Learning from the aftermath of Sri Lanka's uprising

The August uprising of Bangladesh's students and masses is being widely discussed by political circles the world over. There have been reports of how the blood-stained July and the victory of August has influenced the youth of West Bengal and Baluchistan.

All this is a lot to be proud of, but what Bangladesh needs to be focussing on more is the important messages that are coming from around the world for the 'New Bangladesh'. Bangladesh's policymakers including the students and the people, can study the experience of Sri Lanka during the two years after the 2022 mass uprising there. It may be important for Bangladesh to make an assessment of why after the earth-shaking mass uprising, Sri Lanka is going to polls again next month.

There is an 'interim' government in Bangladesh at present. No one knows the length of this government's tenure. This is undoubtedly a broad political obscurity. There is hardly scope to discuss the pros and cons of such obscurity at the moment. After all, the student and the masses ushered in this government. This is the political result of a successful mass uprising.

Any successful mass uprising comes with the claim to legitimacy by virtue of the people's 'collective general aspirations'. That is how Bangladesh got this present government.

At the same time, the people look forward to a hugely festive election. It is not difficult to understand that an elected government is the ultimate preference of the people. At the same time they do not want to return to the old political system through elections. They want 'state reforms'. Conventional norms seem out of place for such expectations. And that is the topic making rounds in the drawing rooms and tea stalls all over the country.

Speaking to diplomats on 18 August, chief advisor of the interim government Dr Muhammad Yunus said he had taken responsibility of the country at a time when things were in an almost complete mess. After reforms in the election commission, the law enforcement agencies and the media, the interim government will arrange a free, fair and inclusive election as soon as possible." In other words, he indicated that first there will be some reforms, and then the election.

The chief advisor spoke about some policy matters which reflected the aspirations of the students and people behind the mass uprising. Yesterday, Sunday, the chief advisor addressed the nation.
The student and people are keeping watch on how far their 'collective aspirations' are being reflected in the everyday work of the government, the daily administrative steps, the transfers, appointments and postings in important positions. They will certainly also see, or are seeing, how far the students and people themselves are a part of the daily process of taking such measures. Only 21 persons cannot take the responsibility of constructing a new society that rises from the sacrifice of hundreds and hundreds of martyrs.

Sri Lanka too began in the year 2022 under similar circumstances. First they removed the unscrupulous rulers Gotabaya Rajapaksa and his brother Mahinda from the offices of president and prime minister. They managed to free the entire top echelons of the administration of the Rajapaksa clan. Just as in Bangladesh, the top executive fled and the people poured into the presidential palace to celebrate in elation. The Singhalese-speaking Lankans called the uprising "Aragalaya", meaning "struggle". Just as in Bangladesh where the movement was followed with the demand for "state reforms", in Sri Lanka the demand was for "system change".

In Bangladesh, the rulers who have fled used Bengali nationalism to establish their authority. Rajapaksa and his people used the Singhalese nationalist model to carry out their corruption. They too had destroyed the election culture. They had rendered the economy bankrupt by their corruption and misrule. Bangladesh at the time seemed to have been hell bent on beating that at that devious game.

All this was a genuine response of the people to the non-accountable one-person system of rule. What happened in Sri Lanka was nothing new. Bangladesh's socioeconomic downfall was not unpredictable either. So the revolts in both countries were justified and successful too.

Unlike in Bangladesh, in Sri Lanka the entire old ruling party didn't flee. The parliament was intact. There were members of Rajapaksa's party in the parliament too. So while the Rajapaksas may have moved out of the power orbit, it wasn't possible to establish a government as in Bangladesh, that was totally on lines with the aspirations of the students and people who had been in the uprising. In fact, there was a compromise in Sri Lanka and a government was formed with the old politician Ranil Wickremesinghe as the head.

The government in Sri Lanka also was not a government elected according to the norms, even though it was formed in the 'conventional' from within the parliament. There was only one member of Ranil's party in the parliament. Yet everyone accepted the government under his leadership. On order to render the government acceptable, assurance was given that the demands of the mass uprising would be fulfilled at the centres of power. Also, the aspirations of the mass uprising remained within the society. Everyone initially wanted restoration of the economy.

The old government of Bangladesh has left behind a foreign debt of around USD 100 billion. Sri Lanka was much in the same predicament as Bangladesh. Despite having a small economy, those who fled had left behind a debt of USD 51 billion.

That is why two years ago from today, the new president Ranil also had repeatedly said, "First reforms, the election." Two years on, that government is now calling for an election. Among many others, Ranil Wickeremesinghe also wants to be president. The 75-year-old Ranil has already been prime minister five times! And he's still eager!

Politically speaking, there is a lot of similarity between Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Both were British colonies. The British left both countries within a year's difference. But that leaving was just the departure of the white rulers. The British left behind in Sri Lanka and Bengal (the Indian subcontinent) the old colonial government structure built up over a period of nearly 200 years. Even after Bangladesh won independence after its great independence struggle in 1971, the old legislative system continued which just a few cosmetic changes here and there.

Just as in Bangladesh, in Sri Lanka the mainstream election-oriented political parties came and went from power, but did not reform the colonial unicentric system of government.

Also like BNP and Awami League in Bangladesh, over there Freedom Party (now Podujana Peramuna) and the National Party repeated enjoy the honey at the helm, but made no reforms in the power sharing system, resulting in the 2022 Aragalaya of the students and the masses. They did not call the old political parties then nor wait for them.

In Bangladesh the public and private universities were the centre of the movement. In Sri Lanka it was the Inter-University Students Federation or IUSF that was the most courageous force.

The movement in Bangladesh began against the unjust quota system, in Sri Lanka it was against the soaring prices of essentials. And in an amazing twist of history, all this happened in both countries within just a gap of 24 months.

As a result of Aragalaya in 2022 in Sri Lanka when the Ranil government ascended to the helm, they too had many reforms agenda before them, as in Bangladesh today. They too wanted the decentralisation of power and actual autonomy of local provincial government. This was a popular demand of the Tamil-populated northeast.

Sri Lanka has a good election system based on proportional representation. But the presidential system and bureaucracy is of such an old mould that even a good election can do nothing in the interests of the people. If fact, it does quite the contrary. By virtue of the constitutional laws, the "elite" controlled all in the so-call democratic way.

That is why in 2022 another significant demand throughout the country had been that the chief executive and the ruling party must be halted from intervening in the constitutional bodies. Just as the institutions in Bangladesh like the Public Service Commission and the Election Commission had problems, Sri Lanka too wanted to be relieved of such interference. Article 20A of their constitution gave the president mammoth power. In Bangladesh, through various ploys, the constitution made the prime minister almost equally powerful.

The Ranil government repeatedly spoke of reforms, but never actually went ahead with the reform agenda. In supposedly trying to salvage the economy, the steps that the government took upon IMF recommendations, enraged a section of the movement. They wanted reforms on lines with local considerations and when that didn't happen, they wanted elections to be held speedily. It was then seen that as an unelected government, it was not possible on the part of any team to take forward any national-based reforms agenda alone. In this situation, the civil and military bureaucracy quietly let their unwillingness for administrative reforms be known.

The demand of the students and youth for a new constitution was extremely sensitive to them. Their constitution contained many black laws like Bangladesh cyber security act. Even the government after the mass uprising could not lay those to rest.

Like in Bangladesh, the civil service there is extremely powerful. Since independence there was no move to render the civil service more accountable to the people. To the contrary, in rendering the state powerful against the Tamils, the bureaucracy was boosted with religious, financial and legal elements. They were unwilling to give in to an unelected government.

Also, the unelected unicentric government too was extremely dependent on the civil service. The beneficiaries of the prevailing circumstances were unwilling to give up the perks of a unicentric rule. Taking advantage of the mass uprising, Ranil's ministers also began to fill vital posts with unqualified persons of their choice, must to the dismay of the people. Meanwhile, as time passed, the politicians became more and more vocal for an election.

The international quarters too, in the name of political stability, did not really want to see sweeping changes to the administration there. They were only interested in the autonomy of Tamil areas.

What was seen in Sri Lanka was that reforms were not possible without a pro-reform party that had extensive political support. Then again, even the so-called reformists take a step back when it comes to reforms for the deprived communities like the Tamils. On the meantime, the people's anger and unrest grew in the long span of the unelected government. This has resulted in presidential elections to be held in September this year.
Needless to say, Bangladesh has not arrived at such a situation as yet. There may be dialogue here shortly to bring about an adjustment between reforms and elections. The political parties will surely inform the interim government of their views. But will they be able to reach and consensus and apprise the government of their expectations? In the meantime, development may scrape to a halt if the local government is run by 'administrators'. There is apprehension of the development-initiatives losing people's involvement and participation.

Again, elections in circumstances void of reforms will not yield any good long-term results. Bridging the gap between the two is the political challenge of the present. But Sri Lanka's experience says commitment and unity among the political parties is essential to take forward reform initiatives. But if the political parties are not prepared to proceed as the people aspire, this will be a tough task to accomplish.        

* Altaf Parvez is a researcher on South Asian History
* This column appeared in the print an online edition of Prothom Alo and has been rewritten for the English edition by Ayesha Kabir