ENHANCING TOURISM WITH A STRATEGIZED FOREIGN POLICY

by George I. H. Cooke

Sri Lanka has remained the cynosure of the world for centuries. From being referred to, written about, conquered and even attacked, the island in the Indian Ocean is well entrenched in the global community. The attraction of the island has been its geographic location, scenic beauty, varied terrain, natural resources and diverse cultural attributes. While the lure of island has resulted in a chequered history, the use of such potential for the future is what remains crucial. The state and its key policy formulators are thus responsible, through an effective and strategized foreign policy, to ensure that all attributes of a country are used to its credit.

Given the inquiring nature of humans, the desire to discover and engage in adventure remains an insatiable appetite. While the tourism industry has been built on trying to satisfying this thirst, with people seeking new lands, keen to discover new cultures and explore diverse traditions and cuisines, the sector as a whole is vital to boosting national success and achieving progress.

The recent crises that Sri Lanka faced and the efforts made by the people to address grievances resulted in numerous changes which strengthened the democratic process in Sri Lanka, and ensured that the country remained even more relevant on the world stage. As news about Sri Lanka flashed across media platforms in capitals around the world, an inquiring mind would be intrigued to include a country that was upholding democracy, on a to-do list for future holidays, while some might have been apprehensive to make the journey. Irrespective of the nature of comprehension, and the context in which the island nation is featured internationally, Sri Lanka is in the news, and has remained so for millennia.

It is thus image that remains at the heart of information dissemination. While individuals strive hard to portray themselves in positive light and rectify errors or misgivings that others might have, we find that countries, their leaders and stakeholders too, seek the construction of a positive image internationally. Such positivity boosts tourism, nurtures trade, and attracts much needed investment. The creation and projection of a positive image is then pivotal for a country’s overall success. It is therefore the state, as the sovereign entity, that plays a catalytic role in ensuring that the image being communicated is conveyed in an appropriate manner, so as to captivate audiences, stimulate interest and create a conducive environment.

In Sri Lanka, the tourism sector was deeply affected by the Easter Sunday bombings in 2019, and the pandemic that struck in 2020. The latter’s impact was severe around the world as people focused primarily on health and safeguarding it, before venturing on holidays. However, within a brief span of time tourists started travelling, and braved conditions to ensure some semblance of normalcy returned to their lives. This was good news for a sector that was lagging behind and had made drastic changes to its cadre and capacity.

The tourism sector in Sri Lanka, as a key foreign exchange earner, provides employment to thousands directly and indirectly. As a sector which is highly lucrative and possesses immense potential, the island nation is not limited in the resources it has to offer. Although some travel destinations are considered unique for a particular aspect or attribute, Sri Lanka goes beyond in offering diversity across the island. From beaches to mountains, dry zones to forests, and ancient monuments to museums, the island is vibrant, colourful and an evolving construct that brings together a multiplicity of language, religion and culture.  However, in spite of the diversity, the infrastructure that has increased capacity and connectivity, and the passion of personnel, the sector is yet to reach its pinnacle in terms of returns. Where does the problem lie and what can be done about it?

The tourism sector, like all areas of engagement in Sri Lanka, needs a complete overhaul, and should be aligned with that which is to be achieved through a national strategy. The lack of such a national strategy has resulted in ad hoc action, and sporadic bouts of energy, all of which fails to deliver the full potential of the sphere. While changing administrations have changed personnel in decision making positions and hence changed policy, a national policy that is arrived at through consensus of all stakeholders is yet to materialize. Similarly, understanding the synergy of tourism and other key sectors is one that is yet to be realized in Sri Lanka.

In Singapore, the Tourism Board is under the Ministry of Trade and Industry. Korea amalgamates Culture and Sports with Tourism in one ministry. Nepal brings together Culture and Civil Aviation with Tourism, while China couples Culture and Tourism in one entity. In Europe, Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action formulates tourism policy, which is the same in the Netherlands. In Portugal, the Ministry of Economy guides tourism policy, and Spain incorporates Trade, Trade and Tourism into one ministry. In West Asia, it is found that similar practices have been adopted. In Dubai, the Ministry of Economy and Tourism develop the two sectors, while in Oman, Tourism and Heritage come under one ministry. In Bahrain, Industry and Commerce are joined with Tourism.

Identified as winning arrangements, the unification of tourism with critical areas of the state have resulted in formulas that have generated positive results, boosted countries and increased their returns. At present in Sri Lanka, incorporating Tourism and Lands into one ministry, baffles the analyst and undoubtedly the sectors in question, as well.

Sri Lanka is in dire need of a national strategy outlining the goals and objectives of the next couple of decades, and an action plan to achieve the same, in order to overcome the numerous challenges that beset the country. Into such a strategy, tourism needs to feature high on the list of priorities given the potential of the sector. Adopting slogans or changing heads does not contribute to tangible benefits. Instead a comprehensive exercise needs to be adopted to realize real change and harness the full potential of the industry.

A strategized plan, akin to those which are activated in neighbouring countries, will give tourism its due place of significance. All too often the focus is on mainstream markets. Many large countries generate large numbers of tourists, and do so for many other countries and not necessarily Sri Lanka only. The emphasis has been on these countries, especially in relation to roadshows and other promotional activities. Tapping into smaller countries in all regions, which have the purchasing power is essential so as to derive the most from Sri Lanka’s international relations and foreign representation.

Of heightened importance in Sri Lanka is the incorporation of tourism within the sphere of foreign affairs. While representatives of the Department of Commerce support the promotion of tourism in Sri Lanka’s foreign missions, it is not a sufficient arrangement. Often a single officer is required to promote trade, tea and tourism plus attract investment, which is a near impossible task for a single individual. Much greater human resource allocation, concerted policy formulation and strategized implementation is required. A common dilemma is funding. However, if one is to get the best out of a process, that which goes into that process has to be the best as well, otherwise the result is substandard. This has been experienced in Sri Lanka for quite some time, and successive governments believe that the panacea is merely adopting slogans and changing heads at the helm.

Sri Lanka possesses a national airline which is said to fly to 126 destinations in 61 countries. A joint strategy wherein the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sri Lankan Airlines and the tourism sector collaborate would yield much higher dividends. Further, Sri Lankan missions in capitals around the world, should be the key nodes liaising with airlines in their respective countries of accreditation and enhance the attractiveness of the island. These missions need to form the framework through which tourism is promoted. It cannot be left to individual ministries to conduct in their vacuums, and must instead be a joint effort, which is result oriented, reviewed periodically and overhauled when required to enhance the returns.

Within the country clear understanding is required of all that the country has to offer. For decades the island has relied on specific locations, cuisine or pageants. Little attention is paid to diversity, and therein lies opportunities that have been hitherto untapped. Going off the beaten track, researching interests of those who have already visited, and attempting to explore new avenues remains at the heart of the exercise of enhancing tourism in Sri Lanka. This information needs to be generated using the plethora of technology that is available, and disseminated it across the world in a multipronged attack that would make the world talk about Sri Lanka for all the right reasons and not keep harping on that which is not.

A small island, surrounded by tiny islands, possessing an abundance of wildlife, nature, terrain, norms and traditions, is undoubtedly rich. Its riches come from its profusion of resources and passionate people. It however lacks a cohesive strategy that would ensure the synergy of cooperation. Such a strategy would help the island nation recover from the man-made economic crisis, overcome the rigours of the attacks and pandemic, and surge into the 21^st century as a travel and tourism hub in Asia, far outweighing its competition in the region.

This article first appeared in the October 2022 edition of the HOTELIER Magazine of the Sri Lanka Hospitality Graduates Association (SLHGA)

THE DEMOCRACY THAT IS INDIA: INTRIGUING, EVOLVING AND INSPIRING

Marking 75 years of Indian Independence

By George I. H. Cooke

Preserving democratic values, ensuring the maintenance of democratic standards and strengthening the process of democratization, are formidable measures for any country. When a country with a population of nearly one and a half billion embraces democracy as its political ideology, continuously champions this system for more than seven decades and implements it across the entirety of its length and breadth and at all levels of its political being, it is clear that democracy has been able to withstand much. India is today the largest democracy on the planet, and with its position comes much responsibility.

The democratization of India, whereby the world saw the abandoning of hereditary monarchical systems, and the dismantling of the privileged structure that had existed even through colonialism, was to set India on a pedestal. Yet this pedestal was not one of natural influence and ability. It did not occur accidentally either. It was to be one on which and from which India, her leaders and people would be called upon to formulate and implement policies that would sustain democracy, nurture its values and ensure that all - irrespective of their communities, religions and castes - who identified as Indian, would be beneficiaries. The journey was not without its challenges, but it is the journey itself that remains remarkable.

The Intrigue - Lessons of the Past

At Independence, Jawaharlal Nehru, was at pains to ensure that India remained a secular nation, which rallied around the Indian flag and identified primarily as Indians, before all else. Undoubtedly it was a firm foundation that gave the Indian nation a strong start. His presence at the helm for seventeen years till 1964 guaranteed that the seeds he sowed would have the opportunity to grow unhindered for nearly two decades. In many neighbouring countries of South Asia, leaders at independence did not survive for even a decade thereafter to see the results of their pre-independence struggles or to fully implement policies they deemed fit for their emerging countries.

India thus received an advantageous commencement on a journey, that has seemed more like a race, with neighbours, with the Cold War, with non-alignment, and with economic liberalization among other entities and concepts, but most importantly with internal challenges of keeping a country as diverse, as different, and as divided as India, together. This diversity is upheld today as a great boost for image and publicity in the international community. Yet arriving at the present involved much cohabitation, compromise and cooperation, that was, is and continues to be unparalleled in the world.

The Evolution – Overcoming Challenges

While it is argued that the holding of elections at regular intervals and electing leaders are not the totality of democracy, they are key components. In the last 75 years Indians have elected leaders and political parties and in so doing removed others, who were subsequently bought back at later times. Leaders have resigned, died in office, been assassinated, Parliament has been attacked, the fundamentals of democracy have come under siege, but despite all of these occurrences and much more, the Republic remains strong. Presiding over a federal system that aims to embrace the diversity and overcome the differences is a complex task. In reflecting upon that which has been, it is evident that the complexity has been comprehended. If not, the Republic would have disintegrated quite some time ago.

Lincoln observed that people remain at the core of any democracy. Whether the ones who are elected, or the ones who elect, it is people who are the direct beneficiaries of any democratic society. Thus, people must never leave the equation nor allow themselves to be excluded from it. If any attempt has been made or is being made to restrict that which a democracy affords, all effort needs to be exerted to rein in the constrictions and permit instead the prevalence and proliferation of all that a democracy stands for.

In neighbouring Sri Lanka, the oldest democracy in this part of the world having gained universal franchise in 1931, when efforts were underway to undermine people, with ill-advised policies, erroneous decisions, incompetent leadership and heightened corruption, that collectively misled a nation of 21 million, people rose up. In proof that democracies are constantly evolving, the people forced leaders out of office due to the aforementioned reasons, and demanded change. While mandates are given at elections, mandates can also be withdrawn especially through mass protests that signify the displeasure of the people and their desire to safeguard the democratic standards that are enshrined in the constitution and which must be preserved in a democracy.

The Inspiration - Strategizing for the Future

Democracy with all its complexities and connotations is still the optimal governance system for any country. Giving people the freedom to elect their representatives who in turn are called upon to formulate sound policies which would have a positive impact on the entirety of the polity, is by far the accepted form of governance, and is widely practiced. India, as the world’s largest democracy has a bigger burden. This is not confined to the implementation of proactive democratic principles within the country alone. It extends to the immediate sub region, the greater Asian region, and the international community. The Indian model, despite its complications and conundrums experienced within, is still the largest working model in the world today. With the growth in population, this position is not likely to be changed for the rest of the 21^st century, and would only be further strengthened in the decades to come.

The onus is thus on India. Indian leaders have an obligation to their people, which extends beyond. The first obligation is to the people of the vast country to be able to live in a society that enshrines basics freedoms, guarantees equality in all respects, and promotes understanding amid diversity. At no time must the citizenry of a country that occupies this primal position be forced to compromise on their freedoms, have their voices silenced, find themselves bereft of recourse to justice, encounter an erosion of democratic institutions, or have any form of ideology foisted upon them. The liberal nature of democracy can create space for such challenges to thrive, but it is the people who remain at the core, and who must be able to thwart any weakening or destabilizing of the democratic norms upon which their nation has been built.

The second obligation is to countries that adhere to the democratic form of governance. If a country the size of India falters, the repercussions would be widespread. Thus far the country has survived in close geographic proximity to two of the largest countries, that advocate different policies of governance. Whilst their preferred policies have been implemented for decades, and would prove effective for them as a means of governance, the larger Asian neighbourhood has adopted democratic norms, as has most of the world. Any faltering or failure to remain the strong, representative democracy that India was envisioned to be at independence, would prove detrimental to many.

Given the challenging global environment in which democracy attempts to thrive, with a skew of ‘isms’ disrupting countries and their courses, India has a third obligation to the democratic tradition as a whole. The concept was first coined in the middle of the 5^th century to denote the system of governance in Greek city states, which had populations of several thousands. Thereafter it survived millennia, and is today practiced in a single country that possesses a population of nearly one and a half billion. This is testimony to the fundamental importance of the system, its traits and what it proffers its adherents. Therein India remains an inspiration to all, from fledgling states to well-founded ones, and cannot renounce its role.

As India surges ahead towards further milestones, it is the action taken at present, that would see the country emerge as a global giant or remain a regional power. Whether through partnerships with the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) or membership in the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multisectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) or even Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), through intensified performance in larger multilateral bodies like the United Nations and its affiliated agencies and organizations, or even in its bilateral relations in South Asia and the world, India can readily rely on two key features, democracy and diplomacy. Both have been strategically implemented and have stood the country in good stead. However as with all key characteristics, no lapses can be encountered, no slips allowed and no mistakes permitted.

India’s place in the world, and also in history has been guaranteed to a large extent by its democratic credentials, which have been bolstered by an effective diplomatic apparatus. In its engagement with the people of India, the people of the region, and those of the world, the Indian leadership has and must continue to safeguard democratic ideals, and guarantee their implementation. A strategized foreign policy administered by an effective and efficient diplomatic structure will see the country raise its stakes for global leadership, realize that which was envisaged more than seven decades ago, and reinforce the enormity of potential and opportunity of the country and her people.

 

 

 

 

 

SHINZO ABE: PRESERVING HIS LEGACY

Guest Commentary by Banura Nandathilake

Subscribers to international relations often come to a junction between theories: Realism, which posits a zero sum world where external circumstances such as hard power and anarchy that are beyond any individual define the ways in which states do what they do, and constructivism which understands an interdependent society of states where leaders truly have an tangible impact on inter-state relations through social mechanisms. The case for the latter seems to outweigh the former in the analysis of Shinzo Abe however, who left an ineffaceable mark on Japanese foreign policy, by guiding a largely pacifist Japan to one that actively moulds and shapes the security, economic and diplomatic architecture of the Indo Pacific and beyond.

As the heir of a distinguished political family, Abe entered politics in the 1990s where he sought to largely continue the policies of his grandfather, the former Japanese Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi: Regain the ability to exert Japanese power on the regional and world stage by removing the shackles imposed by the US and a faction of the then Japanese political class. As such, Abe went on to become Japan’s longest-serving Prime Minister with four terms (2006-7, 2012-14, 2014-17, 2017-20). On 8 July 2022 however, in an event that stunned the heavily gun restricted Japan, the former Japanese Prime Minister was shot and killed during his campaigning run for his party in the Japanese city of Nara. Despite the untimely passing of the "shadow shogun", the direction of Japan's future may be influenced by, thereby correlate with Abe's "vision" to a great extent (Green, CSIS 2022). Japan has built a full-fledged national security establishment, an estimated 1.7% growth in GDP in 2022, and is a bastion of neo liberal democratic policies in the Indo pacific. Below is an obituary for a man who had a heavy hand in reawakening Japan, wherein his effect on domestic and foreign policies will be appreciated.

Domestic Political Legacy

While for many, Abe’s career was one of dramatic and unlikely turns which spanned 14 years and saw him into extraordinary power to influence the direction of Japanese domestic policy, Sheila Smith of Council on Foreign Relations and others understand that a revised domestic constitution may be Abe's major legacy.

Just two days after Abe’s assassination, the Japanese voted in the Upper House election, awarding the government led by the current Prime Minister Fumio Kishida their anticipated victory. Interestingly, Smith notes that the assassination had no credible change in the election environment. The voter turnout was on par with previous years, and Abe’s party, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) had a structural advantage as the smaller opposition parties did not form a united front thus further dividing the vote. As such, an Upper House win by the LDP could open an avenue for a Constitutional revision, once an ambition of the former Prime Minister. While factors that may postpone an immediate revision do exist, she notes that a revision could have a lasting impact on Abe’s legacy.

Abenomics

Abe’s vision was of regaining the ability to exercise Japanese power, by losing her shackles imposed by low domestic economic power and capital, which can then be turned into military might and diplomatic currency. However, Japanese capabilities were idling, due to the lack of opportunities as per legal and international constraints in the post WW2 era. In the understanding that securing Japan’s future would require an economy with a new foundation for growth, the economic programme “Abenomics” was born. The programme was an attempt to kickstart Japan’s dormant capabilities through expansionary monetary policy, fiscal stimulus, and a long list of industrial, labour, and regulatory policies to incentivise endogenous development. Abenomics aimed to shift production from agrarian or low value sectors to high income productive sectors to slow the decline of Japan’s labour force, in an “serious, sustained, and flexible attempt to grapple with Japan’s growth challenges” (Harris, FP 2022).

Abenomics was instrumental in reviving the Japanese economy, as well as supercharging Abe’s political career. The programme reversed years of stagnation, boosted corporate profits and state tax revenues, thereby reducing unemployment and crime. As such, Abe was able to coast past domestic elections, pausing the tradition of short-lived premierships in Japan. The resulting political durability allowed him to pursue long term ambitions, such as creating a National Security Council which distilled the defence apparatus through the Prime Minister’s office. Such a creation then allowed for a more active foreign policy over the existing passive structure, which sought to strengthen regional ties while balancing against regional hegemons. 

Japan-India Relations

Relations between Cold war Japan and India were one of polite distance: Japan was a US ally, while India was procedurally non-aligned with some overlap of interests with the USSR. Despite the deterioration of the said relations during the 1988 Indian nuclear missile test and the Japanese economic sanctions that followed, the two states were quick to repair and rebuild a “global partnership’’, proposed by the Japanese Prime Minister Mori Yoshiro a few years later during his visit to India. However, it was Abe that built the stage for a more cohesive and interdependent Japanese-Indian relationship, such as the “India Japan Strategic and Global Partnership’’ (2007). Bilateral relations were further strengthened during Abe’s third term in 2014 through a “special and strategic partnership,” which encompassed diplomatic, security and economic sectors. Trade between Japan and India increased exponentially from 2007, while Japan and India cooperated on security issues in the Indo-Pacific through the Quad.

Moreover, it could be understood that Abe's 2007 visit to India was not only significant for the Japan-India relationship, but also India’s perception of itself and its role in the region (Miller, CFR 2022). Miller understands that it was Japan that influenced India, ‘a notoriously reluctant and cautious actor in global politics’ to join Abe’s Indo-Pacific vision, which now serves as an ideological, economic and military buffer to the rise of China. This vision of the “confluence of the two seas” - Pacific and Indian, were first outlined by Abe in his speech during his first visit to India in 2007, and laid the foundation for the “free and open Indo-Pacific” concept which was later adopted by the United States.

China and the Quad

China’s rise in the contemporary era has been unprecedented. An authoritarian political system combined with a quasi-capitalist economic system has allowed China to gain regional hegemony and a global great power ranking, allowing its influential military, economic and diplomatic alliances. Such a rise presents a growing threat and demands a balance of power between China and the US and Allies. Of those allies, Abe represented a significant one: Japan.

While Abe was central in expanding India's position in the Indo-Pacific, his pragmatic approach to relations with China demanded a closer look. Abe could be considered a soft liner on Sino-Japan relations, so much so that he was called a "traitor" by many Japanese patriots. This may be so since the uneven economic balance of power weighed more towards China than Japan: Japan needed China for trade and manufacturing, than vice versa. However, as Mireya Solís, the director of the Centre for East Asia Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution understood, despite his efforts to maintain closer relations with China “Abe felt very strongly that Japan could not live in an Asia where China had hegemony”. As such, Abe’s pragmatism recognised that despite interdependence and globalisation, China represented a challenge on all fronts, diplomatic, economic and military. Ergo, Abe may have been instrumental in setting the tone for the Japanese defence apparatus. Furthermore, Abe subscribed to right leaning nationalist policies domestically, as he helped coax a pacifist Japanese public to oppose China’s meteoric and bullish rise, further laying the groundwork for the direction of Japanese foreign policy.

However, his vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific may have trumped all else. His influence soon superseded national and regional boundaries, as President Joe Biden, who once worked with Abe as the vice president during the Obama administration, put it “He (Abe) was a champion of the Alliance between our nations and the friendship between our people”, and promised to continue Abe’s “vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific” (2022). The US and Japan, along with India and Australia, form the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, which represents a bulwark against China in the Indo-Pacific. While the US had more economic and military might than Japan, Abe was still paramount in laying the rhetorical groundwork for the Quad, “providing structural, conceptual ideas to things that needed to be provided at a time when it seemed like it was crumbling.” (Hornung, 2022).

On Taiwan

A great power conflict in East Asia appears to brew over the Island of Taiwan which stands a stone's throw away from the shores of China. While the ideological divide stems from the great powers US and China, US allies such as South Korea, Japan and Taiwan are not passive watchers either.

Japanese leaders before Abe were uncomfortable with using force to defend Taiwan, as implications of such a move for Japanese security, and how Japan's responses to such scenarios were heavily debated. But it was Abe that argued in 2021, “a Taiwan emergency is a Japanese emergency, and therefore an emergency for the Japan-U.S. alliance. President Xi Jinping in particular, should never have a misunderstanding in recognizing this”. Abe was thus paramount in transforming Japan’s relationship with Taiwan to counter threats from China, for he recognised a hegemonic China posed a risk not just to the security of the liberal democratic states of East Asia, but their economic and sociological institutions as well. As such, Prime Minister Abe emphasised shared economic, political and ideological values between Japan and Taiwan, where he referred to Taiwan as a “precious friend,” an angle the incoming governments adopted thereafter. Abe was an advocate of stronger relations with Taiwan so much so that he went on to argue that the US policy of strategic ambiguity was “fostering instability in the Indo-Pacific region” as he called out the US to “make clear that it will defend Taiwan against any attempted Chinese invasion.”

Furthermore, it was during Mr. Abe’s tenure as Prime Minister that one of the major sore points in the bilateral relationship between Taiwan and Japan were resolved. After 17 years of negotiations, in 2013 Japan and Taiwan concluded Japanese recognition of Taiwanese Fishing rights in the East China Sea. As such, affection for Abe and Japan in Taiwan have reached record highs. Thus, after the news of Abe’s passing had reached Taiwan, President Tsai Ing-wen honoured “Taiwan’s most loyal best friend” with the national flag flown at half-mast.

Shinzo Abe could be called a realist, for he understood that despite diplomacy and the multilateral handshaking, states with different value systems and interests must communicate through hard power and deterrence. But to call him a pragmatist through the constructivist lens could be more apt, as he understood that despite anarchy and hard power considerations, leaders are still able to make a difference in the domestic and foreign policies of a state, thereby keeping up with an evolving world stage. As the world honours him in his passing, it is now up to his successors to carry his legacy forward.

 

MARCOS JR.: THE PRODIGAL SON RETURNS

Guest Commentary by Banura Nandathilake

The Philippines is in its Fifth Republic. The First was established when the US acquired it from the Spanish. The Second by the Japanese, the Third by the Americans after WW2, which lasted until Ferdinand Marcos Sr.’s martial rule. The Fourth was created when he lifted martial law, and survived until the revolution which toppled the Marcos Government, thereby starting the Fifth republic. On June 30^th 2022, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. became the seventeenth president.

Despite being the son of the former brutal kleptocratic President Ferdinand Marcos Sr, he succeeded Rodrigo Duterte in a landslide election victory. With doubt, scepticism and demands for accountability surrounding him, Marcos Jr. is largely expected to continue the policy course pursued by the Duterte administration. However, the capability for his incoming government to curb rising domestic inflation, while steering the Philippines through a great power conflict happening a stone's throw away from its shores, thereby restoring the Marcos name remains to be seen.

Like Father, Like Son?

Ferdinand Marcos Sr. may be considered as one of the most controversial statesmen of the 20th century, with trademarks of unparalleled corruption, extravagance and state sponsored violence. During the 20 years he spent as the President of the Philippines, his first term was about socio-economic growth. It was a facade however, as the budding kleptocrat had financed domestic infrastructure and public projects through unsustainable debt. Such practices culminated in extreme poverty, inflation and gross inequality during his second and third terms. In 1986, the “people power” revolution resulted in him, his family and his wife Imelda having to flee into exile in Hawaii, with their amassed fortune. While Mrs Marcos left behind her infamous shoe collection, her husband brought with him jewellery, gold bricks and freshly printed Philippine currency, collectively worth around $15 Million. During his time in office, they had plundered more than $10 billion from the Philippine state, most ever recorded in the world. They in fact held an official Guinness world record for largest-ever theft from a government, until Guinness took the record down before his son’s 2022 election. During his time in power, thousands of innocents, including Muslims, alleged communists, dissidents, suspected opposition actors and media figures were tortured, jailed without due process or murdered by the regime’s cronies.

Ferdinand Marcos is the second child and only son of the former president, aged 64 as of 2022. He began his journey in politics at 23, as the Vice Governor of Ilocos Norte (1980–1983) during the years of his father’s reign, until his family’s political exile to Honolulu. Imelda Marcos and family were allowed to return to the Philippines after the death of Marcos Sr. in 1989. While procedurally it was to face charges for misallocation of state resources and corruption, stagnant politics allowed the Marcos’ re-entry into politics. Ferdinand Jr. returned back to the historical Marcos stronghold of Ilocos Norte as its Governor in 1998 for 3 consecutive terms. In 2007, Marcos ran unopposed for the congressional seat, and was appointed deputy minority leader of the House of Representatives of Philippines. In 2010, Marcos Jr. made a second attempt for the Senate in 2010, and entered office on June 30, 2010. Despite multiple scams wherein Marcos Jr. had diverted state funds totalling upwards of ₱305 million to his own account, he contested in the 2016 vice presidential campaign, albeit unsuccessfully. In the 2022 Presidential election however, Marcos Jr. along with his running mate and Vice-President Sara Duterte won 59% of all votes casted. Duterte is the daughter of Rodrigo Duterte - the outgoing president, who campaigned with Marcos Jr. following a split with her father, thereby resolidifying the Marcos hold on office in a system dominated by dynasties.

For all but a minority of mostly older Filipinos, the prospect of another Ferdinand Marcos in the presidential palace is horrifying. For them, Bongbong’s presidency can only result in a return to kleptocracy, as they intone: those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. The following questions thus arise: Did the Philippines forget history?  Was history rewritten by tools of the future? Or was it desperation, a new ruler following the inability of the previous to rule?

The Rise of Marcos Jr.

Marcos Jr’s rise to political power, from exile with his father to an apparent rightful throne of political apex, maybe analysed as the result of four main factors: drawn out multiyear effort to whitewash the Marcos name, skillful alliance building and political manoeuvring, the penchant of Philippine voters for political dynasties, and the inability of those already in power to govern.

History Forgotten or Rewritten?

Marcos Jr's popularity was kept afloat in his voter base through an aggressive social media campaign, aptly using the tools of the future to rewrite the narrative of history. YouTube and social media were jammed with constructed campaigns pushing a revisionist view of history as the Marcos era being one of crime-free prosperity, not of human rights abuses, extravagant corruption and near-economic collapse. Such a campaign proved appealing to voters who were not only too young to experience the Sr’s dictatorship but had experienced years of relative economic growth and prosperity. If analysed statistically, of the 110 million citizens of the Philippines, the share of population in extreme poverty has decreased by almost 20% since the death of Marcos Sr. in 1989 and the poverty gap has reduced by almost a billion However, the old-age dependency ratio has increased by almost 3% while the age dependency ratio has decreased by about 20%. The median age in the Philippines is 26 years (Ourworldindata.org). Fact checking of the Marcos campaign found that it was 92% disinformation in favour of the Marcos, and 96% opposing his main rival (Tsek.ph). As such, it could be understood that there exists a wide generation gap, and most of the population thereby voters are likely to be younger than older. Furthermore, due to the gap in ages, there exists a gap in memories of the tormented and children of the tormented, which is being exploited to restore the Marcos name.

But the recent events were not all social-media magic. A survey conducted in 1986, three months after the revolution, found that 41% thought he had been “true to the duties of a patriotic president”, which increased to 56% in 1995. In 1986, 44% agreed that he was a “severe, brutal or oppressive president”, while 60 % disagreed in 1995. Such a phenomenon could be aptly summed up by the quote, “Not many of us would care to hold a grudge against someone long dead, not even someone like Ferdinand Marcos'' (Social Weather Stations, 1986, 95).

A Squid game

Since Marcos Sr. died in exile in 1989 and the family returned to the Philippines, the Marcos family have manoeuvred around provincial and national offices from their base in Ilocos Norte, in the north of the country. They have since portrayed the dictatorship as a "golden period" of political stability, economic prosperity and lawfulness, which resonated with many Filipinos mired in poverty, violence and years of corruption.  As Marcos Jr. said, “My father built more and better roads, produced more rice than all administrations before his”. While his critics have accused his social media campaign of misinformation attempting to tone down or whitewash the atrocities under his father's rule, Marcos Jr. further propelled his election campaign by having Sara Duterte as his running mate.

Apart from political games, Marcos Jr. represents a political dynasty, and such a move allowed him to expand his voter base island wide by merging two political dynasties and their strongholds: Marcos of the northern Philippines and the Dutertes of the southern Mindanao island. Furthermore, the new Marcos cabinet relies on technocrats, such as the former Central Bank Governor Diokno, the Transport Minister is the former head of the national airlines, and the Defence Chief is the former Army General, following on the established norm of his predecessor.

New Ruler due to the inability of the Old?

Marcos Jr succeeds Rodrigo Duterte, who as most other elected presidents in the Philippines, started off strong with a popularity boost, but then nosedived. Duterte, unlike Marcos, rose to power as an outsider, as a defender of the ordinary, but lacked apt political governance, resulting in economic stagnation and an air of judicial impunity. His “war on drugs'', which saw at least 30,000 people dead as a result of extra-judicial killings, has attracted international condemnation. His alliance with China has bought little investment and has not curtailed Chinese incursions in the shared South China Sea. His administration of the Pandemic resulted in the economy shrinking by 6% and less than half of Filipinos are fully vaccinated. Such events raise the question however: does the Philippines not elect its Presidents for their proven ability to govern, but instead for the inability of those still in power to do so? A pick between the lesser evil, not between the better of the two? If so, it would not be unlike most other democratic, developing states in Asia.

An Opaque Domestic Policy

Marcos Jr. comes to office at a time of a post pandemic stagnant economy. The Philippine peso is one of Asia’s poorest performing this year, and global recession and inflation is on the horizon. While Marcos has promised to promote self-sufficiency in food due to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, his campaign speech was shrewd, devoid of policy details or platform wherein it promised to leave the middle class largely alone as he fulfils the common expectations of Presidents. While he did promise a “comprehensive infrastructure plan” however, in which “no part of the Philippines will be neglected”, he left out any hope for accountability for the sins of his father, or the theft. Nevertheless, he is expected to largely continue the policies of his predecessor, along with his aforementioned technocrats.

Marcos' presidency may not be a means of transforming Filipino society, or addressing structural issues. It is instead the end in itself, a culmination of attempts to whitewash history, and re-solidify the Marcos name to its apparent throne. A significant portion of the population however, almost 40%, may not accept the result. Attempts to disqualify Mr Marcos are underway. Concerns of patronage politics incentivising monopolistic or oligopolistic practices have mounted, adding to the climate of impunity that rules the country.

Diverting from Sr. in Foreign Policy?

A Marcos-headed Philippines remains on the tightrope between the US, its traditional and treaty ally, and the regional hegemon China, whom it has a costly territorial dispute with. Adding on is its distance to Taiwan, wherein it could be on the front line in any conflict between the great powers.

While Marcos has indicated he wants better alliances with the US than Duterte did, who steered Philippines’ foreign policy toward China and Russia, signalling that Washington may have wooed Marcos Jr. just like Sr. This may not mean Philippine-US ties would trump Philippine-China ties however, as Marcos Jr., has long had a close relationship with Beijing. Marcos Jr. is said to be China’s preferred candidate, and has already declared China to be Philippines’ “strongest partner” despite the former’s growing encroachment of the latter’s territorial waters, thereby echoing sentiments of his predecessor. Marcos may still be susceptible to the same anti-Beijing swells of the public however, which limited Duterte’s options in the latter part of his presidency, but such may be conditional on how much more infrastructure funding he is able to draw. Of course, in the age of great power rivalry, the question remains of the cost.

While the Marcos name may have risen, analysts have deemed Mr Marcos’s administration to be likely marked by protests and instability. While that may result in economic stagnation and political roadblocks, along with an opportunity for both the US and China, how long will the Marcos name stay afloat? It may be entirely feasible for Ms Duterte and Mrs Arroyo, a past president, to provide a balance of power in the government, while his technocrats do most of the policymaking. While his congressional record does not suggest he has many big ideas, at least not ones associated with a strongman, they do not suggest he's big on righting the wrongs of history either.

 

RUSSIA OVERSHADOWS G7 2022 SUMMIT

GUEST COMMENTARY by Banura Nandathilake

Despite being an informal collective of ‘advanced economic’ liberal democratic states, the Group of 7 (G7) bringing together Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom and the United States have fervent goals. Held from 26 to 28 June 2022, the summit was in response to a global society capsized by division and shocks, as a call to unite and join to defend ‘universal human rights and democratic values, the rules-based multilateral order, and the resilience of democratic societies’ (G7, 2022). The viability of such remains to be seen.

Formed in 1975, leading states in a world of global economic recession induced by the OPEC oil embargo understood it may be in their mutual interest to coordinate on macroeconomic interdependencies. While it was first a forum for Finance ministers to hold annual meetings, the G7 developed into a round-table between leaders of the Western World. In 1988, Russia joined the G7, which was then named the G8 albeit temporarily until Russia’s dismissal for its annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.

The G7 states in the contemporary, with an aggregate that represents 45 percent of the global economy in nominal terms and 10% of the world’s population, hold annual summits to coordinate economic policy goals, facilitate collective action on transnational issues and propagate neo liberal norms, in conjunction with the European Union and other invitees. All 7 member states are identified as mature and advanced democracies with a Human Development Index score of 0.800 or higher.

Unlike international organisations and groups such as NATO, the G7 group has no formal legal existence, no permanent secretariat or official members. It thus has no legally binding rules that abide by or ratify states to uphold decisions and commitments made at G7 meetings. As such, while compliance with G7 norms is procedurally voluntary, they are impacted by social norms of persuasion, influence, mutual accountability and reputation. Topics of conversation between member states have encompassed growing challenges such as counterterrorism, development, education, health, human rights and climate change.

The 2022 Summit

From 26-28 June 2022, the leaders of G7 States met in Elmau, Germany joined by the leaders of Argentina, India, Indonesia, Senegal and South Africa, as well as Ukraine. Representatives included German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi, US President Joe Biden, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, French President Emmanuel Macron, European Council President Charles Michel and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen,

The summit focused on the Covid-19 crisis, climate change, the Russian Ukrainian conflict, and China. 

Climate Change

The shared concerns of climate change were a major topic of discussion during the 2022 Summit. The group endorsed the goals of an open and cooperative international Climate Club, in alignment with the 1.5°C pathways and hastened the implementation of the Paris agreement. The group further pledged to commit to a decarbonised transportation sector by 2030, a fully or predominantly decarbonised power sector by 2035. However, the latter may have been incentivised by political concerns of Western states to a major degree.

Liberal Democracies of the West

Liberal democracies may be understood to exist where the state subscribes to a liberal economic system and a democratic political system. A concise summary of such is as a liberal economic system proscribes significant political control over an decentralised, capitalistic, market driven economic system, as it is understood that the market mechanism is the most efficient means of linking demand to supply, market to consumer. A democracy may be understood as a domestic political model which, in conjunction with an impartial judiciary, free media and others, elected representatives aim to promote a decentralised representative governance through accountable, transparent and inclusive institutions.

By virtue of being a liberal democracy, all member states find common ground, parallel norms, alignment of macro foreign policy goals and understanding with each other. This allows the informal G7 to coordinate hard power security and economic interdependence in addition to cooperating with civil society groups to promote human rights, and uphold a democratic zone of peace in the face of non-democratic powers. A strong culture of mutual accountability exists between G7 states. Accountability may be through internal processors of the forum, where social norms allow for persuasion and disincentivize coercion. Coercion may not at all be necessary, as liberal democratic states would all be of a positive sum world view. Furthermore, the level of trade interdependence between states would act as means of checks and balances, as every state is needed by the other, thus it is in every G7 state’s interest to be in their good books.

The Illiberal Rest

Russia and China, in addition to states such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela are understood by the West to be illiberal states. Both major powers, albeit one a receding power, have capitalist and liberal economic systems where the state’s political machine exerts a heavy pressure on the market mechanism. While the state may be able to provide a higher quality safety net to its citizens by restraining the destructive forces of capitalism to better allocate scarce resources amongst the vulnerable, significant barriers to such exist. China’s GDP has grown at a surprising rate vis a vis other developing states, which has allowed the CCP significant geopolitical leverage. However, China’s domestic political model is authoritarian, whereby citizens do not have much say in how they are governed. Exclusive political institutions have no means of accountability or transparency, which leads to significant corruption. As Wedeman (2004) analyses, corruption is a feature of the Chinese system, thereby stifling economic and social growth. Corruption and lack of domestic checks and balances to those in power may be more apparent in Russia than China, where the control of the Kremlin and the Oligarchs have poignant effects on not just its citizens but also its neighbours; as the lack of domestic accountability may mean the lack of stringent checks balances, which then mean lesser shackles on the zero-sum ambitions.

Russia-Ukraine Conflict

The Russia-Ukraine conflict may be interpreted as a conflict between the forces of liberal democratic values of positive peace, pluralism and self-determination versus a one man’s nostalgic dreams of a ‘Neo’ USSR. Being at complete odds, the reaffirmed condemnation of Russia’s ‘’illegal and unjustifiable war of aggression against Ukraine’’ by the liberal democratic G7 states is hardly a surprise. Nor is their promise of ‘’needed financial, humanitarian, military, and diplomatic support’’ for Ukraine in its defence of its sovereignty, during its path on a free and democratic society.

The Sanctions Regime

Sanctions and more sanctions were promised by the group of seven advanced economies, who vowed to “align and expand targeted sanctions to further restrict Russia’’ in its access to key technological industrial imports and services. Such a move would severely restrict the ability to sustain their war machine thereby adhering to security commitments to Ukraine. The G7 Leaders pledged new sanctions on Russians who had committed war crimes in Ukraine, and are contributing to exacerbating “global food insecurity” by “stealing and exporting Ukrainian grain”. New penalties on Russian gold exports were further proposed, as well as a cap on the oil price to phase out global dependency on Russian energy.

However, a complete restriction of the import of Russian energy may be an ambitious task. European nations such as France get a quarter of their oil and 40% of their gas from Russia. While Germany has halted the progress of the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline, the EU has currently agreed to reduce its Russian gas imports by only two-thirds. President Biden however is banning all Russian oil and gas imports to the US, and the UK is ready to phase out Russian oil by the end of the year. The US, UK and Ukrainian Leaders are keen for other G7 nations to follow suit.

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who joined in on a trio of meetings via Videolink, stated that the summit will show "who is our friend, who is our partner and who sold us out and betrayed us". He reiterated his calls for fresh deliveries of weaponry, as he believes Russia will want to extend the war until winter wherein they could make new territorial gains to consolidate power. The financial support of G7 allies in 2022 already amounts to more than USD 2.8 billion in humanitarian aid, and a further USD 29.5 billion is pledged in supporting Ukrainian reconstruction.

China and the BRI

A growing China poses a “threefold threat” to G7 countries — economically, ideologically, and geopolitically. China’s GDP is second only to the US and it is fast catching up. China’s growing state-overseen tech industry, fuelled by globalisation and interdependence, is fast spreading a culture of surveillance and censorship, which act as means for the globalisation of authoritarianism. Said authoritarian ideals are further spread through Chinese geopolitical projects and alliances such as the BRI, which usually focus on developing, quasi democratic states with little to no accountability such as those in Africa and Central Asia. Furthermore, China’s action with regard to the Uyghurs in the Xinjiang region and its influence in Hong Kong have drawn condemnation from G7 members. China’s growing trade and defence ties with Russia have also caused concerns.

A Western Counter to the BRI

A Western counter to the BRI emerged during the G7 summit, aptly named Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment. The BRI is a global infrastructure development strategy which was developed as per Chinese leader Xi Jinping's vision in 2013, as a means for China to assume a greater role in global politics by easing access to China and its capabilities and boosting global GDP. Dubbed the Belt and Road Initiative and with over 145 countries signed up, the BRI is currently constructing a network of overland routes, rail transportation, sea lanes and energy pipelines to connect China to Southeast Asia, Central and South Asia, the Middle East, Europe and Africa. However, the project has been criticised as a tool to increase China’s political leverage in developing countries. Thereby, the BRI has been criticised for neocolonialism, economic imperialism.

In such a context, the G7 had launched a $600bn Build Back Better World (B3W) initiative infrastructure plan to counter China, in private and public funds to finance infrastructure in developing low and middle-income countries over five years. By working to narrow the global investment gap, the B3W would create new Just Energy Transition Partnerships with Indonesia, India, Senegal and Vietnam, building on existing partnerships with South Africa.

While US President Biden understood that “Developing countries often lack the essential infrastructure to help navigate global shocks (thus) feel the impacts … and they have a harder time recovering,” he stressed that the B3W “isn’t aid or charity. It’s an investment that will deliver returns for everyone”. Despite being dwarfed in comparison to the multi-trillion-dollar BRI, the B3W offers means of accountability, transparency and mutual trust between the neo liberal developed states and the developing states. The initiative would, according to Biden, further allow developing states to “see the concrete benefits of partnering with democracies”. While a cynic may argue that the developed have no interest in the developing other than exploitation and/or self-interest, and such may be observed to be true, President Biden may have been right when he said that underdevelopment is “not just a humanitarian concern, but an economic and a security concern for all”.

Mutual gains depend on interdependence, and without developing countries, there cannot be any sustainable recovery of the world economy. However, the development of low-income states is necessary but insufficient for a holistic global economic recovery, which remains shadowed by the conflict of value systems: liberal and illiberal, democratic and authoritarian.

 

SHANGRI-LA DIALOGUE 2022: DEEPENING DIPLOMACY AND DEFENCE

GUEST COMMENTARY by Banura Nandathilake

On 12^th June, Asia Pacific’s leading forum for defence diplomacy - the Shangri-La Dialogue ended after a pandemic-induced three-year hiatus. While the Dialogue is procedurally focused on cultivating a sense of security community within the Asia Pacific, which it solely lacks, this year’s event concluded under the uncertain shadow of the Ukraine-Russia conflict and the increasingly tenuous US-Sino relations.

The Shangri-La Dialogue is an intergovernmental security conference held in Singapore, by the London based think tank, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in collaboration with the government of Singapore. The Dialogue is chiefly attended by state actors such as Military chiefs, Defence and Foreign Ministers. However, non-state participants too, such as legislators, academic experts, distinguished journalists and business delegates attend the summit. Named after the host venue since 2002, the Shangri-La Hotel in Singapore, the forum serves as a platform for debate, expression of views and discussion on specific issues through bilateral meetings. However, off the record meetings are also held, chaired by IISS, to advance policy goals more freely.

Apart from the host nation, participating countries for the 2022 Shangri-La Dialogue included Australia, Cambodia, Brunei, Chile, France, Canada, China, India, Germany, Japan, Indonesia, Laos, South Korea, Myanmar, Mongolia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Russia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sweden, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste, Thailand, Vietnam, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Dialogue was attended by about 500 delegates from more than 40 countries.

Forum Proceedings

The 2022 Dialogue, as all previous sessions, was commenced by Dr John Chipman, the Director-General and Chief Executive of the IISS. This year’s keynote address was given by Fumio Kishida, the Prime Minister of Japan, who set the overall tone for the dialogue - the need for security cooperation and collective action between state and non-state actors in the Asia pacific to counter growing threats in the region and beyond. Broad topics such as the US Indo-Pacific Strategy - a significant shift of resources from the Middle eastern theatre, Competition in a Multipolar world, Military Modernisation, Prescriptions for Myanmar and China’s vision for Regional Order were covered. 

US-China Relations - a String Pulled Taut

The 2022 Shangri-La Dialogue was a significant milestone in contemporary US-China relations. The forum facilitated a meeting between the U.S. Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin and the Chinese Defence Minister Gen. Wei Fenghe, the first face-to-face encounter since President Biden's inauguration in January 2021. Any hope or reassuring signs of reinstalling lines of direct communication were dispelled by the increasingly sparring headline speeches and subsequent conversations between the two nations, on topics ranging from the status of Taiwan, proceedings within the South China Sea and questions and concerns surrounding grave human rights violations within China.

The US primary criticism of China’s international conduct centred around the latter’s coercive and aggressive actions in the disputed South China Sea, wherein China has constructed man made islands within the shared seaway in an attempt to solidify its claim to the areas enclosed by a ‘9-dash line’ which is claimed by Beijing to grant it exclusive rights, despite non-recognition by international law. “Indo-Pacific countries shouldn’t face political intimidation, economic coercion, or harassment by maritime militias,” Secretary Austin asserted, as “the PRC’s moves threaten to undermine security, stability, and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific.” He further reaffirmed the US position to defend its interests and those of its allies despite increased Chinese movement, mobilisation and pressure.

Secretary Austin’s Chinese counterpart's response was as headline jarring as his. Minister Wei Fenghe described his country’s position as one of self-defence in a global world of zero-sum, self-interested actors. Wei acknowledged his country’s increased nuclear and naval capabilities, in a speech peppered with warnings to tread carefully and avoid Chinese provocation. He further reaffirmed China’s strong stance of a rising great power, one of self-defence but also a crave for international legitimacy through recognition as a peaceful actor. Wei stressed that “It is a historic and strategic mistake to take China as a threat or enemy”. To ensure global peace and development, by virtue of China now being a great power, Wei called for a stop in attempts to “contain China, to stop interfering in China’s internal affairs, and stop harming China’s interests,” signalling that peace was conditional on China’s free reign. His speech further contained a stronger reiteration of the Chinese position on the disputed island of Taiwan - “If anyone dares to secede Taiwan from China – let me be clear – we will not hesitate to fight. We will fight at all costs and we will fight to the very end.”

Shared Ukrainian Costs

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy participated in this year’s Dialogue for the first time through a video link teleconference. Highlighting the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he urged the attendees of primarily Asian states to “remember that support and attention is not only for Ukraine but for (the greater Asia) as well, to ensure that our and your future is safe’’ in the contemporary globalised world. Despite Ukraine’s geographical distance from Asia, Russia’s invasion of his country has global implications, as the political, social and economic distance between countries are much shorter in the present than they ever were. Thus, the costs of war are shared between states, through trade interdependence, geopolitical institutions, and have direct effects such as rising global inflation.

Mr Zelenskyy further stressed that there are ideological costs, as “it is on the Ukrainian battlefield that the future rules of this world are being decided along with the boundaries of the possible.” His position drew clear parallels and a not-so-subtle nod to China's desire for Taiwanese reunification. The political alignments and the ideological divides of the attendee states were made abundantly clear as Prime Minister of Japan Kishida noted that “Ukraine today may be East Asia tomorrow,” further adding to the underlying tension of the Dialogue.

Collective Concerns of the Divided

Despite the lack of collective action on political qualms and tensions owing to non alignment of political compasses, the attendee states of the 2022 Shangri-La Dialogue remained receptive to prescriptions for collective concerns. The Dialogue served as a platform to tackle contemporary issues such as global underdevelopment and need of environmental security as a response to climate change, and the green defence agenda wherein the low-lying nations of Maldives, Polynesia and Micronesia were focused upon. The scope of prescriptions for global development and climate degradation are far beyond a single state, and collective action of all nations has shared global benefits. However, talks of nuclear disarmament were pushed by Prime Minister Kishida, who raised the potential for nuclear weapons of China, Russia and North Korea, to cause devastation more than that which was experienced in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Despite such a statement representing a significant change in the security environment, as it differed from the zero-sum, negative peace structure of the past, it was not well received possibly as one nation may seek to gain more from the said action than the other.

Why They Do What They Do

Security forums such as the Shangri-La Dialogue would be those where one is likely to hear more bad news than good. However, the 2022 forum was not so much a “glass half empty but more of a vessel placed precariously close to the edge of a table, one small slip away from smashing to pieces” (Sachdeva, 2022). As New Zealand Defence Minister Henare noted, there existed “an underlying tension”.

Borrowing from the English School of International Relations (Buzan et al 2002, Bull 1977) would contribute to an apt analysis of the Shangri-La Dialogue. Great power interests define international aspirations and ambitions, even in regional institutions. The Dialogue subscribed to the broad tensions of the Ukraine-Russia conflict and the US-China hostilities. Military diplomacy and international institutions which are dominated by great power interests, and smaller developing states are more rule takers than agenda setters. Further, international and weak regional institutions would have little sway in changing great power behaviour and are platforms for great power machinations. Weak regional institutions and forums would have less stringent rules, and less enforcement of such rules which would serve as checks and balances to the power of larger states. Fora such as the Shangri-La Dialogue, as opposed to stronger institutions such as NATO do “not provide much in the way of reassurance about the future trajectory of the relationship (between states) and only reinforces the sense that competition between the two powers is likely to linger thereafter” (Parameswaran 2019).

The fact that the sour relations between US and China continued on since the 2019 Dialogue, which was dominated by the subject of heightened U.S.-China competition serves to solidify the aforementioned understanding.

Despite such dire notions for international cooperation and mitigating global anarchy, the Shangri-La Dialogue represents a necessary, albeit insufficient platform for diplomacy and the peaceful resolution of differences between states. Institutions are only as strong as the rules that states are willing to enforce on themselves. However, institutions and fora such as the Shangri-La Dialogue are still important platforms which aim to resolve statist tensions through negotiated compromise and diffused reciprocity over hard power coercion and war (Keohane and Nye, 1977). The contemporary world is interconnected, with the space and time between events and reactions to such decreasing at an exponential rate. The contemporary world cannot afford to disregard the power of diplomacy for in the words of Henry Kissinger, despite animosities of history, diplomacy serves as means of restraining power.

 

UNIVERSAL FRANCHISE: The Democratization of Sri Lanka

By George I. H. Cooke

     The granting of universal franchise to Ceylon in 1931, was an epoch-making moment as the island-nation, possessing a long and illustrious history, which included periods of colonialism, was gradually seeing a return to self-governance. Allowing the populace to determine its leadership, albeit not at the highest level, was of significance. It was a step closer to independence. It was more importantly another step towards democratization, in a country that had hitherto been governed by kings and emperors, both local and foreign, and their representatives. While democracy is founded on the principle of governance emanating from the people themselves, the concept remained utopian in most quarters of the world at the beginning of the 20^th century. This was especially so in Asia. With kingdoms and monarchical systems remaining the norm, the sweep of colonialism that had started centuries earlier saw suppression, control and plundering.

    The action taken with regard to Ceylon against such a backdrop was thus progressive, considering that Britain was not ready to divest of the empire that had been painstakingly built up, and from which there was much to benefit. However, this measure was also experimental as attempts were being made to understand the functionality of such an act. States aim continuously to remain democratic and embody these values and principles into its governance structure and framework. Herein the intention would remain resolute of acting in national interest. Understanding the concept of democracy and its basic components of ‘source of authority and legitimacy, electoral processes, federal or secular dimensions of polity, freedom of the press, role of civil society, rule of law, and the social and economic roots of political order’[1] are central to the discourse.

    The democratic framework, which has been created over time and operationalized in Sri Lanka, is one which has witnessed much vibrancy and vitality. Similarly, the alleged necessity of the hour has often seen openly hostile, virulently opposed and ideologically different practitioners of politics, consolidating their positions through an often limiting hybrid of power sharing, simply to gain and retain power. This is unique to each country, and involves an indigenous process by which democracy is understood and abided by. Thus, it is paramount to examine the conceptualization and implementation of democracy from varied lenses.

    Muni’s assertion is that the three categories of democracy, procedural, liberal and socialist, can identify the ‘preference for [a] given economic system and policies, or for the operating social dynamics.’[2] Therefore his contention is that whether the process be based on free competition and wider participation under a procedural system, the protection of rights as within a liberal democracy, or even economic rights under a socialist or people’s democracy, the policies at play, which would merit or demerit support, are at the centre of a democracy.

    The ‘Democratic Peace’ theory, widely pioneered by Immanuel Kant through his treatise ‘Perpetual Peace,’ can be attributed to Woodrow Wilson’s justification of declaring war on Germany in an effort to make the world ‘safe for democracy.’ His statement that ‘Peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political theory… . A steadfast concern for peace can never be maintained except by a partnership of democratic nations,’[3] raised the call for the centralization of democracy and democratic standards within the policy making framework. 

    Given that Sri Lanka has remained a democracy from independence to date, the fulfillment of democratic standards, difficult as they may be, has not been inevitable. Leaders have made conscientious decisions to ensure the preservation and protection of democratic values within systems of governance. The oft quoted Churchillian remark that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time, underscores the complexity of democracies, yet highlights its relevance.

    Examination of the concept of democracy, whereby recognition is accorded to the individual by preserving dignity; respecting the equality of all persons; believing in and abiding by majority rule with the inclusion of minority rights; accepting the need to compromise; and ensuring the greatest possible degree of individual freedom, all enables us to comprehend and analyse the existence of a democracy.

    Sri Lanka, facing challenges of youth uprisings and terrorism in her decade’s long post-independence history, has had to contend with and provide for all that is enshrined in the concept of democracy. While the worth of the individual has been projected as a primary concept of democracy, it contends with the challenges presented through operation in collective and individualistic societies. A constant struggle persists whereby individuals are compelled to carry out functions they might not necessarily want to do.

    In relation to equality, Sri Lanka has prided itself in the inclusion of Universal Franchise in 1931, whereby all people, men and women, received the right to vote, as opposed to other countries which only permitted men to exercise their franchise well into the 20^th century and that too, only men of a particular pigmentation. Equality also refers to other categories such as race, creed, sexual orientation, as well as equality before the law in relation to treatment and justice meted out. Disparities though, have and continue to exist, muddying the notion of equality.

     An inevitable controversy arises over majority rule and minority rights, wherein the definition of majority and minority remain fluid. A majority race would not be the same as a majority demand. A religion followed by a minority would defer from a minority group protesting justice. Chapter three of the 1978 Constitution enshrines fundamental rights giving credence to the need for providing, within the legal framework, justice to all, irrespective of race, religion, gender or creed. Yet concerns remain over equality in relation to gender and sexual preference with Victorian regulations continuing to dominate and thereby denying equality to all. From a nationalistic perspective it was vital to rid the country of colonialism but ironically it is incumbent to preserve regulations introduced in a by-gone era.

    Compromise, as controversial and unpopular as it may seem, remains at the very heart of democratic governance, especially in Sri Lanka, whereby leaders have had to compromise with each other, with the citizenry and with the international community. Given the largely bipartisan approach to politics, with two parties mainly involved in forming governments alone or in coalitions, the call for compromise was perhaps most vehemently made during the period of cohabitation during the Kumaratunga presidency and thereafter during the Sirisena presidency. The necessity to compromise with the citizenry is stressed during times of protest, strikes and work-to-rule campaigns whereby the state is forced to reach compromise on policies deemed extreme and eagerly championed. Compromise with the international community remains a non-starter as the lack of sufficient bargaining power on the world stage often results in complete acceptance rather than any possibility of compromise.

    Individual freedom remains fundamental in a pluralistic society, yet is highly contentious. While freedom of expression is said to be a basic form of freedom, concerns arise over where such freedom ends and hate speech begins. It is an absolute freedom but one that demands self-regulation. Within the context of the multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-religious milieu of Sri Lankan society, individual freedom while guaranteed constitutionally, is at the crux of preserving harmony. Situations in which sufficient attention has not been paid to the notion of co-existence have seen unfortunate and avoidable repercussions.

    In totality, these concepts remain critical for the effective functioning of a democracy through a process, which Boutros-Ghali claimed would lead to ‘a more open, more participatory, less authoritarian society.’[4] His observation is that democratization and democracy have given way to difficult questions arising whereby ‘the acceleration of democratization and the renaissance of the idea of democracy have met with some resistance.’ [5]

    Boutros-Ghali’s trilogy completing publication, The Agenda for Democratization built on The Agenda for Peace and The Agenda for Development, which brought to the fore the need for intertwining peace, development and democratization. Having undergone massive change, waves of decolonization championed by the Non-Aligned world and ably supported by the United Nations gathered momentum in the post-second World War period. Simultaneously the emergence of the Cold War saw the ideological division heightened. Its end spurred the rebirth of democracy in many countries which had yielded to communism owing to pressure since the end of the Second World War. 

    The phenomenon grew as states emerged from colonialism and undertook their own systems of governance but the essence of democracy permeating through these systems questioned the very nature of its implementation and what it meant to each state. Naseer claims that ‘the euphoria of independence, coupled with a sense of nationalism, led the political leadership in these countries to embrace wide-ranging agenda in a bid to meet the expectations and aspirations of the people.’[6] He cogently argues that ‘nation-building functions were usurped by state-building activities,’ [7] as states were scrambling to primarily address issues of stability and governance, over more idealistic goals of ensuring the widespread prevalence of the very process that may have brought them into power – democratization. 

    Highlighting the role of the United Nations the then Secretary General attempted to enhance, rather than compromise the manner in which states were governed, their policies formulated and support extended to them. Articulating examples of merging peace, development and democratization, he describes El Salvador, Cambodia and Mozambique as states where the ‘United Nations efforts in support of democratization served as a link between conflict resolution, on the one hand, and reconstruction and development on the other.’ [8]

    In considering democratization within states, Sri Lanka sought to forge ahead with development and democratization. At times this was carried out despite the absence of peace owing to the conflict raging in the country. Countering and thwarting terrorism had a price. Development though continued, was stymied owing to lackluster investor confidence given the volatile environment prevalent at different periods. Boutros-Ghali recognizes that democracy is necessary for sustainable development but as in the case in Sri Lanka and other war-ravaged states, peace becomes mandatory for sustainable development to be realized.

    Irrespective of developments within the country, it is evident that the pièce de resistance in Sri Lanka has been the commitment of the citizenry. Whether at successive elections, through civil society or through litigation, much effort has been exerted to ensure the preservation of democracy and democratic standards. Whilst attempts to undermine the very foundation of democracy have occurred, it is evident that nine decades of universal franchise have seen systems of democracy well entrenched in society.

    At the 90^th anniversary of universal franchise the question that arises is of the future. How effectively will democracy be nurtured and exercised in the decades ahead? Given that the country and its citizenry have experienced democracy and enjoyed its fruits, it is not conducive to reverse that which has been gained. Any attempt to reverse such gains will not succeed, and technically should not succeed, which bodes for democracy in the years ahead.

    Yet the persistent concern remains the depth and degree of maturing of the citizenry. While communalism was a critical factor in the 1930s and had been a cause for concern even prior, its continuation remains worrying. Divisions of Sri Lankan society along communal lines has stained the social fabric and restricted the achievement of the potential of the island-nation.

    Milestones are fresh opportunities to re-examine what has been achieved and where a country is heading. In the 21^st century, fragmented societies that sustain division will reap the results of it in the decades ahead. Differences are a natural phenomenon, and heterogenous societies are the norm. Celebration of diversity is also important. However, finding commonalities remain paramount for collective progress and overall achievement of the national interests of a country.

    In Sri Lanka, the primary objective has got to be the promotion of a Sri Lankan identity whereby all citizens of the country, irrespective of their community, race, caste, religion, gender or sexual orientation, remain united by a common denominator – being Sri Lankan. This would be the guarantor and generator of a harmonious society. Then, and only then, will universal franchise, democracy and democratic norms be truly meaningful, as society as a whole, would be able to engage in this worthwhile exercise.

    Democracy has stood the test of time, and is undoubtedly the potent path ahead for Sri Lanka.    
 
This article appeared in a publication titled, ‘DEMOCRACY: Theory and Practice, Sri Lankan Experiences’ by PAFFREL and the March 12 Movement
 

---

[1]Muni, S. D.  (2009).  India’s foreign policy: the democratic dimension, New Delhi: Cambridge University. p2
[2]Ibid. p3
[3]Muni, S. D. (2009). India’s foreign policy: the democratic dimension, New Delhi: Cambridge University. p3
[4] Boutros-Ghali, B. (1996). An Agenda for Democratization, New York, NY: United Nations. p 1
[5] Ibid.
[6] Naseer, S. (2010). Building Trust in Government in South Asia in Cheema, S. G., & Popovski, V. (ed.) Building Trust in Government, Tokyo: United Nations University. p143
[7] Ibid.
[8] Boutros-Ghali, B. (1996). An agenda for democratization, New York, NY: United Nations.  p53