Sri Lanka: SLFP Reforms within the Political

Party System

by Laksiri Fernando- Oct 18, 2017

( October 18, 2017, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) Reforms in political parties are
necessary in the process of democratisation of any country, however on the
condition that those are progressive and democratic, and not regressive or
authoritarian. In the history of political parties in Sri Lanka there have been many
splits, famously in the Left parties, and formation of new parties, but very few
attempts at reforming parties within and in the democratic direction.
The political party system is not something adequately studied in Sri Lanka
especially in recent times. When Howard Wriggins wrote his nearly 500 page
book, Ceylon: Dilemmas of a New Nation (1960), he had a chapter on political
parties and noted the importance of the formation of the SLFP in 1951, breaking
away from the UNP, for the evolution of a competitive and possibly two party
system.
More comprehensive and a focused study came from Calvin A. Woodward in 1969
titled The Growth of a Party System in Ceylon, with whom I associated very
closely at the University of New Brunswick. James Jupp also focused on the
political party system, in a critical manner, in his Sri Lanka: Third World
Democracy in 1978. K. M. De Silva, as a foremost modern historian, and A. J.
Wilson, as a leading political scientist, also paid attention on the subject in many
of their books.
Wiswa Warnapala wrote two books on the SLFP, one after the other, Sri Lanka
Freedom Party and the Political Change in 1956 in 2004, and Sri Lanka Freedom
Party: A Political Profile in 2005. He himself was a SLFP member/leader. There is
no such a profile or a book to my knowledge on the UNP, by an outsider or an
insider. The Federal Party (FP) was fairly covered in A. J. Wilsons Sri Lankan
Nationalism (2000).
The Left movement or rather the LSSP was studied by G. J. Lerski in his Origins of
Trotskyism in Ceylon (1968), followed by Ranjith Amarasinghe in his
Revolutionary Idealism and Parliamentary Politics: A Study of Trotskyism in Sri
Lanka (1998). All above are just a memory outline and not a complete catalogue.
The SLFP in Context
In the whole vortex of political ideologies, party formations, splits and party
rivalries or competitions, what is the general position of the SLFP? Has it played a
significant role in the political and socio-economic development in the country?
All academics and analysts have agreed that the formation of the SLFP in 1951
was a significant landmark in the democratic development in the country as it
supplied an alternative to the UNP. It contributed to the evolution of a two-main-
party system. Unfortunately, the Left was not in a position to supply that
alternative due to many ideological and bickering splits.
Prime Minister of Ceylon S.W.R.D.Bandaranaike with US President Dwight
Eisenhower at the White House in 1956.
What was the main reason for its formation? The main reason given was that the
UNP was not representing the majority of rural masses. The UNP was considered
an urban and an elitist party, of course with a rural base. This was the genesis of
the SLFPs Pancha Maha Balavegaya (great five forces), whether that is valid in
the same way today or not. The Marxists gave another interpretation to this
difference, naming the UNP as representing the comprador bourgeoise and the
SLFP, the national bourgeoise. The national label to the SLFP had a validity in
other respects as well. It wanted to breakaway from all vestiges of colonialism or
neo-colonialism. Whether right or wrong, the policies followed by the SLFP
governments had this angle until recently. On the other hand, there is much
reason today to consider the world situation not merely as neo-colonialism but
globalization. Even China is promoting a form of globalization.
There was no strict ideology for the SLFP, until of course the Mahinda Chinthana
invention, as it appeared a pragmatic party with nationalist orientation. SWRD
Bandaranaike was a declared rationalist at the beginning. He embraced
Buddhism and then he embraced nationalism while in his initial writings
cautioning about extreme nationalism. He had a vision, as he said, to unite the
Sinhalese first and then unite the Tamils and the Muslims for a long journey for
national rejuvenation. But he blundered in his language policy and many others
and the vision of uniting all communities got lost, during his time and thereafter.
Whether that vision can be implemented or resurrected under the new party
reforms and changes is the question now. The present leaders might tread in that
direction cautiously, given the sensitivities attached. The Presidents recent visit
to Jaffna and Governor Reginald Coorays initiatives give the impression that the
government and the party are in that direction.
November 2014 Split
There had been several splits within the SLFP in the past. In 1964, C. P. de Silva
left the party and brought down the SLFP government and then joined the UNP.
In 1984, Chandrika Kumaratunga left the party and joined her husbands Sri Lanka
Mahajana Party, but returned back to the fold in 1991. Even Anura Bandaranaike
left the party in 1993 and joined the UNP. Most of the splits those days were
going in the UNP direction.
However, during Mahinda Rajapaksas time, many people broke away from the
UNP and joined the SLFP. He was extremely smart in that sense. Some people
argued that the new comers got more prominence and control than the
traditional SLFP members. This is something that gave extremely an upper hand
to MR and another accusation was that the SLFP became more of a family and a
group party than a membership organization. CBK was side lined or she distanced
herself from the party. Corruption apparently underlined these developments
during particularly the second term of Mahinda Rajapaksa. Under his yoke, the
traditional SLFP leaders were quite meek and obedient. That is apparently what
he expected and the present author had many occasions to observe this dynamic.
Then how could we explain the last minute break (after eating hoppers together!)
of a small group of people with Maithripala Sirisena in November 2014 and
contesting the presidential elections backed by the UNP and the TNA? Was it like
C. P. de Silvas break in 1964? It was possible that the split going that way, if not
for MRs handing over the SLFP leadership to Sirisena in 2005. Then why did he do
that? There can be three or four explanations. (1) MR was so confident in winning
the election, but got completely demoralized after the defeat. (2) He was just
following the party constitution, although uncharacteristic of him. (3) He
rationally realized that otherwise, the party might rebel against him. (4) Sirisenas
pressure was so overwhelming, he didnt have any other option.
Whatever the reason, handing over the party was a significant landmark not only
in the SLFP history, but also the party system in the country. Because it has
opened up the opportunity to reorganize the SLFP as a modern and a membership
based party. This was not the case before, and particularly under MR. He
excessively believed in personal Charisma mixed with voodoo type practices and
encouraged faithful followers, but not policy based members. The best
explanation for the downfall of such personalities or regimes come from none
other than the Chinese President, Xi Jinping.
In recent years, long-pent-up problems in some countries have led to resentment
among the people, unrest in society and the downfall of governments, with
corruption being a major culprit. Facts prove that if corruption is allowed to
spread, it will eventually lead to the destruction of a party and the fall of
government.
This is of course said in November 2012 in respect of countries like Thailand, the
Philippines and South Korea (The Governance of China, p. 17). However, it
equally applies to Sri Lanka, not only to the last government, but also to the
present one, if the dubious corruption trends continue.
Party Reforms
An agenda for party reforms were set in motion first in September 2015 at the
64th Anniversary of the SLFP. The main guiding personality was Maithripala
Sirisena. He had almost fifty years of experience in the party, beginning at the
grassroots level. Having been the general secretary of the party between 2001
and 2014, for 13 years, he was quite familiar with the party branches and activists
all over the country. He was supported by several old and young leaders,
Duminda Dissanayake among the latter as the General Secretary.
In addressing the party members at the conference, he was justifying the national
unity government with the UNP on the basis of national urgency, stability and
national reforms. He was of the opinion that the SLFP has weakened through
personality cults. Therefore, he said, I offer the hands of brotherhood to all of
you to join with me to build a strong Sri Lanka Freedom Party. Of course, building
a strong party is not necessarily of building a reformed party. But regarding
reforms, the following was what he categorically said.
Therefore, as the SLFP, all of you have the responsibility to reform the party
completely within the coming period after the 64th anniversary. This party should
be built as the main populist political party which is accepted by Sinhala, Tamil,
Muslim, Malay, Burgher, Buddhist, Catholic, Hindu and Islam. Everybody should
work for that end with utmost commitment.
Other points he outlined were ending violence, including post-election violence,
elimination of hate politics and giving priority to policies before personalities. He
also said, I am a person who is on a slow journey. But I am not ready to turn back
in that slow journey.
Whatever his efforts, unity within the party, within the parliamentary group or
the UPFA was difficult to maintain. Perhaps it was not necessary. First, the Joint
Opposition was formed, the former President as the inspirer, and some other
parties in the UPFA also taking a leading role. That was in late 2015. The main
reasons appeared to be the policy differences or antagonisms with the UNP. Then
a new party, the Sri Lanka Peoples Front (SLPF), was formed in November 2016 as
a counter organization to the SLFP. Some of the reasons were related to the
corruption charges levelled against those who were close to the former President,
and side lining of them and some others within the SLFP. The corruption charges
were considered political victimization.
When the SLFP annual conference (66th Anniversary) was held last month (2
September), a split within the party was very clear. Those who were loyal to
Mahinda Rajapaksa or the SLPF did not attend the anniversary. However, the
conference can be considered a major success, a strong young contingent with
women participating. It was one of the well-attended and well-organized party
conferences in the whole party history. The party reforms appeared to have
worked within the last two years.
New Trends and Lessons
The 66th Anniversary Conference deserves separate attention some other time in
discussing party politics and the SLFP in Sri Lanka. However, the emergence of the
SLPF cannot also be underestimated, considering MRs still remaining popularity,
perhaps money and networking.
The policy line that the President has taken in his speech at the conference was
against Corruption, Fraud, Irregularities and Waste. He reverberated the Sinhala
words for them Dushanaya, Wanchawa, Akramikatha and Nasthiya. He might
not be a shrewd social networker like MR, but he is one of the best political
speakers perhaps after SWRD Bandaranaike. Those slogans can still be an election
winning platform for the SLFP, among other things, although that was the same
platform that MS won the presidency in January 2015. Yet, those may have a
cutting edge against both the SLPF personalities and the UNP, while some of the
tainted characters are still with the SLFP.
It appears that Sri Lanka is moving towards a three-party competitive system in
most of the electoral constituencies in the near future. While the SLFP is still in
the national unity government with the UNP, and has very closely worked in
addressing some of the key national and international issues, there are areas
where there are failures particularly in economic policy and performance. On
some of these socio-economic maters, the traditional differences between the
UNP and the SLFP have surfaced again and again.
Therefore, if the SLFP is not to leave the government and disprove what MR has
predicted in breaking the national unity government this year, the UNP may have
to listen more and more to the SLFP in addressing economic development issues
and socio-economic grievances of the people. In analysing the history, policies,
leaders and organizations of the two parties, one may observe that the SLFP is
more closer to the people and their aspirations than the UNP.
Posted by Thavam