people.  A divided people with simmering resentment and bitterness can never succeed...

Q    CPA filed a fundamental rights application challenging the appointment of Dhammika Perera to parliament on a national seat, and the court dismissed your case refusing leave to proceed. What was of such concern for CPA to litigate the issue when there are many more pressing issues? Don’t you think given the scarcity of resources right now perhaps one must select ones battles?
CPA is an organization that works on civil society’s contribution to governance and I do not think that our public interest litigation, in this case, detracted from our other work in this field. The importance of our petition derives from the importance of Parliament the lawmaking institution of our formal if flawed democracy.  Parliament or the legislature is one of the key institutions of governance along with the executive and the legislature. Therefore, who becomes an MP is of fundamental importance to us all. Apart from the issue of Mr. Perera not being on any list at the point of election thereby violating a key tenet of parliamentary democracy – electors must know who the candidates are when they cast their ballot – conflict of interest, given Mr Perera’s colossal business involvements, stands out as a key issue in the suitability and acceptability of this appointment. With regard to choosing our battles, I do not think that this is one that we should have ignored precisely because of the major and significant conflict of interest issues.  CPA has petitioned the Court in the past, albeit without success, on the appointment of Mr Ratnasiri Wickremanayake and Field Marshal Fonseka as National List MPs. Yes, we dropped the ball on Basil Rajapaksa’s appointment. Unfortunately, no one else picked it up. However, as I said earlier, Dhammika Perera’s appointment to Parliament and now as the Minister for Investment Promotion and Technology is a very serious issue of conflict of interest.

Q    Do you think the current PM, Ranil Wickremesinghe is handling the current economic crisis in the best way possible, or is there room for improvement? 
The jury is still out, though I think he is doing his best given the circumstances of having to rely on SLPP support and no conditions for his taking the job.  The social welfare network and support to the poorest sections of the population whose numbers are increasing are key. Effective communication of what the government is doing and why is vitally essential.

Q    Do you feel that young Sri Lankans have become a force to contend with or are they losing momentum? 
I do believe that young Sri Lankans are a force to be reckoned with – they have forced Mahinda Rajapaksa to resign and his brother Basil too. Most importantly in their non-violent struggle, they have presented a vision of what Sri Lanka should and could be – non-violent and respecting, as well as celebrating our ethnic and religious diversity. This must be maintained.  I do hope that they will move from being a struggle of protest to active political involvement in the next round of elections and also focus on ways out of the crisis without detriment to their key demand with respect to the current president and accountability for the alleged theft of funds.  We need fresh, constructive, and innovative thinking in our politics and they can certainly contribute this.

Q    If asked would you rise to the challenge and take up politics?  
Electoral politics? Why not?.

Q    In the event that a stable government is not put in place in the very near future, what are CPA’s predictions for the future of Sri Lanka?
The President has said that he does not want to go down in history as a failure, that he will complete his term, and that he will not seek another.  The protestors maintain their demand that he should go and have now included the current Prime Minister as well.  Where this situation remains, change will have to wait upon a presidential election in 2024 and a general election in 2025. Therefore, we have a stalemate. I see an oxymoronic quality to it because we are in a dire economic situation and both economically and politically there is a dynamism and a number of imponderables, stalemate notwithstanding.  Things will get worse before they get better.  Internationally too there are events that arise from the Ukrainian invasion, which will not help. The worst situation is one of the violent demonstrations, which the army will be called upon to quell. What follows from that is uncertain and there are those who believe that the army will not use force against the citizenry because their families too are affected by the dire economic circumstances. I think the President is in a sort of comfort zone having left the economy to be managed by the Prime Minister. He, in turn, is entirely dependent on other parties to stay in government, given that he is the only MP from his party.  Were the government to be able to diffuse the gas, diesel, and petrol situation, and stave off further malnutrition and starvation, the anger and frustration in the streets could abate.  That is a huge challenge though. The politicking will continue – first with regard to presidential contenders and second with regard to the policy platform for the general election.   We will probably get an agreement with the IMF, but it will take time and the conditions it comes with, will not be acceptable to all. That is why we need a credible and stable government that will communicate with the people and whom the people can and will trust to shepherd them out of this crisis. In the ultimate analysis, I believe that we will take a decade to come out of this onto a sure and steady pathway to peace, recovery, and growth.

Q    With a history of corruption at every level and an overloaded public sector, what checks and balances and re-organization of this sector need to take place?
The checks and balances on the exercise of executive power are absolutely pivotal – from the oversight commissions to parliamentary committees and civil society watchdogs.  The independence, integrity, expertise, and experience of the public service are of fundamental importance. There has to be accountability and transparency.

Q    Sri Lanka is now in the stranglehold of the US, India, and China, all of whom do not have our best interests at heart. If you were in government which would you opt for?
I do not believe that we are in any stranglehold. This crisis is one of our own doing. The shortcomings and defects in government and governance have accumulated throughout the years. The Rajapaksas through their greed and corruption and flagrant violation of human rights and the championing of majoritarian authoritarianism, epitomize the grave and the dire crisis of governance. They are responsible for the current situation we are in and hence GOTA MUST GO.  Our foreign policy too was skewed until circumstances force us to acknowledge geopolitical and historic realities.  The Chinese gave the Rajapaksas funds as well as a certain amount of diplomatic protection in international fora against the allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity.  They, the Rajapaksas, behaved shamelessly and irresponsibly towards the US over the Millennium Challenge grant and Japan over the Light Rail Transit.  Of course, in international politics all countries have interests and pursue them – no one acts out of sheer and complete benevolence.  We need to go back to being smart about our foreign policy. Were, I in government I would tailor a policy of non-alignment – an achievement of the government from 1970-77-to our current needs.  India has come to our rescue handsomely in the current crisis, the Chinese less so and there is the prospect of them refusing to take a hair -cut with regard to how much we owe them and this in turn is delaying the restructuring of our debt.  We cannot forget India’s interests in South Asia and we must free ourselves from our own insecurities and fears.

Q    It is obvious that  Sri Lanka has regressed, do you think we can emerge from this quagmire of debt and corruption in the next five years?
We MUST

Q    Whither Sajith and the SJB?
They have taken a stand on the principle to stay out of government and they must communicate this to the people effectively. There could be a problem though in supporting the government on the economy and opposing it politically, particularly Mr. Wickremasinghe.  That elements within the SJB could work with the UNP cannot be discounted.  The SJB need to come out with a clear strategy of what they intend to do to get Gota out and abolish the executive presidency before the next presidential and general elections.   Or else they will have to spend time organizing for the comprehensive defeat of the Rajapaksas and the abolition of the executive presidency in 2024 and 25.  

Q What are your personal predictions for Sri Lanka?
We will come through, but we have to pull together to mitigate as much as possible the damage this crisis has done and is continuing to do, to us.

By Anusha David