It’s easy to get caught in rhetoric. Easy to make others
believe that rhetoric represents the truth. Ideologues can sometimes get swayed
by the lure of the moment and convince everyone, and by that I mean everyone,
of the veracity of their arguments. The truth tends to get distorted,
contorted, and eventually coated with enough sugar to appeal to both sides of
the political divide. Sure, along the way words are made up and tossed around
for the sake of attaining solidity in rhetoric, but all in all, it’s nothing
more and nothing less than marketing.
I suppose capitalism doesn’t need rhetoric to win anyone
over. It’s been marketed enough for what it is not that people don’t need
argumentative skills to convince us to their side. All they need is a
conveniently structured myth, paraded as dogma. As Fernand Braudel noted, after
all, capitalism was never based on free market economics as its supporters
claim it was: governments and policymakers distorted the market and monopolised
it for the sake of (quick) profit. In the United States the unemployed are
referred to as bums and rent-seekers, but if we go by Braudel’s theory, the
real rent-seekers are those distorting the market while parading themselves as
champions of Milton Friedman and Adam Smith: namely, fat-cat managers and
executives.
It’s a different story when it comes to the Left. In this
interminable, interconnected world we are supposed to consider as globalised,
there’s no place “left” for the champions of Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and all
those other hoorah-boys of Marx. They have no marketers and like all
impoverished ideologues, they need money. Even if it meant that they join up
with the ruling class they were supposed to shun, they abandoned principles. In
the end, they failed.
Why though? Because they rubbished tradition and culture,
and rubbished them to the extent of forgetting their relevance when appealing to
the voter.
For a while in Sri Lanka, this worked. Then came the SLFP,
which to my mind represented the biggest blow to the Left in this country,
simply because it shed the cosmopolitan face of socialism while being parading around
as a socialist movement, which it was not (as Regi Siriwardena pointed out, it
appealed to the infantile village bourgeoisie, which unlike their urban
counterpart were chauvinistic and anti-Tamil). With no other option in sight,
the (Old) Left became content in planning out their Revolution from the
sidelines. As Denzil Peiris observed, 1956 was not a vote for the Left. It was
a vote for Bandaranaike. The two were not the same.
That’s when things went downhill. The Left had agitated for
equal rights, parity of status, and language privileges for all, not just the (ethnic)
majority. The government was in no mood to entertain such idealistic policies
and it certainly did not need Marxists for its sustenance. For the next two
decades therefore, except for the likes of Philip Gunawardena and N. M. Perera,
who managed to drive their policies through the government of the day, the Left
floundered. The birth of the New Left in the form of the JVP was inevitable, as
inevitable as the later substitution of race for class by the Old Left.
I’ve
pointed out elsewhere that with the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Old
Left was preyed on by forces not even remotely sympathetic to the principles of
Marxism. They became, as we all know, the biggest funders of key
representatives of the Left, who not only legitimised through silence the witch-hunt
against the JVP (which stood against the Indo-Lanka Accord), but also made use
of the JVP’s absence to crystallise into a policy elite that, regardless of the
aspirations of the majority of the country, called the shots in the government
of the day.
I’ve always wondered whether we need the Old Left anymore.
It’s a spent force, for starters. Sure, we had the most promising Trotskyite
party in the world, but that was before Trotsky was assassinated and before
people began realising the inherent deficiencies of an ideology that subsisted,
regardless of Philip Gunawardena’s attempts at making it more palatable to the
village peasantry, on cosmopolitanism.
To be fair by the likes of Gunawardena though, the stalwarts
of the LSSP then were no blue-eyed idealists flirting with federal-speak and
Eelamism: unlike their descendants, they knew the aspirations of the majority
enough to counter chauvinist demands from (self-appointed) representatives of
the minority. They were, in short, principled, so principled that their kith
and kin didn’t merely side with their cause but went on to create their own
ideology which privileged the country before Marxist utopias (yes, I am talking
of Dinesh Gunawardena here).
Just the other day I was talking with a playwright, a
nationalist and a deeply secular one at that. He had a habit of calling a spade
a spade. We were talking about the ethnic conflict and how ideology had tried
to address grievances in a way politics could not. He was adamant that the
conflict had been ballooned beyond proportion. He contended that the Sinhalese,
despite their less than favourable history, had little to no rights in parts of
the country where certain minorities held sway, and argued quite cogently that
even in a secular society (which he was in favour of), numerical realities must
be taken into account.
That’s when he brought up the Left. He quoted Colvin R. de
Silva’s forever-quoted quote on the minority question, “One language, two
nations; two languages, one nation.” Colvin’s proposition was to equalise Tamil
with Sinhala, which to this playwright seemed a mild version of G. G.
Ponnanbalam’s infamous 50-50 thesis. I couldn’t resist telling him then and
there, “The Left has played around with words so much that even today,
federalists and devolutionists draw from their rhetoric when defending calls
for separatism.” He agreed.
I then said, “The Left has become a curse to this country.”
He replied, “It always was.”
Now this playwright isn’t someone you could call a
chauvinist. He was, for one thing, a firm believer in a secular constitution,
with the obvious caveat that secularism is meaningless without first accounting
for numerical and ethnic realities. He was no fan of the Left, obviously. His
stance on Colvin’s careless and crass position on language rights was summed up
by what he said next: “That was an irrational and mischievous thing to say. It
privileges language as the only differentiating factor in a society when
clearly there are other more dangerous such factors.” The Left, he implied
correctly, had abandoned these other factors in its quest for appearing
holier-than-thou on the ethnic question, to the separatists and their side of
the debate of course.
I am less ruffled by this, however, than by the hypocrisy of
the Left in terms of how it views its own principles. You come across self-proclaimed
leftists praising the United National Party (I kid you not) for handling the
economy well, and inserting caveats that it should do better if it is to
achieve social equity. Mind you, these are the same pundits who berated the
previous regime for its lumpen, anti-proletarian economic policies (policies
that, inter alia, rescued the Transport Board and several other state
institutions from the mess they were thrown into by the regime that preceded
it, a regime these pundits supported unconditionally because of its commitment
to federalism).
They were out on the streets shouting “Down with the State!”
but surprisingly hear and see no evil when it comes to the present regime. They
claim “Better than the last one we got!” but that is not adequate. Given the
mess the government has got itself into thanks to a President who can’t say one
thing without contradicting it days later, I can only conclude that the only if
not main reason for their support for the present regime is the (perceived)
affirmation of devolution, federalism, and 13-plus by key spokespersons in it.
In itself, there’s nothing wrong with this. A world where
only nationalism reigned supreme would be quite dull indeed. Hypocrisy,
however, is another kettle of fish altogether. So is dishing out federal-speak
in the name of ameliorating interethnic disparities.
These pundits forget if not marginalise the nauseating
measures taken by the government against the majority (regardless of ethnicity)
and concentrate on achieving their self-proclaimed Utopias. They’ve idealised
the ethnic and the religious and think they can do away with the social,
forgetting that the former are but constituents of the latter.
No one is saying that ethnic minorities haven’t been
targeted. They have been. For centuries and for decades, they have been on the
receiving end of a State that used them, again and again, for the sake of
expedience. Their rights have been downed legally and illegally. The machinery
of the State has been used to whip up hatred against them. Despite that,
however, I believe we’re concentrating on the wrong priorities.
We’re confused about what we want for them. We’ve caved in
to ideologues who preach the gospel of multiculturalism without accounting for
numerical, social, and ethnic realities. We’ve forgotten the simple but stark
fact that it’s misconceived to create a cosmopolitan society if we have to wave
good-bye to cosmopolitanism in the North and East. That, ladies and gentlemen,
is not tenable by any stretch of the imagination.
In short, we’re so entranced with achieving a pluralistic
society that we say, “I don’t care what the f*** your ethnicity is, I’m Sri Lankan”,
forgetting that extremists from the North are more concerned with ethnic purity
than coexistence. “What is wrong with telling about who we are?” queries
Chief Minister Wigneswaran, even as politicians from the South campaign on
the premise that coexistence can only operate if the Sinhalese stop affirming
their identity and even as the good CM refuses to see the irony in his statement.
The Left, through mischievous errors of commission and omission, has
conveniently erased reality from rhetoric.
The Old Left, going by that, continues to be a curse to this
country. Always were, always have been. Time we told them to stop fudging
around with history, hence. Time we told them to concentrate on the social and
economic. And time we told them to shut up and move on.
Uditha Devapriya is a freelance writer who can be reached
at udakdev1@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment