Democratic Development and Technocratic Neo-Liberalism
-- Ahilan Kadirgamar
With the ceasefire between the Sri Lankan state and the LTTE
continuing past the eighth month, the return to social and economic
normalcy and economic development have become central questions
for those involved in the negotiations and for those forced to
watch from the sidelines. The first and second round of peace
talks have been mainly an appeal for Western funds for development
and reconstruction by the Sri Lankan state, the LTTE and the Norwegian
facilitators. Development itself has different meanings, depending
on who defines it in the Sri Lankan context. For the Sri Lankan
state, it is strengthening the state and its financial stability,
in its ability to service its debts and satisfy its business interests
through narrow measures of economic growth. For the LTTE, it is
control over the funds for reconstruction and hence overall power
over the North and East. For the ‘ordinary people’ it may suggest
new opportunities for employment and better living conditions.
However, these views of development are inadequate and don’t point
to substantive social, economic and political changes that would
transform the lives of people.
It is troubling to see the lack of open debate and discussion
on the direction of development, which is symptomatic of a certain
ideological stance towards development. While there has been limited
debate in the South about the path of development particularly
by the old Left parties and civil society organizations, the public
sphere in the North and East, has been silent because of the dominance
of a technocratic ideology of development - an ideology that says
the experts know what is best, when it comes to the difficult
question of how to reconstruct the material fabric of a shattered
society. Such a technocratic ideology assumes there is only one
path of development, which the local experts (the SL government’s
ministers and bureaucrats and the LTTE’s representatives in the
newly formed Joint Task Force) and the international pundits (from
the World Bank, IMF and other multilateral and bilateral donors)
know. One has to question whether the economic and the political
are indeed so different or for that matter disjoint. After all,
when it comes to political questions there seem to be a wide range
of opinions, as long as they are not coerced into silence.
Technocracy in Sri Lanka works in tandem with neo-liberalism,
an economic ideology that crafts an open economy of market capitalism.
Hence, while the masses are pushed into thinking that the experts
know what is best, the experts in turn say the market knows what
is best. Who is then responsible for the welfare of the people?
Abundant examples of neo-liberal policies in Africa and Latin
America point to grim results engineered by a political economy
of irresponsibility. Neo-liberal policies in other countries,
which come with privatization, opening of the goods markets and
expanding capital (stock) markets have led to initial short booms
with the inflow of capital, in the form of development aid, FDI
(Foreign Direct Investment) and other global funds. The boom and
euphoria is usually followed by longer cycles of crisis characterized
by crippled economic structures (bankruptcies and banking crises),
debt, capital flight and depression. The multilateral donor agencies
such as the World Bank, Asian Development Bank and IMF, along
with capital from multinational corporations and the First World
states have been complicit in the social and economic destruction
of many a developing country through what is now commonly known
as globalization.
The following from a World Bank report published two years ago
is useful in looking at what might be in store for Sri Lanka in
terms of neo-liberal policy. “Sri Lanka’s future economic and
social development will depend not merely on maintaining sound
macroeconomic management and accelerating privatization, but more
importantly on the country’s ability to resolve the on-going conflict
and move quickly into implementing key structural reforms to enhance
economic growth and reduce poverty” (Sri Lanka Recapturing Missed
Opportunities June 16, 2000, pg iii) Given that many believe the
conflict is going to be resolved, the next steps are also on the
way: structural reforms, macroeconomic management, accelerated
privatization and economic growth (the canons of neo-liberalism)
all miraculously leading to reduced poverty. We can contrast this
with a statement issued in opposition to the Sri Lankan government’s
Poverty Reduction Strategy presented at the Sri Lanka Development
Forum with the World Bank in June this year. The coalition included
MONLAR (Movement for National Land and Agricultural Reform) and
took the SL government and the World Bank to task for their past
blunders and stated: “We believe that people, the poor particularly,
have far more effective strategies to overcome poverty, provided
they are given the opportunity to adequately participate in discussion
regarding strategies for poverty reduction.” (People’s Alliance
against the Sale of Public Assets to Foreign Corporations) A few
such civil society organizations are raising issues around democratizing
development, but their voices remain unheard, under the hegemony
of an overwhelming ideology backed by the state and global powers.
While the formula above of technocratic neo-liberal development
may sound alarming to the critics on the sidelines, those actively
promoting such policies may think otherwise. It has been the history
of such development, that it enriches a class of rent-seekers
(those who gain through patronage and corruption when economic
changes lead to flow of large incomes). It is in the interest
of such a class of local elites to legitimize the current trajectory
of development and reconstruction in Sri Lanka. Events are moving
quickly, given the backing of those in power. The UNP and its
cronies (profiteers of rent-seeking in the opening of the economy
from 1977) and the LTTE (known for its exorbitant taxation not
to mention extortion) are all too eager to see the funds come
in any form, regardless of the path of development.
The large donor’s meeting to be hosted by Norway towards the
end of the November and the subsequent meeting in Japan point
to a trajectory suitable for rent-seeking by local and international
political elites and their institutions. Whether it is the policies
of a centralized state, a neo-liberal state or civil society organizations,
without broad democratic participation, issues of development
will not be adequately addressed and stand the risk of appropriation
by rent-seeking forces. Hence what is crucial and necessary is
a vision of development that does not divorce the political from
the economic, where the masses are responsible for their own future.
The politics of the technocrats is predetermined towards maximizing
certain normalized categories, such as “economic growth” and “poverty
reduction”, without debating what poverty means, particularly
to those suffering from poverty. The supporters of neo-liberalism
on the other hand hide behind a façade of apolitical economic
policies claiming that only the market can and should determine
the economic future. A future desirable to the masses can only
be produced by clear accountability of the various political and
economic structures towards the masses and most of all by the
masses’ active participation. Hence not only is democratic participation
necessary for determining the path of development, such development
will further enhance democratic participation by empowering the
masses. To begin with, a political economy of democratic development
will address the social, economic and political issues of the
different cross-sections of the populace. How can small farmers,
women-headed households, displaced fisher-folk, practitioners
of small industries, oppressed caste workers and unemployed urban
youth participate in such social and economic development? How
can their interests gain a political voice? Will new political
formations capable of providing that voice rise up?
Next, in debating the path of development many questions like
the following will have to be raised in the public sphere. 1.
Changes in employment practices leading to equal opportunity and
wages for men and women. 2. The need for rural and micro development
versus infrastructure development. 3. Changes in production capable
of breaking down caste relations. 4. Distribution of resources
to state institutions, community institutions and households.
5. The form of development that will transform ethnic relations.
6. Devolution of administrative power to the regions and communities.
7. Changes leading to narrowing of income inequality. 8. The form
of development that will give importance to social and human capital,
through welfare and education. There are many more lines of debating
the issues surrounding different paths of development. The objective
here is not to list the various issues around development or for
that matter to push forward any specific path of development.
Rather it is a call for much needed debate and participation by
the public on the kind of development necessary for Sri Lanka.
What are the chances of the prevalent political forces taking
up even some concerns around development? The UNP, the party of
the local elites, will continue to pay lip-service to poverty
reduction along World Bank lines, while it caters to its upper
class interests. The LTTE supporters may have dreams of a Singapore
style technocratic model succeeding - this is further highlighted
by Anton Balasingam’s call to “Tigerize” the economy, but there
is nothing concrete to look at in the form of a program. The PA
seems to be politically bankrupt and unable to respond to the
UNP on crucial social and economic questions, other than by reacting
with political immaturity in spoiling the peace process. And the
JVP will continue to try its populist and chauvinistic line. In
the past, economic concerns were usurped by ethno-nationalist
forces. The question now is whether the old Left parties along
with the various civil society organizations can actively work
on issues of development and social justice. The late Newton Gunasinghe,
a leading social scientist, showed through his 1988 paper ‘The
Open Economy and its Impact on Ethnic Relations’ that structural
changes to the economy are instrumental in creating new political
formations that transform ethnic and class relations. Such transformed
relations can be a social disaster (as seen during the previous
period of UNP rule) or can be progressive. Sri Lanka is again
at the crossroads, confronted by multiple paths of development.
The task ahead is to push for political formations keen on social
and economic justice through debate and struggles around democratic
and participatory development.
HOME
