In this column, I intend to do two things. First to make some predictions not based on data gathered through sound survey methodology, but based on chats with friends, three-wheel drivers and the gossips that goes around in bazaars. Second, I would engage in a sort of scenario development exercise as to how the new government would operate in the emerging context which is full of unknowns and complexities.

 The Election Outcome

Predicting elections and predicting cricket matches are somewhat similar. However, in both cases, a measurement of probability is warranted since some knowns are often time outweighs unknowns and chances. Probability of Jonty Rhodes missing a catch or of Jeffry Boycott getting out for a duck is reasonably less. In many countries, scientifically designed surveys are conducted to predict election results and they oftentime give reasonably accurate results. I am not aware of such surveys conducted this time in Sri Lanka. Hence, my “predictions” drew on inferences rather than on scientifically collected and analyzed data.

Although it is difficult to make predictions about how different parties would perform in the election, it is quite clear that Sri Lanka Podu Peramuna (SLPP) or Pohottuwa will win the majority of seats in the next Parliament, but it will not get two-third majority due to the existing system of election and its expected poor performance in two provinces, Northern and Eastern. In other provinces, may be except Kandy, Nuwaraeliya and Badulla districts, SLPP will win two-third of the seats. So, I believe that the SLPP may win 110- 115 seats out of 196. The SLPP win may be attributed to two factors. First, it has already achieved a victory in the first lap, namely the presidential election held in November 2019. Although it may be expected that the 6.9 million votes Gotabhaya Rajapaksa received in November would be substantially reduced, it would not affect SLPP’s election victory. Secondly, because of the major split in the UNP, people may not be able to find an alternative to the SLPP notwithstanding the fact that the SLPP governments’ economic performance in the last eight months has been poor.

Tamil parties will win three to four districts capturing 12- 15 seats. The UNP, Samagi Bala Vegaya (SBV) and National Peoples’ Power (NPP) have to divide the balance 66- 74 seats. It is difficult to envision how seats would be divided between the UNP and the SBV. As many parliamentarians of the last Parliament are with SBV, it has an edge so that it may be expected to get majority of seats. However, in the last two weeks, the UNP has regained part of its lost ground but it would show in the results is problematic. The poor performance of the government in the last 8 months and the split of UNP would have a positive impact on the NPP. Nonetheless, getting 5 percent in each district would be a formidable task in a bipartisan society. NPP may win two seats in Colombo and Hambantota. The presence of Frontline Socialist Party (FLSP) in all districts would adversely affect the NPP’s chance of qualifying for a seat. Unless, left unites on a minimum socialist program, it will not be able to increase its vote base so that no single party gets an electoral advantage. Anyway, if we expect miracles in terms of new faces, we will definitely be disappointed.

 The New Government and the Challenges

As I have mentioned in a previous column, Sri Lanka at the moment is facing three E-crises, epidemiological, ecological and economic. “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Says an old political axiom. Nonetheless, politicians use crises for their own advantage and oftentimes make the situation worse. The formidable challenge for the new government is to put the economy on recovery path in totally unfavorable world situation.

Two different paths have been suggested. The first path proposed by the mainstream economists and the politicians who closely follow them appear to think that although some contingent measures are warranted under the given condition created by Covid-19, in the medium term it would be imperative to go back to the same economic policies that have been at work in the last forty three years. This is what Ranil Wickramasinghe advocated in the election campaign. It seems Basil Rajapakse also holds the similar views. Pathfinder Institute, Advocata, W A Wijewardana, Prof. Sirimal Abeyratna are the main theoreticians of this trend. When the government asks for WB-IMF assistance in the near future their prescriptions may not be significantly different.

Another group of economists who are more or less internal to the government would propose a different path of recovery. These group of economists led by Prof. W D Lakshman, the Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka and includes Prof. Lalithasiri Gunaruwan, Dr. Kenneth de Zilva and Prof. Malaka Ranatilaka proposes a gradual deviation from the path taken in the last forty two years and to enter a recovery path based on more inward-oriented policies.

In this column, my intention is not to examine the economic validity of these two paths of recovery. On the contrary, I seek to look at the governing issues that would be associated with the two proposals. If the new government chooses the first path of recovery, the accumulation of capital would call for selling of public property to private companies including private foreign companies. The best example for this is the issue of Eastern Container Terminal. Hence, this path would put the government on direct confrontation with not only the workers but also with the patriotic groups including sangha. The same applies for signing the MCC and other contracts with the USA and other countries. Marketization associated with the process of capital accumulation would force the government to move ahead to privatize land, water and other valuable resources on which the livelihood poor masses depends. Hence, the first path of recovery would be a path of confrontation with the people who voted for pohottuwa in November.2019 and August 2020.

The second path is not trouble free. It may lead to short-term shortages of many items as it had happened in the 1971- 77 and would make the government unpopular especially in the context of increased consumerism of the population. However, in order to lessen the influence of these adverse factors, the government may introduce more and more policies leading to the empowerment of people rather than the enforcement on people. As I suggested many a time, a plan for national economy depended mainly on internal resources needs a constitutional change that empower micro unit, i.e. village and ward, elected by the people, a more democratic version of panchayat. Hence, the choice between authoritarianism and democratic governance are closely and intimately linked with the economic policy option and the rejection of neoliberalism.

Sumanasiri Liyanage