Regime change and an agenda for progressive politics

Sri Lanka witnessed yet another regime change through the elections held in 2024. As happened during these events in the past, this has generated a wide-ranging debate about what this will mean for Sri Lanka, and what sort of changes we should aim for. This article assumes that this question cannot be discussed without considering the historical context within which the event took place. It points out the need to focus on the very nature of the Sri Lankan state to identify strategic areas of reform. 

State formation 

The starting point for this analysis is how we understand the state. The conventional idea of the state looks at it as a concrete self-contained entity that has attained its final status. The geographic space covered by the state is securitised and it is called national security. The spatial unit of the state is objectified in maps, and borders are drawn to demarcate it. A whole paraphernalia of rituals, histories and symbols have been developed – not only to promote the conventional idea of the state, but also to convey the eternal character of the state. Those who control the state, and their ideologues, always try to convey this notion in all kinds of mythic and heroic ways of the grandeur of the past with a pontification of history and in hegemonic paths. This conventional idea of the state was strengthened by the notion of sovereignty, which began to dominate the world after second world war. Ideological dominance of conventional idea of the state makes it difficult to bring about transformation of the state. 

Contrary to this conventional idea, the current analysis treats states as a product of historical processes in the same way as other social phenomena. They are not ‘natural or inevitable but are the products of specific social processes and political struggles which generate a process of state formation’. They are formed under certain specific historical conditions, continuously undergo changes, and sometimes can even disappear. A cursory glance at the history of the world will show this. Therefore, what we need to focus on is the historical process of state formation.[1]

In understanding the state formation processes, it is crucial to focus on strategic state-society relations Depending on specific histories, certain state-society relations become strategic. Strategic state-society relations can be managed either through consent or coercion. A consensual approach means developing policies that manage these strategic state-society relations peacefully. Coercion means using the coercive power of the state to manage these relations. Managing strategic state-society relations through consent is the foundation for a strong state. This also means questioning the conventional idea of security, which focuses only on state security. Focus on state security can undermine security of sections of the population. 

The state formation process always takes place in a global context. In other words, it is difficult to understand state formation by confining our analysis within the borders of a state. State must be seen as a part of the global context. The global context consists of global capitalism and its dynamics, other states, organisations set up by these states, and processes that cut across the boundaries of states. A key issue in the state formation process is the generation of adequate economic resources to manage the state’s critical needs and strategic state-society relations, whether through consent or coercion. These must be secured in a context of global capitalism. In addition, the interests of other states, especially those geographically closer, play a role in the state formation process. 

Sri Lankan State Formation 

The post-colonial Sri Lankan state was formed under the British colonialism. Under British colonialism the entire geographic space of the island was covered by a single unit of territorial power. To administer the territory, the geographic space was divided into spatial units using the directions of a compass. In this way cartography became an instrument of British colonialism. Other techniques of state formation were a regular census, establishing a judicial system, a system to collect taxes, and the coercive power of the state. Once the territory was consolidated under a single territorial power, the process of capitalist development intensified in the island. This was the second important development for the state formation process. 

The weakening of the British Empire after since WW I, and political agitation within Sri Lanka, led to the construction of the post-colonial state. In addition, in the post-colonial period regional security structures had a relative autonomy. The Sri Lankan state was within the South Asian security structure where India was the hegemonic power. 

During the post-colonial period two strategic state-society relations became important within the power politics of the island nation. First, relations between the post-colonial centralised state and minorities. Relations between minorities and the post-colonial state deteriorated from the very first Act defining citizens of the post-colonial state. Citizenship laws made the bulk of the Indian Tamil community stateless. In subsequent years failure to manage state-minority strategic state-society relation has resulted in conflicts, state repression and a significant loss of lives. The Indian state was always concerned about how the Sri Lankan state managed relations with minorities. 

The second strategic state-society relation is the one between the state and the Sinhala majority in the context of the politics of capitalist transition. The distribution of the economic benefits of capitalism within the Sinhala majority was always unequal. Political responses to this have led to conflicts, violence and state repression. The use of the coercive power of the state in managing both these strategic state-society relations has resulted deaths, disappearances and mass graves. This history shows that the struggle for social justice within capitalist transition and building a state that accepts the plural ethnic and religious character of our society, should be critical political objectives for a better society. 

Post-1977 Period 

The period after 1977 was the worst in the post-colonial state formation process. Inability to manage both strategic state-society relations led to violence and state repression on a massive scale. This period can be characterised as a period of ‘mass graves’ in Sti Lanka’s post-colonial history. 

The 1977 general election was a turning point in Sri Lankan state formation. On one hand the regime that came into power inaugurated a new period of capitalist transition and open market theory. This emphasised the private sector, markets and openness to global capitalism. Although there have been a few adjustments to these policies under different regimes, the broad directions have remained the same. Another important factor is the change in the institutional structure that controls the state. This was the establishment of an executive president as head of the state, and the proportional representation process to elect member to the parliament. There is a close link between the establishment of these institutions and the emergence of a more liberal form of capitalism. These two aspects – continuation of the more liberal form of capitalism and presidential system seem to continue under the current regime. 

The inauguration of the new period of capitalism created new challenges for managing relations with the Sinhala majority. There were various forms of resistance to the changes, and the state used its coercive power to meet these challenges. No doubt 1989/90 was a high point of state repression. It came to be known as period of ‘Beeshanaya’ (Terror) and state repression resulted in mass graves. Social policies came to be dominated by a discourse of poverty alleviation, which is part of the neoliberal idea of growth and trickle down. The most important social impact of the new economic policies was a growth in inequality. Data for 2019 shows that while the richest 20 per cent of the population acquired 51.4% of national income, the poorest 20 per cent had only 4.6 %. This should be the focus of debates on social justice. 

The latest episode in this contradiction is the recent economic crisis (2022). The Sri Lankan state’s inability to fulfil the demands of global financial capital resulted in an economic crisis. Its social impact led to protests, popularly known as ‘Aragalaya’ (The struggle) and state repression. It also resulted in the resignation of a president, and a deal among the political elite to stabilise the situation. 

The 1977 general election was also a turning point in the relation between the state and minorities. The main Tamil political party contested this election demanding a separate state (Eelam). A section of the Tamil polity took up arms to achieve a separate state. The response of the regime was to introduce a notion of terrorism, laws to legitimise this idea, and to send troops to deal with the armed conflict. The only political reform of the centralised state happened under pressure from India. This was passing the 13th Amendment to the constitution and devolving a limited amount of power to the provinces. Even this limited reform has not been implemented properly. 

The 30-year armed conflict ended by consolidating the territory of the centralised state through military means, with the death and disappearance of tens of thousands of civilians. Sri Lankan state must be reformed in the areas of its institutional structure, identity and public policies to manage relations with the Tamil minority. In addition, the civilian cost has added a new dimension to the grievances of the Tamil minority. Finally, in discussing the status of this strategic state-society relation now, we need to include problems faced by two other minorities – Muslims and Hill Country Tamils. 

Post-1977 global context 

The global context during the post- 1977 period was dominated by what can be called a global neoliberal political project promoted by the developed capitalist countries of the West, led by the United States. This ideology projected global capitalism as a benevolent system that incorporates more and more people into a market economy, brings about an interconnected world, and spreads prosperity and freedom to all corners of the world. The political agenda was to establish liberal democracy, and reform states based on liberal principles. It also believed that liberalism in economics and politics would lead to a world where inter-state relations can be managed through liberal principles. This is the security dimension of the project, often called liberal peace. 

It is important to remember that, as far as Western states are concerned, this was mainly an ideology that tried to legitimise Western hegemony in the world which basically pushed to a global North and a global South in terms of economic precipice. The actual behaviour of Western states was determined by their strategic interests. For example, on 11 September 2001 a political movement led by an extreme version of political Islam attacked a centre of world capitalism. Western states responded with a traditional military approach. There was very little impact of liberalism in this. This became a global phenomenon under the slogan of the ‘global war on terror, seriously indicates the politics of change which is thematized in this volume. 

The Sri Lankan state, adopting a more liberal form of capitalism, integrated itself with this global neoliberal project. One result was an increase in support to the state from advanced capitalist countries of the West, Japan and multilaterals. This was specifically reflected in the increased flow of foreign aid to the Sri Lankan state. But the critical question is around the impact of the increased flow of foreign aid to the state in managing the strategic state-society relations mentioned. Did this flow of foreign aid help to manage these relations through consent, or did it help the coercive power of the state? This is an interesting area for research that can further the discussion around politics of change. 

The more positive impact of the flow of foreign aid were efforts to spread liberal values. These gave a boost to liberal political currents that were already existing in Sri Lanka. They also began to work in collaboration with similar activists in other countries. Some of this activism focused on human rights, socio-economic and minority rights. Perhaps a more significant development was support for work on gender equality. This work has contributed to questioning some of the extreme conservative ideas that dominated gender relations in Sri Lankan society. Some of these were supported by more conservative ideas that emerged from major religions in Sri Lanka. 

Current Global Context and Implications for Sri Lanka 

Looking at the world today, it is clear the world did not evolve in the manner those who advocated the neoliberal political project expected. A major flaw of liberal analysis was a zero-sum approach to the state and the market. With the spread of market doctrine, the importance of the state was expected to diminish. This ignored the relative autonomy of states and the fact that states have their own dynamics. 

A key outcome of the period of neoliberal capitalism has been capitalist growth in China, with China becoming a strong state. There has been capitalist growth in India, and India is asserting its power in the South Asian region. In the history of global capitalism and territorial forms of power there have always been changes in which state becomes the hegemonic power. The key question is whether these shifts and changes lead to conflicts, or if they can be resolved peacefully. It is better to understand the current global context within a framework of global capitalism and competing states, some of which are stronger. Terms such as great power conflicts, or major power conflicts, are used to characterise this world. 

A major recent development in this struggle has been the emergence of protectionist economic policies in the US under the new regime. At the same time, we need to note that these new economic policies are backed by an ultra-conservative ideology. This is opposing what has been achieved in areas such as social inequality, minority rights and gender equality through the social space created by the dynamics of liberal ideology. 

These developments are already having an impact on the Sri Lankan state. China and India have become much more important in Sri Lanka’s international economic relations. Both these states will be guided by their own political, economic and strategic interests. What is even more noticeable is the interest of major powers in the Sri Lankan coastline and harbours. The role of India in Trincomalee harbour, China in Hambantota, and the US, China and India in Colombo harbour has expanded. If we begin to understand Sri Lankan state formation in the context of the Indian Ocean, the importance of these harbours becomes very clear. 

In conclusion a specific question for progressive politics in Sri Lanka will be the impact of these developments on the flow of foreign aid, and whether it will have an impact on the progressive political activism that was possible with the support of foreign aid during the post-1977 period.

Social Justice

Vol.48 No. (205)

June/July 2025