Theoretical Model Of Rajapaksa Populism By Kumar David: Critical Commentary
Dr. Siri Gamage
Kumar David’s delineation of this subject (Colombo Telegraph 23 September 2018) deserves some comment/response as his analysis as well as recommendation for left unity plus alliance with some liberals pose serious questions in terms of the political trajectory in the near future. After writing about what’s happening around the world in terms of neo populism, he focuses on the Rajapaksa populism. He says, ‘in the case of Rajapaksa Populism (RP), the strands that intertwine and converge to a focus are; “the proposed separatist constitution”, “the betrayal of war-heroes”, “sacrilegious persecution and imprisonment of Buddhist monks” and “lurking terrorism in the North”. Intertwined they evoke a single vision; bigotry on which masses feed and politicians breed’. He further writes that ‘In the eyes of the adoring masses Rajapaksa is socialist, anti-imperialist and authentically nationalist; the government is capitalist and pro-Western. That Lanka’s elite and the UNP leaders communicate in English while the JO and Rajapaksa clansmen, with few exceptions, struggle to do so, settles it emotionally’. Furthermore, ‘Rajapaksa Populism is intrinsically hostile to internationalism and its institutions’.
Material Basis of Ideologies
Ideologies arise from dialectical material conditions in societies, class contradictions and deprivations, existential challenges. They are articulated by leaders in terms of language and categories easily understood by their followers. However, we need to recognise that ideologies emerge from material contexts and structural contradictions prevailing in a given society.
In my view, it is far more important to understand what gives rise to Rajapaksa Populism under the conditions of current global economy, polity and the unequal relations of production and exchange that have been created by the new economy in the country. Though Kumar has been reluctant to use class analysis for this purpose, there is no way that a deep analysis of ideology can be conducted without looking at class formation and class relations arising from the emerging and new enterprises, state-market relations, local-global networks in terms of labour, capital and communication (to use a suggestion by Sujata Patel) in our cities and countryside as well as the declining share of agriculture compared to the rest of economy. Otherwise, we fall into the trap of not only using political rhetoric as substance but inadvertently consuming them also.
Though essential, Kumar does not look at the material basis including class contradictions arising from the expanding neoliberal, free market economic policies of the government for Rajapaksha populism. Without analysing this basis, it is not possible to engage in sound and valid analysis of ideology merely looking at political rhetoric and key ideas embodied in the Rajapaksa project as listed by him. Analysis of an ideology like Rajapaksa populism and its similarities to populisms elsewhere in the world-though good for a start of a discussion- remains abstract and remote from what is happening materially on the ground or at the base. To use a Marxist term, such analysis remains at the ‘super structure’ level rather than ‘infrastructure level’. A question arising from such analysis is whether ideology (set of ideas) can be analysed by using selected components of ideology alone?
Material Deprivations, Classes and Class Analysis
In this context, we need to analyse how the economic and social disparities created by the new economy – based on information and service provision; privatisation of key sectors such as education, health, communication, energy; loss of traditional livelihood methods; mega projects and their impact on communities, and internationalised operations of capital accumulating ventures in tourism, trade, supermarkets, increased taxes; rising costs of living give rise to severe competition among classes and class fractions while creating collective frustrations among those at the bottom and middle of class hierarchy?
In the case of the middle class, its two layers (upper and lower) seem to be struggling to move forward and fulfil personal and family aspirations even though a fraction seems to be able to access better incomes, services and consumer goods. This fraction-young and stable- seem to visit supermarkets in cars with their kids, undertake foreign tours, send children to international schools and entertain themselves. However, contrary to the rhetoric of some leaders, the majority of those in the middle class (both vernacular and Western-oriented) seem to struggle without being able to be absorbed by the new economy in their and their children’s case or being able to connect with the services available from local and foreign companies in areas of human need. This sort of unequal material conditions give rise to a situation where those suffering look for economic, political, religious and symbolic alternatives including a charismatic saviour or a messiah gifted with supernatural powers.
