TAKE COURAGE SRI LANKA, WE ARE A DEMOCRACY!

- George I. H. Cooke

When the going gets tough, we Sri Lankans have been known to rise to the occasion, deal with the situation to the best of our ability, endure the problem, overcome the challenge, and move forward. Unfortunately, we forget. The most important thing we forget is that we have those qualities - of resilience, of tenacity, and that we definitely possess the spirit to survive. Instead, we fear, and what we fear most is change.

A trek back in time, shows that we feared many things but we were always courageous, dealt with the eventuality, and moved on. In 1931, when the British held sway in the island nation, and decided to test universal franchise, there was general fear. Many leaders of that era were against it. The British did not have the most cordial of relations from the time of their arrival, with the natives of the land, yet that change that was feared then is our biggest strength today. We became a democracy and have stayed one, truly embracing all aspects of the democratic system.

Every person who has come to power from independence onwards has faced opposition, owing to the fear of what he or she would do with the country. Yet they won through democratic means, governed to the best of their ability, had strengths and weaknesses, and then had to leave. Yes, they had an effect on this country's journey, which was both positive and negative, and yes, we had to endure hardships at times, yet we survived.

It is we, the voters, who had choices at those elections, we voted, and democracy prevailed. We might have liked those in power or not liked them, but what is crucial is that democracy prevailed. The will of the people, above all else - that's true democracy.

We are the oldest democracy in this part of the world, and undoubtedly a country with people who are bold to expect change, work for change, and bold enough to sustain the ethos of change. We thankfully have such people, and it appears that the number is growing.

In September 2024, the need once again is courage, as it has been on numerous occasions in the past. We have voted in leaders, we have defeated leaders, and we have joined together to oust leaders too. This is the richness of the democratic tapestry that has been woven on this beautiful island for more than seven decades. We now need courage to vote again, and not abstain or spoil our votes. It is our right as citizens to decide on the destiny of our country, and also because there are millions around the world who do have the opportunity to vote, we must cherish this right we possess. 

When there is a glimmer of hope to end corruption, to ensure justice and fair play, to stop nepotism, and bring about equality, why are we afraid? Is it because corruption is good? Are injustices and the unfairness in society, fine? Is nepotism wonderful? Is equality bad? Why then, do some fear?  

Interestingly for some this fear stems from select memories of parts of the past, specific moments in a very subjective manner. Yet we do not want to remember everything or everyone who contributed to all that we have endured from independence onwards, on every side of every divide. If we are keen to open the chest of history, let us do so collectively and genuinely look at all aspects of history and not be subjective in our choice of moments and persons. 

In 2024, our biggest problems revolve around the economy, but how did we get here? Poor decisions led to wrong policies and very importantly, corruption at every level contributed to our crisis. The lack of action against those responsible has been the icing on the cake. We are living in a bubble at present, wherein we owe outside entities so much yet we live as though all is fine. Let us realise the reality and be bold, once again. 

A quarter of the 21st century is almost over. We can either harp on the past, complain about the misgivings of some of those moments and selectively remember only parts of history, OR we can look forward, understand the reality of the country, realise the need for justice, fair play and vision, comprehend the vicious role that corruption has played throughout history, and vote wisely. 

Going forward, if we find corruption rampant, misdemeanours of various forms, and mistakes being made, we can and will change leaders. It has been done in the past, it can be done again. Yet fearing change should not be part of our national psyche, especially in the 21st century, because that is not who we really are. 

We Sri Lankans are made of tougher stuff and possess the resilience and strength to face the future. We need to march ahead with confidence and trust. We need to be bold, we need to take courage, we need to embrace change and not forget that we are a democracy!

Let’s exercise our democratic right, and ensure that above all else, democracy prevails in Sri Lanka. 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

BEGGING AROUND THE WORLD: An Evolving or Receding Sri Lankan Foreign Policy?

 By George I. H. Cooke

Sri Lanka has now reached out to the Russian Federation owing to the growing national crisis in the island nation. A national crisis which involves foreign exchange, fuel, power, and of course basic essentials which have been scarce at intervals in the past several months. Yet the biggest crisis facing Sri Lanka is the lack of decisive strategizing. The country is on the eve of its 75^th anniversary of independence in 2023 but has no clear idea where the nation will be in the next couple of weeks let alone next year. Countries strategize by aiming for where they want to be and what they want to achieve for generations to come, but Sri Lanka has been left very much in the lurch due to poor decision making and short-sighted policies of consecutive administrations, which have put personal gain and party politics ahead of the country and its future.

Reflecting on 1931, when the British deemed it suitable to foist universal franchise on the Ceylonese it is possible to deduce that this was probably one of the biggest mistakes they made, or it was perhaps done with a view to continuing the unhealthy policy of ‘divide and rule’. Many Ceylonese leaders themselves were not overly thrilled with the prospect of universal franchise at the time, owing to their own concerns. However, with the testing of the waters in Ceylon so early in the last century, the island nation received, it can be argued, an early start over the rest in Asia. 

The pros and cons of that decision can be long debated, but from independence onwards, the people of Sri Lanka enjoyed the ability to elect leaders to lead the nation. Yet have the people matured as a polity? Churchill himself opined that ‘the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.’ While the statement maybe deemed arrogant in some quarters, it is proven continuously around the world. Just as leaders have focused on personal gain and party politics, voters too have focused on personal gain instead of questioning policy or seeking policy options, especially at times of elections, nor have they held their representatives accountable for decisions taken.

Russia is in the throes of a conflict and Sri Lanka did not defer the financial request despite this situation. The insult is increased when news of Sri Lanka’s abstention at the UN and information regarding the request are both made public at the same time, giving rise to the notion that Sri Lanka abstained expecting assistance in return. Russia is a country that has consistently supported Sri Lanka in the UN Security Council ever since diplomatic relations were established 65 years ago, and the position of Sri Lanka is justifiable but a lack of communication, or effective explanation of the Sri Lankan stance has given rise to misperceptions.

Countries such as India and China are quite probably dreading calls, requests for meetings or any form of correspondence emanating from Sri Lanka. These two countries have been continuously approached and have consistently responded positively to requests that have been forthcoming from Colombo. Other countries must be hugely worried when approached by Sri Lankan diplomats in their capitals, or when they are invited to the Foreign Ministry in Colombo. A country which has had a long history dating back thousands of years even sought assistance from Bangladesh which came into existence just fifty years ago. Bangladesh is currently galloping into the future as a result of effective and decisive strategizing. Turning to countries far and wide and expecting them to keep Sri Lanka afloat only raises the stakes against the country.

The abysmal point at which Sri Lanka finds itself at present is not one from which the country can never hope to return. It is reversible, thankfully. Yet the reversing needs to be done by those who decided to progress this far down this road. Borrowing from other countries, seeking currency swaps and begging around the world, has resulted in Sri Lanka falling in esteem, respect and recognition, which has in turn eroded investor confidence, damaged image and added to the woes of the island nation on the world stage.

It is not only the pandemic that is to blame. It is not only the lack of tourists in the last couple of years that is to blame. It is not only the Easter Sunday attacks and the fear it caused, that is to blame. It is not only the decades long conflict that ended nearly 13 years ago that is to blame. Undoubtedly these developments and events have all contributed to the current situation but it is clearly the lack of strategizing by successive governments that has brought the island to this abysmal point.

As a country, Sri Lanka is highly dependent on the outside world, and has been from independence onwards. This is true of most countries, owing to growing interdependence brought about through trade, investment and financial interactions. Yet one of the key errors that were made was in not focusing sufficiently on the apparatus that engages with the outside world – the Foreign Ministry and Foreign Service. Since 1977 when J. R. Jayewardene decided to appoint Sri Lanka’s first non-prime ministerial Foreign Minister, in A. C. S. Hameed, the Ministry and Service have received step-motherly treatment. There were slight gaps of exception, but against the entirety of history those periods remain relatively brief.

Budgetary allocations for the Ministry have been well below the requirements. Missions around the world have been understaffed, or staffed with political appointees who have been highly incompetent, except for a handful who went beyond the call of duty to enhance Sri Lanka’s image globally. For a country that is highly dependent on the outside world, it is clear that the institution tasked with international engagement must be strengthened. Capacity development should have been a crucial area of emphasis. Instead of sending Foreign Service officers for short term all expenses paid courses in other countries upon receiving invitations only, carefully constructed programmes in renowned international institutions, aimed at improving quality and capability, should have been the focus. Such programmes naturally require financial resources and this is just one reason why the ministry requires a higher budgetary allocation. The list of possibilities remains endless and it is understood that resources within the country are limited, but excellence as an end result cannot be expected if mediocre input is all the country can afford.

Despite these challenges the progress made and achievements to date are highly praiseworthy. The Foreign Service has been able to make this amount of progress owing mainly to individual capabilities rather than collective synergy. However, those with immense ability, are forced to function in a stifling environment. On the other hand, the refusal on the part of the bureaucracy to step forward and explain policy options, highlight concerns, and warn when peril is at hand, has collectively resulted in misguided policy decisions. The entirety of the bureaucracy in Sri Lanka has a responsibility to support a government in implementing its policies but must also be able to flag issues, raise concerns and highlight pitfalls, as otherwise it is the leadership that goes astray, taking the country with them.

In the year leading up to our 75^th anniversary of independence, Sri Lankans, and notably the state and private sectors should be preparing for the future, instead all are grappling with the present and completely unaware of the future. Can the situation get worse? It can and it will. Adopting piecemeal measures to tide over daily activities, waiting for ships to arrive and then hoping that sufficient dollars are available to pay for fuel, or turning to our neighbours and seeking their assistance on a daily basis is not the future that Sri Lanka or Sri Lankans deserve.

Sri Lanka is rich in resources, potential and opportunity. Strategizing for the future has been a key requirement in the years gone by, and is undoubtedly the burning need of the hour. It is not too late to do just that. Rather than continuously asking for fish, it is time that Sri Lanka learns how to fish. Herein lies the importance of a country’s Foreign Policy through which Sri Lanka must identify areas requiring development within the country; draw up a clear national plan of action; seek investment to suit the Sri Lankan plan; engage with technically advanced countries and seek technology transfers especially in the energy sector; ensure value addition within the country prior to natural resources being exported; and most importantly guarantee that Sri Lanka comes first in policy formulation and implementation. 

Although the present predicament might be thought to be a situation in which Sri Lanka is returning to an old policy, of begging around the world, which Professor Ediriweera Sarachchandra also highlighted in a publication many decades ago, the question that begs answering is whether Sri Lanka ever deviated from this policy!