-- Ahilan Kadirgamar
While the LTTE officials were busy reviewing their proposals for ISGA (Interim Self-Governing Authority), some 80,000 healthcare workers began one of the largest strikes on Sept 17th. It was a multi-ethnic island-wide strike challenging the neo-liberal policy package that is being pushed through along with the peace process. This was a characteristically different challenge to the 4.5 billion dollar Donor package promised for ‘Regaining Sri Lanka’ and reconstructing the North and East. It was a strike demanding wage increases, threatening the austerity measures of the neo-liberal program and questioned the extreme salary anomalies between their wages and those of the doctors. The other challenge was from the LTTE, which refused to attend the Tokyo Donor Conference, demanding an interim administration to control the North and East, including control over the funds allocated for reconstructing the North and East. The LTTE then went on to draft their proposals for the ISGA.
It is worth looking at the report from the WSWS (World Socialist Web Site) on how the SL government and the LTTE handled the healthcare workers strike:
“The
UNF government has refused to make any concessions and denounced the strikers, blaming
them for endangering patients’ lives. In a flagrant breach of Sri Lankan law,
it has sent members of the armed forces into the hospitals to take over the
duties of the striking workers. The Health Ministry has sacked 1,600 casual
workers and recruited hundreds of scabs to replace them. At the same time, the
police have been used to harass, intimidate and even detain strikers.
The
LTTE has decided not to defend the workers, but to openly back the government.
On September 23, its leaders in the Northern Province city of Jaffna convened a
meeting at the Jaffna base hospital—a major state-run facility—and told workers
they should end their strike on “humanitarian grounds”. The LTTE’s argument
dovetails exactly with that of the government and the Colombo media, serving to
cover up the fact that full responsibility for the undermining of the public
health system, and the resultant threats to patients, lies with the government
and its policies.
The
Jaffna hospital workers engaged in a heated exchange with the LTTE officials,
demanding to know why they had decided to oppose the strike, yet had supported
earlier industrial action by doctors. In the end, the workers defied the LTTE’s
warnings that the military would be sent into the hospital, and resolved to remain
on strike.
According
to media reports, similar incidents have taken place in other areas. Jaffna
regional leader Illanpirai reportedly ordered a return to work at the town’s
main teaching hospital, warning that LTTE cadres would replace the strikers. In
Vavuniya, LTTE leader Amirthab told the press that 20 LTTE members had been
sent to the local hospital to compel strikers to go back. The same orders were
apparently issued in eastern Batticaloa, where workers again defied the LTTE in
at least one major hospital.”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/sep2003/ltte-s30.shtml
The LTTE’s ISGA proposals drafted in the various capitals around the world and finalized in the Vanni have to be situated in the historical unfolding of such local struggles and corresponding repression, and in relation to the dynamics and fields of global economic power. First, the political and economic program in the ISGA is written based on its ability to shut down struggles by people on the ground, including those struggles around economic democracy. Second, the LTTE’s ISGA proposals as they apply to economic questions are attempting to be in tune with the “international community” and its friendliness towards neo-liberalism and technocracy.
As illustrated by the LTTE’s actions and its ISGA proposals, the LTTE is against economic democracy. Here it would be worth borrowing the definition of economic democracy from a recent statement titled ‘Regaining Lanka for economic democracy,’ which addresses the Sri Lankan state’s neo-liberal economic package ‘Regaining Sri Lanka’: “In terms of the substance of economic policy, economic democracy would, at a minimum, seek to guarantee basic human security and opportunity for all Lankans, rather than pandering to the interests of the privileged few. In terms of process, economic democracy would signify a commitment to local ownership of economic policy with a transparent, consultative and participatory process, rather than importing a blue print designed in Washington and peddled by those in Colombo who stand to share in its spoils.” While the statement above was concerned about the undemocratic moves by the state in the South, it speaks to where the LTTE is heading as well.
The concerns above about economic democracy in Lanka can be translated into questions about the allocation and responsibility of killing economic democracy in the North and East in the near future. Does it lie with the LTTE, the Sri Lankan state or the “international community”? While the dynamics and field of economic power have been determined in a technocratic and neo-liberal direction in the interests of the powerful, it is the share of such power and wealth that are yet to be determined by the negotiations that are to ensue between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan state under the legitimizing eyes of the “international community”. Nevertheless, it is worth engaging with the ISGA proposals. Engagement that would be steps towards mobilizing for economic democracy. Engagement here could mean at a minimum, criticism and alternatives to the ISGA and the various other political and economic manifestos of the Right such as the Regaining Sri Lanka or even stronger responses such as struggles on the ground like the recent healthcare workers strike.
Economic decision-making and policy will be controlled by the ISGA, which in turn will be controlled by the LTTE. There is no mention of the need to democratize such decisions; local communities and individuals will have little say in their economic future. Rather, it is a recipe for the technocratic control and execution of economic power by the LTTE, resulting in further accumulation of wealth and power by the LTTE and its future allies.
Next, economic concerns are clothed in humanitarian discourse to justify technocratic control, de-politicize the interests of the people and to suppress democratic participation. For example: “Determined to establish an interim self-governing authority for the NorthEast region and to provide for the urgent needs of the people of the NorthEast by formulating laws and policies and, effectively and expeditiously executing all resettlement, rehabilitation, reconstruction and development in the NorthEast” First, how does any state structure understand or know the urgent needs of the people? Without participation by the people, how are the needs of the people to be known. Second, the language of needs attempts to de-politicize the interests of the people. Even when we consider those who are displaced, their interests are varied, as some may want to return, some may wish to resettle in the their new homes and others may wish to be compensated. Depending on their class, caste and ethnic make-up, their interests are going to be different. The concerns of Tamil refugees, who fled to Tamil Nadu in the face of an invading army, are going to be very different from the security concerns of the Muslims, who suffered ethnic cleansing and eviction at the hands of the LTTE. Hence humanitarian needs of the people as defined by the ISGA will stand conceptually in opposition to the peoples participatory economic interest. Note also how the LTTE invoked “humanitarian grounds” to intimidate and threaten the striking workers.
To take another example about participation: “The ISGA will, giving due consideration to an equitable distribution, determine the use of funds placed at its disposal.” While there is lip service to equitable distribution, there is no mention of how local community interests will be represented or given “due consideration” in getting such distribution. In terms of process, there is no mention of participatory processes to ensure that the interests of local and minority communities are met, rather, that distribution is to be determined by a Financial Commission appointed by the ISGA.
This brings up the question of monitoring the workings of the ISGA. That is, concerns about monitoring its policies to ensure the economic interests and welfare of the people. What are the processes that will ensure local accountability and transparency? The ISGA states: “The ISGA shall appoint an Auditor General. All Funds referred to in this Agreement shall be operated, maintained and audited in accordance with internationally accepted accounting and auditing standards.” As mentioned at the beginning of the article, the LTTE’s concerns seems to be how they can satisfy demands of the “international community”, however, economic democracy would demand access, transparency and accountability by the people on the ground.
Finally, economic policy in the ISGA seems to mean nothing more than centralized control and efficient allocation of finances and resources, rather than looking at policy as the stage for producing and transforming political, social and economic relations. When it comes to the policies on land, “The ISGA shall appoint a Special Commission on Administration of Land to inquire into and report on the rights of dispossessed people over land and land subject to encroachment…” Again a commission appointed by the ISGA, will determine the future of relations between communities in a context where tensions exist between those whose access to the land has changed due to the conflict. If the relations between these communities are to be nurtured and developed it would involve active participation by the communities, not to be dictated by a commission that could be partisan. Furthermore, in looking at how ethnic and other identarian (caste, gender and class) relations and inequalities are going to be transformed, concerns arise about the entrenchment of patronage systems. How will the ISGA ensure that patronage systems do not take root, merely stating that the ISGA will “ensure that no bribery or corruption is permitted” is not sufficient; Tamil – Muslim relations have suffered by a history of such ethnic patronage and perceptions of such ethnic patronage. Hence there is a need for active participation by all communities along principles of economic democracy to ensure such inter-ethnic relations are nurtured.
The striking healthcare workers for example questioned why they could not get proportional pay raises in line with those of the doctors. How are such workers concerns going to be addressed by the ISGA? While the ISGA proposals have specific sections about finance, administration of land, accounting, trade, marine resources etc., the words labor and worker are not even mentioned once. This silence along with the silence on caste and gender are deeply troubling; it reflects the spirit of the ISGA as at best indifferent and more likely against the concerns of the oppressed. The prospect of economic democracy and more specifically transforming class and production relations in this context are dismal.
The healthcare workers strike has many lessons for those concerned about democratizing the North and East and economic democracy in Lanka. First, it clearly highlights the position of the LTTE with respect to workers rights. That in addition to excelling at repressing other minorities and political dissent, it will also become a ruthless machine of economic oppression. The second lesson to be learned from the courageous strikers in the North and East is that if there is to be any long lasting change in the North and East, it will have to come from the ground. Compared to the games that international facilitators and even international humanitarian organizations play, this was a real and determined resistance worthy of hope for change. The third lesson is that resistance in the North and East has to be on two fronts; both against the Sri Lankan state and the LTTE, and that it can gain strength in uniting with progressive forces in the South. That joining the LTTE to defeat the Sri Lankan state, and vice versa are both bound for failure in terms of putting forward a progressive agenda.
Economic democracy gains meaning only in the context of struggles to democratize, in real struggles unfolding out of history and in shaping the institutions that may provide for economic democracy. Hence, while we should look at the ISGA proposals and see what they may mean for economic democracy in the near future; while we should engage with the ISGA proposals to include provisions for participation, transparency, monitoring, accountability and transforming ethnic, class, gender and caste relations, it may be equally and in the end, more important to encourage and strengthen those struggles for economic democracy and to support such mobilizations and social movements that are the life and blood of democracy.