28 February 2023 02:59 am Views - 611
The findings of the Institute for Health Policy Sri Lanka survey reveal that the JVP (32%) and the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) (31%) are running neck-to-neck. The UNP is miles behind with 9%, and the Sri Lanka Podu Jana Peremuna (SLPP) has fallen to irrelevance with 8%.
Pre-election polling data need to be taken with a pinch of salt. The most memorable pollster upset was Donald Trump’s win in the 2016 election, which almost all major pollsters called for Hillary Clinton. If the 2016 result was an anomaly, Trump polled on average 2.5% more in battleground states and over 5-6% in red states than polls predicated in the 2020 election as well.
However, a few things would make this survey special.
First, the lead of the two front runners from the rest is too large that it is hard to be mitigated by a minor swing. The battle between the JVP and the SJB is within the margin of error and would go either way. But what is interesting is JVP’s meteoric rise from irrelevance four years back.
Historically, massive crowds drawn into the JVP rallies have not translated into votes, partly because those rallies were heavily choreographed, converging party cadre from nook and corner of the country. But also, because Sri Lankans, albeit their regular complaints about the quality of the governance, tend to vote to favour the status quo.
However, this time around, the public mood is against the establishment. The UNP, SLPP and the SLFP (which languishes at the bare bottom with 1%) are victims of the anti-establishment public sentiment. Nor has the SJB managed to capitalize on the general mood. Compared to the presidential election of 2019, when Sajith Premadasa polled 42% of the popular votes, its public support has declined. Still, much can happen before the country votes; voters go through mood swings, and undecided voters will decide. However, there is no guarantee that the old voting habits would make a return.
Second is the social and political context. International experience reveals that the voters in the throes of economic crisis tend to vote in favour of parochial, anti-reform, anti-austerity agendas. That is because, under the trying social and economic conditions, their vote becomes a protest vote against the establishment. In this bout of public anger, policy coherence and pragmatism of the political parties are overlooked. Probably that might help the JVP as well.
The findings of the Institute for Health Policy Sri Lanka survey reveal that the JVP (32%) and the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) (31%) are running neck-to-neck. The UNP is miles behind with 9%, and the Sri Lanka Podu Jana Peremuna (SLPP) has fallen to irrelevance with 8%
Also, realistic policy fixes for the accumulated effects of the long-neglected economic maladies of Sri Lanka, which have now developed into a full-fledged economic crisis, are often painful and unpopular. Any political party that makes a genuine effort is likelier to be loathed, much less admired. That is, in part, the dilemma of President Ranil Wickremesinghe, each of whose pragmatic policy measures so far, be it tax reforms or electricity and fuel tariff hikes, has given a field day for his opponent.
This full-blown anti-establishment fervour of the public mood would wither over time as the economy recovers. But it is unlikely to happen anytime soon. If Sri Lanka is to come out of the current economic crisis and plan for a rapid economic take-off, it has to go through a full course of economic liberalization. That may threaten the vested interest of the trade unions, the SOEs and domestic monopolies that have milked the captive market. Still, they have shown a commendable skill in convincing the public that their predatory existence is in the interest of the very public, who are being exploited and overburdened. After all, this is not the first time that the Sri Lankans protested against their interests.
Where policy pragmatism is discarded, cock and bull solutions dominate the public discourse and are accepted as received wisdom. That is what some television channels, driven by overt agendas and sloppy conspiracy theory-laden political analysis, are doing right now. That is no less opportunistic and rent-seeking than putting Gotabaya on a pedestal three years back, only to crash land with him to the nadir of an economic rot.
Third, political parties rearrange their policy agendas according to the public mood. The most notable of this phenomenon is the SJB. One might hear a whimper from some of the party stalwarts about the urgency of economic liberalization. But the SJB as a party has not provided a clear blueprint or anything remotely similar as to how it will pull the country from the financial sinkhole. Nor do its leaders seem to think it is a necessity. Instead, it is often unsuccessfully trying to leverage the ‘public’ opposition to reform. That public opposition should also be read as the outrage of a loud and organized minority of vested interested groups. They are as representative of the public as the NGOs are the hallmark of civil society.
This is not just callous and opportunistic but is also a losing gamble for the SJB. Its persistent inability to capitalize on the public anger towards the Rajapaksas is mainly due to its failure to offer a set of practical policy alternatives. That vacuum of responsible and pragmatic politics threatens to drive even the sensible voters away from the SJB, with their most likely destination being the JVP.
The JVP is a curious case. Its residue of ideological dogma and the grip of its trade unions make it hard to grapple with the existential reality of the country’s economic troubles. Some folks think that if Vietnam can open up the economy and turbocharge it, why cannot JVP? That’s a fallacy. Vietnam could do so, not because it is socialist but because it is authoritarian. The same applies to China. In fact, all the South East and East Asian Tiger economies were authoritarian during their high-growth decades. Authoritarian states have near absolute autonomy over their public, which none of the South Asian political systems could garner.
Fourth, the result of this whole experience is a disappointment. Countries elsewhere have been through this phase. In 2015, Syriza, a coalition of hard-left political parties, swept to power in Greece, capitalizing on the public anger against austerity measures imposed as part of a bailout package during the Eurozone economic crisis. A period of internal bickering followed as constituent parties disagreed with nearly everything and anything, including the bailout package. After four wasteful years, Syriza was defeated in the general elections in 2019.
Political parties that land power by capitalizing on public anger and offering pie-in-the-sky solutions find it hard to govern. The JVP or the SJB that feeds off the public outrage would fall victim to the same when they are in power. The agendas of their trade unions and fellow travellers would conflict with the prescribed policy fixes and risk derailing the economic recovery. That conflict is not altogether new: Sri Lanka’s economic liberalization got stuck in the mid-1990s after the election of the Chandrika Kumaratunga government.
Due to this stagnation, our export basket has not changed since then. Lack of progress was much less due to ideological baggage but due to the hindrance of fellow travellers in the SLFP trade unions. A crippling island-wide strike by the CEB unions during the early years of the CBK government left a lasting impact on the liberalizing agenda. The fate of the SJB or JVP would not be different if it rides to power, feeding off the anti-reform agenda.
If the JVP (or SJB in its current policy vacillation) form a government, I would bet my two cents that the Rajapaksas would sweep back to power not before long.
Follow @RangaJayasuriya on Twitter