The  Cabinet Ministers of Singapore, most of whom hold post-graduate degrees from top tier global universities and have decades of professional experience are exceptionally qualified.

Last week as Sri Lanka celebrated the 74th anniversary of its independence, there happened to be a lumbering amount of analysis as to what went wrong in our independent history. Much of that discourse was saddled with a hefty sense of disappointment, which was understandable. But, some of the most hackneyed whining was overly simplistic; comparisons were cherry-picked, and all of that generally lead to overly gloomy analysis.   

 For instance, whenever a public speaker is gauging our post-independence performance, the general tendency is to draw a comparison against a handful of break out nations of the 20th century: Singapore, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, etc. That is akin to comparing an average student with a Mensa certified IQ genius. Those few nations are an exception to the norm and they managed to exploit certain unique geopolitical, historical and structural advantages during their high growth years. In comparison, the vast majority of newly independent nations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America had not done any better than Sri Lanka. Probably, Sri Lanka could still claim itself to be a success story of a welfare state, that within its economic means had managed to provide free health care and education for all of its people.   

Comparisons between Sri Lanka and Singapore are also a dime a dozen, in part because, Lee Kuan Yew was said to be inspired by Sri Lanka’s early success. So, according to opinion-makers of a certain school of thought, the primary handicap in Sri Lanka was race relations. If Sri Lanka treated all its communities the way Singapore does, we would have become a paradise by now, they observe authoritatively.  

"Comparisons between Sri Lanka and Singapore are also a dime a dozen, in part because, Lee Kuan Yew  was said to be inspired by Sri Lanka’s early success"

 But, in truth, the race relations in Singapore are highly regulated; microscopic of Confucianist belief in the social hierarchy where everyone has their assigned place in society and they ought to keep on to it. Alongside a normative ethnic representation in the state and hefty retribution cost for upsetting the status quo, that premise could be expanded to regulate race relations. A similar arrangement does exist in another Tiger economy, Malaysia, where politics is by default, the prerogative of ethnic Malays.   

Probably, in such a status quo, passing the Vaddukkodai Resolution would have been tantamount to passing one’s death sentence, and in that sense, regulated race relations like in Singapore or Malaysia might have saved the country from three decades of the nihilistic secessionist campaign. But, that would not necessarily have made a happy society.   

Then, there is another school of thought that we have repeatedly elected incompetent and uneducated fools, who are not fit to lead the nation. A social media post that made rounds last week poked fun at the educational qualifications of the holders of political office in Singapore and Sri Lanka. Of course, the Cabinet Ministers of Singapore, most of whom hold post-graduate degrees from top tier global universities and have decades of professional experience are exceptionally qualified. Whereas the majority of our fellows are no better than an average village headman. However, our politicians are elected through competitive elections - and not from the ones that gerrymandered to make sure the ruling party wins.   
Constituencies in competitive electoral democracies do not necessarily prioritize the intellectual calibre of the candidates when they pick their MPs. Whereas Communist China’s Politburo Standing Committee, the innermost sanctum of the political power of the Chinese state, is an assemble of probably the most technocratic leaders.  

"Constituencies in competitive electoral democracies do not necessarily prioritize the intellectual calibre of the candidates when they pick their MPs"

Sri Lankan politics is not bereft of the intelligentsia, probably in terms of his academic credentials, G.L. Peiris is happened to be a highly acclaimed academic, but as a politician, he is a disgrace. Then, there there were truly gifted gentlemen, Lalith, Gamini, Kadirgamar, etc. But, what they have delivered pales in comparison to their peers across the world. True that they all had their lives cut short by violence, however, whether they would have contrasted had they lived longer is guesswork.  

Perhaps, none of the above is the primary constraint in Sri Lanka’s post-colonial experience. The deciding factor is the structure and the domestic organizational arrangements. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in his book, ‘Democracy in America’, two centuries ago, state’s domestic organizational configurations, along with their overall patterns of activity, affect political culture; and encourage and give effect to specific kinds of group formation and collective political actions, while also precluding certain other behaviours. He was referring to contrasting trajectories of French and American revolutions, and as to how America managed to foster democracy and the French Revolution failed to do that.  
The Tiger economies that leapfrogged in economic growth managed to do so by taming the structure. There again, none of them was democracies; they left little room for dissent and divergence.   

That was not how it worked in Sri Lanka, then and now. This country has been a chaotic, boisterous and, though not perfect, functioning democracy. Also, its electorate has been an entitled lot, that changed governments at almost every election from the independence to up until 1977. Effectively, this domestic structure inhibited the state, or the politicians and bureaucracy, who speak and act on behalf of the state. It discouraged the leaders from adopting cohesive long-term policies. Good economic policies are not usually the type that wins elections. As a result, politicians appealed to their constituency through short-term populist policies, that could get them re-elected. As a result of this lopsided relationship, the Sri Lankan state evolved to be a reactive one, rather than being a proactive one. That may also explain why it inflamed three insurgencies within a couple of decades. The failure of economic reforms is also a case in point.   

This lopsided social contract had not changed much, because, the structure has not evolved qualitatively and most outspoken voices who could sway public opinion are still parroting discarded statistic economic models and crying blue murder at every foreign investment.   
 Politicians, rather than leading the nation, are led by public impulses. If Sri Lanka had under-performed, it is because of its people.   

Follow @RangaJayasuriya