Can The Market Be The Guiding Principle Of Our Common Good?
By Kumudu Kusum Kumara –August 13, 2016
Dr. Kumudu Kusum Kumara
Whether we want to accept the market as the guiding principle of our collective life has been a vexed problem underlying our politics since attempts to entrench a liberalised economy in the country in the post-1977 period. With the establishment of the so-called national government in the post-August 17th political scenario where the United National Party headed by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe has been handed over the role of determining the direction of the economy, the government has been keen in implementing market driven economic reforms. In this context the present article seeks to contribute to a public discussion on what should be the role of the market in the ‘podu yahapatha’ or the common good of Sri Lanka.
The market as a legitimate part of the economy has also come to stay even though the manner in which the dominance of it was forced upon us in the post-1977 period has wreaked havoc on the Sri Lankan society, the unfolding of the serious ramifications of which will take a long time to come, as shown by one of its prime examples, the privatized public transport, experienced by the ordinary folk who travel around by bus. The real issue about the market is not whether it can be considered a legitimate partner in the national economy, but whether we want to accept the market as the guiding principle of our collective life.
When we say that the Industrialised western countries or countries such as Singapore have achieved high levels of ‘development’ following the model of democracy and market economy, what we express seems to be our fond hope that Sri Lanka also can be ‘developed’ following the same model, rather than being realistic on how different countries achieve ‘development’ each in its own unique way, subject to specific historical conditions and cultural factors. It is also outside the consideration whether we in Sri Lanka would necessarily want to follow such a model of development even if we could succeed in such an attempt. Our penchant for Singapore as the model of development may be due to our desire to find an easy solution to the messy situation of being citizens of a country full of internal strife in all areas of collective life that do not seem to be resolvable ever. It is no wonder that in a context where there is so much of conflict, instability and social unrest, many of us would dream of doing a Lee Kwan-Yew in Sri Lanka as if human world can be put in order by the sleight of hand of a clever magician. We need to remind ourselves that even Singapore itself could produce only one Lee Kwan Yew in its life time. But more importantly, even if one of us is clever enough to become a Lee Kwan Yew as if by a secret magical act, the possibility is that being the political beings that they are, Sri Lankans would not tolerate a Lee Kwan Yew in their midst.
