Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
priority. What does the idea of rural development – abandoned globally in the decades of liberalization,
including under an ‘open economy’ since 1977 in Sri Lanka – mean today? Will rural development
merely serve as a fig leaf for expansion of political patronage, or is there rural capacity to shift such
investment towards progressive social and economic change?
Electoral outcome
There are a few interesting historical trends with electoral politics in Sri Lanka. First, given the long
democratic tradition of universal suffrage, the first country in Asia reaching back to 1931, there has
never been a successful military coup and the citizenry have overthrown authoritarian governments at
crucial elections; the 1994 and 2015 elections are two such instances. Second, electoral swings against
incumbent governments have been a consistent
pattern. Third, the rural constituencies when their
interests are neglected have dramatically shifted their
electoral allegiances leading to change of
governments. It is this relationship between the rural
constituencies and electoral politics that is shaping
the current rural development drive.
One major reason for the overthrow of the Rajapaksa regime in 2015 was its abandoning of the rural
constituencies during its second term. While rural infrastructure works such as electrification and rural
road development were given priority during its first term from 2005 to 2010, after the war they became
focused on urban-centred development such as the beautification of Colombo backed by tremendous
international financing. The current Government continues to neglect the rural economy despite the
long drought ravaging many districts; the consequence was the major defeat in the local government
elections this year.
On the other hand, sustainable and meaningful rural development has to go beyond infrastructure and
handouts, challenge top-down development by officials and increase avenues of production with the
participation of people. This requires strong social institutions that can mobilize rural society. However,
most of the social institutions such as co-operatives, rural development societies, women’s rural
development societies, farmers’ organizations etc., all require considerable strengthening. Furthermore,
even those state and non-state institutions that are to build the capacity of rural social institutions,
including for agricultural research, training and extension, require revitalization. With social mobilization
crucial for any serious rural development effort, it remains a central challenge for the Government’s
current programme centred on state institutions.
Third, the aspirations of rural youth and society more broadly have also been changing as they seek
economic stability while integrating with new forms of consumption, which are also related to advances
in media and communication technologies.
Returning to the current rural economic drive by the Government, its success depends on whether rural
social institutions are strengthened and a rural economic vision is consolidated. At the root of the
problem are decades of neo-liberal development policies sharpening the rural-urban divide, including by
pushing for rural to urban migration and abandoning the rural economy and society more broadly.
Therefore, even as funds are pumped into rural works, progressive rural social change requires an
ideological battle waged against statistic bureaucratic tendencies and elitist urban discourse.