SLFP: Time To Revise Its Policies And Strategies

On the occasion of the 64th Anniversary of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party

by Wiswa Warnapala

( September 2, 2015, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The intended purpose of this essay is to provide some food for thought for the party leadership and its rank and file so that it could change its strategies and policies and establish a legitimate link with the historical foundations of the SLFP, which, unlike other political parties in the country, was a party based totally on the aspirations of the common man. Any overt attempt to deviate from this popular tradition which, for more than sixty years, nurtured the sustenance of the party, which since 1951, emerged and remained as the most formidable political formation in the political landscape of Sri Lanka and it this formidable character which has been threatened by certain internal contradictions which, if not checked, would lead to the erosion of its substantial political base. The last two elections demonstrated this particular trend and the successive defeats within seven months indicated the nature of the internal crisis within the party.

Politics, in any country, is the foremost arena in which throughout history some men have established their power over others. It is in this particular context that the SLFP, as a powerful political formation, needs to think of a radical renewal of its policies and strategies. It needs to comprehensively renew its policy towards ethnic minorities in the country and its democratic ideals and traditions need to be immediately restored.

These internal contradictions and disruptive trends are being largely sponsored by certain divisive forces within the party and its leadership and it, therefore, needs to be tackled with political maturity and commitment to the basic principles of the party and the disruptive trends need to be nipped in the bud with decisive political action by the present leadership of the party. It needs to be emphasised that the contradictions that emerged in the last few months are a temporary phenomenon, and they should not be allowed to develop into a major split as the authors of the present contradictions and the disruptive tendencies are engaged in an overt struggle to promote an individual who has been decisively rejected by the national electorate of this country on two prominent occasions.

The leadership of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, from its inception in 1951, was in the hands of the Bandaranaikes till 2005, and it was during this period, which covered a considerable period of time, the party developed into a modern political organisation, the antecedents of which came on the scene from the days of the Colonial State. It was in the days of the Colonial State that the seeds of its origin were sowed by S. W. R.D. Bandaranaike, who as a young politician, saw the need for an alternative political platform with a tinge of nationalism and it also contained progressive political ideas of his own and they drew inspiration from the anti-colonialist movement in our part of the world. He, as a young perceptive politician, imbibed anti-imperialist ideas. With the political changes that came along with the Donoughmore reforms, Bandaranaike, with his understanding of the emerging social and political trends in the Sri Lankan polity wanted to establish a political platform which could accommodate and give a place to the established pressure groups of the traditional society in Sri Lanka. The traditional institutions which hitherto remained suppressed due to the repressive impact of colonialism, needed to be resurrected to tap the political potentiality hidden in the traditional rural leadership, and it showed the direction in which he proposed to organise the masses.

It was from this base that the alternative political leadership came to be formed and it was from this political base that Bandaranaike formed the SLFP in 1951 and the entirety of the Donoughmore period came to be utilised for the purpose of enthusing the traditional rural intelligentsia and several pressure groups of the traditional rural society were given an organizational status and they largely constituted the Pancha Maha Balavegaya that came to the forefront of the political struggle in 1956. It was on the basis of those pressure groups that the historical foundations of the party were founded and the policy objectives and policy formulations were partially based on those historical foundations.

The Bandaranaikes, in the very formative years of the SLFP, which, in fact, was the democratic alternative party of the post-independent State in Sri Lanka, played a crucial role in building up the party as the political vehicle of the common man. SWRD remained at the helm for a short time and it was Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike, the matriarch of Sri Lankan politics, who led the party for more than forty years and it was under her astute leadership the party, deriving inspiration from its historical foundations, developed it into a major political formation in the country. It was during her period of leadership that the party, while adjusting and testing policies, achieved tremendous success as the party of government and its policies though it derived inspiration from the Bandaranaike legacy, remained loyal to its historical foundations and the deviationist policies were primarily pragmatic adjustments without which no political party could develop into a viable instrument of political and social change. SWRD by founding the SLFP in 1951, invented a popular democratic alternative and it was this historical innovation that flowered into the formidable political party under Sirimavo. No Third World political system could successfully function without a formidable political party capable of achieving political stability. The party, throughout its period, especially during the Bandaranaike period, remained loyal to the policies of the party and its historical foundations. This, however, did not mean that pragmatic adjustments were not made; numerous such adjustments were made to suit the local and global considerations but the fact remains that such adjustments, pragmatic or not, made no inroads into the established policy formulations of the party. Policies have to be changed but changes in policy should not overturn the basic historical foundations. All leaders of the party, before 2005, made such pragmatic adjustments and they did not destroy the established objectives and the intrinsic values of the party.

One should not carry the impression that the argument is that a political party should remain committed to its ideals forever; a party should naturally change but it should not deviate from its historical foundations. In my view, its historical foundations, though they may look irrelevant, are still valid and they could provide some inspiration to the policy objectives of the party. What we saw in the last ten years was an overt attempt to deviate from the main policy postures of the party and taking the party, which was a democratic political instrument, in the direction of naked authoritarianism. It has to be emphasised that the party, in many of its policy spheres, deviated in the last decade and it is this manifest aspect which needs critical evaluation. The distinguishing basic character of the party is to be found in the compendium of policies of the party. What I am trying to emphasise is that the SLFP, in the period before 2005 maintained a comparable continuity in its policies and it never attempted to erase the very philosophical and personality resources from which it derived inspiration from its inception. In fact, they were useful political resources which nurtured the party for years. I am referring to the Bandaranaike legacy which, in reality, was a massive political resource.

No political party would remain in the same social context and the mould which was there at its formation but what needs to be emphasized is the significance of the party tradition which, in theory, is a powerful political resource needed for its own continued sustenance. Both Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike and Mrs. Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, though they introduced substantial changes and adjustments in both policy and strategies in the given social and political context, made no attempt to completely break away from the party’s historical tradition. Since 1956, the party, though remained the democratic alternative to the UNP, entered into coalitions with the parties of the traditional Left.

The LSSP, according to an internal discussion paper prepared by Dr. N. M. Perera, in Apri1, 1964, admitted that they had made a mistake by not joining the MEP in 1956. Dr. N. M. Perera, in fact, lamented that they had attempted to apply Marxist theory without taking into consideration the changing political, economic and social conditions of the country. Therefore, the emergence of the SLFP as the only viable alternative to the UNP influenced the Marxists to adjust their position. NM, in the same document, stated: “We have missed the bus several times due to our incorrect analysis which were often based on outdated theory.” This shows the importance of the SLFP as a political party rooted in the political life of Sri Lanka.

Its role as the alternative party could not be challenged and it now needs to maintain a profile as a party based on the aspirations of all different communities in the country and it should not enter into a bandwagon of small ultra-nationalist communal parties which could lead the SLFP in the direction of political wilderness. Smaller communal outfits led by ultra-racist nationalists should not be allowed to control the SLFP which has the capacity and ability to manage its own policy postures and affairs.

Historically, the party continued to maintain its links with the traditional pressure groups which symbolically came to be called Pancha Maha Balavegaya and no attempt was made to add to this powerful fiat of traditional pressure groups which expressed the grievances and ethos of theirs through the platform of the party. The Pancha Maha Balavegaya was constituted of social forces with links to the traditional society and they sociologically are traditional institutions which Bandaranaike recognised as far back as 1926. These social forces made a major contribution in the making of policy and they played a vital role in the implementation of certain national policies in the country. This historical pattern changed in the last decade and their assistance was sought to build a personality cult within the party. Certain segments of the Maha Sangha were trying to promote a cult of personality within the party and the State and it was similar to the cult of personality in certain totalitarian States. As a result of these anti-democratic trends within the party in the last five years, the SLFP, despite its democratic tradition, evolved into an appendage of the party leader who made all institutions of the party subservient to the dictates of the leader. Internal democracy within the party disappeared and the party especially after the defeat of the LTTE became an appendage of the ruling family and it was the defeat of the LTTE which intoxicated him with absolute power. He worked under the delusion that political power was unassailable and permanent. In the process, the party, a democratic organization, became a docile political instrument of the leader who was enthusiastically promoting a personality cult of his own. Party and all its organs including those of the State were made subordinate to the dictates of the ruling family which converted the Sri Lankan State into a fiefdom of theirs. In the process, what happened was that the state, slowly and swiftly, moved in the direction of authoritarianism. The SLFP throughout its history had powerful leaders with a charisma of their own and they, in my view, never enjoyed an acquired charisma. These leaders, though developed a powerful personality of their own in the context of the party, never allowed it to develop into a kind of authoritarianism. Such leaders remained loyal to the party apparatus and maintained a constant dialogue with the party membership. Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike for instance, knew most, if not all, the leaders at the grassroots level of the party and it was this trait of hers which helped her to build a party with decent and honest men who did not indulge in abuse of power and corruption. But what happened in the last decade, especially in the last five years, was alarming as the party became a servile and subordinate instrument of an authoritarian ruler who wanted the party to promote and recognize a cult of personality. All propaganda institutions were geared to achieve this objective and the party, in the process, became a secondary institution. It is this aspect which needs critical evaluation.

Politics, in any country, is the foremost arena in which throughout history some men have established their power over others. It is in this particular context that the SLFP, as a powerful political formation, needs to think of a radical renewal of its policies and strategies. It needs to comprehensively renew its policy towards ethnic minorities in the country and its democratic ideals and traditions need to be immediately restored. Party should be more democratic and it should allow, assent, dissent, debate and argument and a high level of internal democracy. Its discipline which manifestly deteriorated in the last six months need to be restored and decisive action is necessary to tackle the divisive and disruptive tendencies within the party apparatus. As in the recent past it should not become an appendage of an over-ambitious leader whose style of governance was absolutely authoritarian. Most Asian parties are leader-centred but internal democracy within the party apparat was totally absent in the past decade.

SWRD Bandaranaike founded a party which drew strength from a variety of social forces and traditional pressure groups whose views, though different at times, were allowed to play a significant role in making policy. This special character remained within the party till its leadership fell into the hands of another individual in 2005 for the first time in its history. The ruling family and its immediate cabal became the architects of policy and strategies and as a result the party was defeated twice within a matter of seven months.

Therefore, it would be useful, especially in the uniquely novel political scenario in the country, to look at the party from the prism of its traditional antecedents. The party which was in the saddle since 1994 is now faced with a new predicament and a new dilemma. The whole political scenario has changed and the newly elected President, Maitripala Sirisena is now the President of the SLFP and he needs to be given an opportunity to lead the party without making attempts to build a party within the party. The existing political scenario consists of a bundle of contradictions and they need to be resolved with political circumspection and decisive political action. The need of the hour is to take stock of the situation and take corrective measures to study and arrest the numerous mistakes which the party made in the last ten years, especially in the last five years. The party, in my view, should make a thorough re-assessment of its policies and strategies instead of making tactical errors in the given political scenario. Firstly, the party must get rid of its tarnished image in the sphere of democratic governance. The abuse of power and corruption have been the main charges and the overall deterioration of all institutions of government in the last decade has to be arrested. The democratic image of the party has to be immediately restored as the party of the alternative government. For instance, the ordinary masses, who are being mobilised by a group of demagogues, do not understand the highly complex issues of politics and the party should take the offensive against such forces. No country can be governed with inferior judgement of the governed and the ordinary people in the opinion of Plato could rarely be expected to penetrate the complex issues of politics.

In the last several years, the party has experienced both tyranny and despotism, and this experience, which destroyed the valued democratic ideals for which the party stood since 1951, needs to be utilised to make changes in both policy and strategies. The arrogance of power at the very top in the last few years weakened the party and its direct impact was such that it further weakened the, political effectiveness of the party as a mass organization. Party unity needs to be restored immediately to get back its effectiveness as the major political formation of this country and all divisive and disruptive tendencies need to ne nipped in the bud.

The present leadership at the top is quite the opposite; it is a leadership which commands popular acceptance and it has the capacity to lead the party to formulate acceptable policies based on the established historical foundations of the party.