By Siri Gamage –

Dr. Siri Gamage

In my opinion, attempts by some to read and analyse the nature of current NPP government as left or right is not only premature but erroneous. I recognise that there are elements of so-called left and right in NPP but this does not mean that the governing party as a whole can be characterised in such binary terms. What do we mean by left or right anyway? Sri Lankan commentators usually ascribe left to denote Marxist thought and practice. Right is considered as those who align with free market economy with capitalist or neo liberal leanings together with a strong democratic (or authoritarian) government led by so-called liberals.

The NPP government is in the process of systematically reforming political and administrative culture to reduce corruption and waste on one hand and reviving economically significant enterprises and government affiliated entities on the other. In terms of the economy, it has to reform and revitalise the existing economic activities and government support structures in the short term like repairing an old car to be able to run again. The government is not able to create miracles in the short term but restart economically significant activities in order to make the economic engine operational again for the benefit of the country and its population e.g. tourism in this effort it is not bothered by labels. Rather its interest is to identify what works and how to mobilise energies and investments -both public and private- to achieve the goals illustrated in the NPP agenda. I would characterise the economic endeavours as one of a mixed economy. The approach adopted for government policy is one of pragmatism rather than anything else. Once the ship is steady, more ambitious steps can be taken after a systematic evaluation of successes and failures as well as challenges facing specific sectors. Sectoral strategies for development, social justice, system change etc are far more important at this critical juncture than any slogans and pretentions.

It is also premature to judge the government’s popularity or otherwise from a few cooperative society elections so soon after two national elections held a few months back. I do not believe that “What we are seeing is an accelerated replay of the trajectory of the center-left United Front government of 1970 which enjoyed a two-thirds majority”(Dayan Jayatilleka, Colombo Telegraph). This is because the current government is not led by a United Front (Samagi Peramuna) as the one led by former PM Sirima Bandaranaike. In that government, those who were from the left were in minority though they were learned intellectuals who were advancing a progressive agenda within the government. In contrast, in the NPP government I believe those who advance a progressive and socially just agenda are in the majority. In fact, the top echelons in the NPP government are made up of committed and altruistic leaders who have been in the anti-establishment political project for a long time and possess an ability to read the current situation facing the country and what needs to be done to correct the path and achieve national goals to make a clean and prosperous country. The context is also different. Whereas the 1970 government was pre-1977 government that led the way for free market neoliberal economy and an executive Presidency that centralised power in the hands of one individual, 2024 NPP government is one formed on the basis of a national need to reform both the economy and polity as well as the social fabric after decades of decay, corruption, waste, exploitation and indebtedness. Unlike in 1970, in 2024 there was no armed insurgency brewing in the background. The 1970 government restricted imports severely whereas the 2024 NPP government is not planning to do so. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

It is also highly erroneous to characterise the current government as “pivoting more sharply rightwards– the ISB sellout—and adopting in an ultimate irony, the program of Ranil, son of Esmond Wickremesinghe..”(Jayatilleka). Whether you like or not, governments in the global south cannot afford to base their decisions on a given ideology. They have to work with the global and regional economic, political and social systems one way or another not only to survive but also to prosper and bring benefits to the local population. This does not mean a wholesale embracing of everything foreign as if they are more superior to local thought and practice in various sectors. It means that we have to be selective in who we as a country to deal with, in what way and for what purpose? In some cases, mutual benefit is the marker. In others, mutual dependence can be the marker. If we are desperate, we cannot afford either.

As the new leaders get more experience, knowledge and understanding about the scale of predicament that the country is facing, options available for rectifying inefficient or neglected enterprises, sectors, projects and plans, I am sure the collective leadership in the NPP will take further measures in the national interest. Already the government has taken significant steps to streamline the administration, identify the directions to move, distinguish friend from the foe, and layout a program of action well rooted on the ground and the government vision. When the next budget is presented in February 2024, we will be able to understand the direction and actions the government is planning to take in terms of investments and expenditures for various sectors.

If we are to provide a theoretical context, I would argue that what we need to do is to apply postcolonial and/or decolonial thought and proposals coming from various writers like Walter Mignolo, Raewyn Connell, Bhambra, Said Farid Alatas -to name a few- to read the macro context that Sri Lanka is positioned in the unequal global system e.g. dependency not Lenin or Marx as such. Political and social theory has moved forward in the past few decades so much even from the thinking and writing by intellectuals in the global south, we cannot afford to be comparing what happened in 1970 with what is happening in 2025 in relation to one former colony like Sri Lanka. We need much more grounded thinking and theorising based on local and global experiences to be able to articulate the directions of a given nation without making bold errors.

Finally, As Jayatilleka states, can we say that the NPP government sold out the country local and foreign bond holders? or criticise it for deeper entanglement of Sri Lanka with rival big powers? What if Ranil continued in power and followed the same prescriptions and procedures? Is he proposing that we as a country do not deal respectfully with the two regional powers for mutual benefit? If the former government continued, we would have certainly seen true sell outs of national assets. Some countries in the region have decided to deal with China for national benefit e.g. Malaysia. Others have aligned with the US e.g. Australia, South Korea and Japan. India is aligned with the Western powers as well as Russia. ASEAN countries follow different approaches when dealing with big powers depending on their national interests.

Reasonable and open criticism of the government and its policy directions is necessary and justified. However, unjustified criticisms based on a lousy comparison and outdated theory are not in order especially so soon after a new government is in place and working to clean the mess and develop a clear path forward for the benefit of all -not a selected few.