The balancing act between legitimacy and stability

Three new political party alliances are preparing for the forthcoming elections, while the country is reeling under an unprecedented economic crisis. Two alliances comprising of a few small parties headed by Wimal Weerawansa and another small section of the ruling party led by Dullas Alahapperuma are almost formed. Both these groups were with the government until they totally bankrupted the country. The third is in the making under the leadership of the Sri Lanka Freedom party (SLFP), one of the two parties that ruled the country since Independence, alone or coalescing with one or more small parties.

The main argument of the leaders of the three groups has been that the incumbent government did not have solutions to the current socio-economic issues. And they seem to reject the current programme that the government implementing under the strict dictates of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Nevertheless, they too have not presented any solution to the current mess. Notwithstanding the justification of these new political alignments, they are, but tools of power politics, aimed at a few seats in Parliament.

Unlike these three groups, the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) has been calling for an election in no uncertain terms. Their contention is that neither the Presidency held by United National Party (UNP) leader Ranil Wickremesinghe nor the government led by the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) does have the mandate to rule the country. They view the current Presidency and the government as distorted manifestations of the people’s mandate. They argue that the recent people’s uprising against the government has seriously questioned the legitimacy of both the current Presidency and the government. No doubt, these are strong arguments.

Meanwhile the main Opposition party, the Samagi Jana Balawegaya has been accusing the government that the latter was attempting to indefinitely postpone the local government elections which are due this year. The suggestion is plain. They too want elections.

Yet, questions have been raised, on the other hand, by the ruling SLPP - for obvious reasons, and various other sections of the society seriously, on the affordability of elections, national or local, in light of the severe economic challenges that has engulfed the country as a whole and people individually. The affordability apart, concerned groups cite the need for political stability which has been stressed by the IMF and other international donors as an essential ingredient for economic recovery. In fact, the country is struggling to strike a balance between the need of stability and legitimacy of the government. 

The government early this year seemed to have exhausted the mandate it was awarded at the last Presidential and Parliamentary elections with former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa calling for an all-party government after casting away his Cabinet except for the Prime Minister on April 3. He also confessed to have banned import of chemical fertilizer and failed to approach the IMF in time, despite advices by experts including those at the Central Bank. These were two blunders his government made almost ruining the country’s economy. Even if the IMF programme which was started by the former President bailed out the country, it would not offset the ordeals that are being undergone by millions of men women and especially the children for months, due to those blunders.
The serious concerns over the legitimacy and the credibility among the masses apart, Sri Lanka seems to have lost its credibility among the international financial institutions as well. The World Bank twice on May 24 and July 28 said “until an adequate macro-economic policy framework is in place, the World Bank does not plan to offer new financing to Sri Lanka.” The Sunday Times reported on August 21 that the World Bank has agreed to underwrite the import of urgently needed fertilizer, but with strict regulations to ensure a fraud and corruption-free process takes place. 

During discussions between the representatives of the government and the IMF which focused on designing a “comprehensive economic programme,” “reducing corruption vulnerabilities” had been referred to as one of the challenges that need to be addressed. Besides, the preliminary deal the government arrived at with the IMF on September 1 for a loan of US$ 2.9 billion which is far lesser than the recent Indian assistance, as Wimal Weerawansa pointed out is not the crux of the bailout agreement. It is the structural reforms that are expected to save the country. Thrusting upon the country a set of conditions or guidelines or whatever they may be, the IMF is here indeed tutoring how to govern an economy. All these are indictments of the leaders of the country, especially those of the current government. Yet, some of the recent incidents point that they are not yet reformed. 
It is against this backdrop, that one has to weigh legitimacy and the stability of the government or elections aimed at democracy and the economic and political price for it.