Sri Lanka's new political ideology

 I have been trying to understand the ideology of the new regime and can make no sense of it. I have tried to observe the actions (much more important than statements) but since many of them are situational-reacting to various issues it is a little hard to discern any longer term philosophy from short-term reactions. Exchange controls for example originated in a short-term fix to a balance of payments crisis (itself the result of profligate money printing to cover a deficit which resulted from pre-election giveaways) but now seem to be evolving into a new policy of industrialisation.

Despite the various contradictory statements at the core there seems to be an ideal of “self-reliance” which share parallels to the ideology of Juche in North Korea.

"The initial juche ideal of “self-reliance” centered on three elements: ideological autonomy, economic self-sufficiency, and military independence from imperial influence.

Domestically, juche served to connect Kim Il Sung and the nascent North Korean state to ideas that would resonate with ordinary Koreans. It paired the Marxist language of the country’s communist patrons with traditional Korean nationalism, arguing that South Korea was not a legitimate government because it was the tool of imperialist-capitalist foreign powers like the United States.

It also developed a doctrine of Korean racial purity, drawing on historically Korean beliefs and language used by Japanese imperialists, to argue against opening up to the global economy. Even today, North Koreans are still taught that the first humans emerged there, and that part of the reason they’re superior to other countries is that they’ve preserved their purity while others have become mongrels."

The core ideas are very similar to those that seems prevalent here. There are no overt references to Marxism although an increased role for the state seems evident. The nationalism is also of a different flavour, based on resurrecting an ancient past. 

An obsession with personalities however is another common denominator.

 "...juche modified a traditional Confucian doctrine — that human beings can transform the world if they possess the correct mindset — to explain why Kim Il Sung deserved the Korean people’s respect. Juche holds that the only the possessor of truly correct consciousness is the “suryong” (leader) of North Korea. Kim was so uniquely gifted, so incredibly accomplished, that the only way to make one’s life better was to align your own will with that of the suryong’s.

Human beings don’t need God. They now have the Kim family,” as Don Baker, a scholar of Korean philosophy at the University of British Columbia, summarizes it"

The philosophy in N. Korea has been developing since the 1950's so it has evolved into something much more complex than that of Sri Lanka but they do seem to share some common roots. 

  

The new constitution for Sri Lanka

 The draft of the 20th amendment to the constitution has been published. It contains no surprises, the main thrust is to centralise power in the Presidency, The only surprise really is that the term limit has been retained - something that is possibly due the problem of primogeniture.

We are also informed that a new constitution is also in the works. The question is why? If all the vital amendments were made in the 20th amendment, which is sure to pass unchanged what else is left to change?

There have been a few indications, the electoral system may change, there have been suggestions that the electoral threshold be raised from the current 5% to perhaps 10%. This would have the effect of disqualifying smaller parties such as the JVP. There have been calls to 'ban' ethnic or religious based parties, so this may also figure; although the same may simply be achieved by judicious adjustment to the electoral threshold as these parties tend to be fairly small. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

According to this news report, only twelve clauses in the constitution would be retained; those relating to " sovereignty, territorial integrity, Buddhism, the National Anthem and the National Flag".

This indicates a complete remaking of the state, what may we expect?

The rulers envision a development state and look to East Asia for ideas. The country that approximates Sri Lanka in East Asia is - Malaysia, which also had a British colonial experience and deals with a multi-ethnic society. The constitutional arrangements of Malaysia may therefore be an inspiration for Sri Lanka's new constitution makers.  There will also undoubtedly be some invoking of the land's ancient past, perhaps embellished by nuggets extracted by the task force on archaeology.

In particular the changes to Malaysia's constitution following the race riots of 1969 may feature, including some aspects of the New Economic Policy.

"From the ashes of the bloody riots, a new social compact was forged in the form of the New Economic Policy (NEP) which laid the ground for an assertion of Malay nationalism in various sectors including education and the economy through social reengineering and affirmative action programs. The national political landscape was also transformed with the creation of the BN grand coalition in 1973, which absorbed opposition parties including PAS, Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia (Gerakan) and the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) in West Malaysia. This had the effect of restoring the two-thirds majority in Parliament and consolidating control over every state government in the country.

Armed with total control, Razak moved to enshrine the new social compromises through the controversial Constitution (Amendment) Act 1971. Dubbed the “sensitive matters amendment”, seven articles were changed including those governing freedom of speech, assembly and association, parliamentary privileges, the national language, and the expansion of the scope of Article 153 that deals with the protection of the “special position” of the Malays.

As a result of the amendments, fundamental liberties were proscribed so that “sensitive matters”—defined to include issues such as citizenship, language, the special position of the Malays and the natives of Borneo, and the rulers’ sovereignty—could not be discussed openly, even in Parliament. The Sedition Act, previously inapplicable within the confines of the august House and state legislatures, now applies throughout.

These amendments were further augmented by other proscriptive legislation, such as the University and University College Act 1971, which forbade university students from participating in political activities, and the Official Secrets Act 1972, which cast a wide net for deeming what is confidential and hence unlawful to disseminate.

Further to that, Article 159 was altered so that the consent of the Conference of Rulers, previously required only for amendments to provisions affecting the special position of the Malays and the rulers themselves, was now also required for those affecting the national language, parliamentary privilege and certain fundamental liberties. Meanwhile, Article 153 was modified to allow the creation of quotas for Malays and natives in institutions of higher education, in addition to existing quotas for public service, education and commercial permits and licenses." Sourced from here.

 

 

Minor edits done on 12th September.

  

Sri Lanka's import substituting economic policy

Sri Lanka seems set to return to policies of import substituting production.  I started reading Dr Eamonn Butler's primer on Adam Smith this morning and the opening paragraphs describe perfectly the current thinking in Sri Lanka: 

"The old view of economics

So much did Smith change our ideas, indeed, that it is hard even to describe the economic system that prevailed in his time. Called mercantilism, it measured national wealth in terms of a country’s stock of gold and silver. Importing goods from abroad was seen as damaging because it meant that this supposed wealth must be given up to pay for them; exporting goods was seen as good because these precious metals came back. Trade benefited only the seller, not the buyer; and one nation could get richer only if others got poorer.

On the basis of this view, a vast edifice of controls was erected in order to prevent the nation’s wealth draining away – taxes on imports, subsidies to exporters and protection for domestic industries. Even Britain’s own American colonies were penalised under this system, with disastrous results. Indeed, all commerce was looked upon with suspicion and the culture of protectionism pervaded the domestic economy too. Cities prevented artisans from other towns moving in to ply their trade; manufacturers and merchants petitioned the king for protective monopolies; labour saving devices such as the new stocking-frame were banned as a threat to existing producers."

What Smith set out to do was to show that the: 

"mercantilist edifice was based on a mistake, and was counterproductive. He argued that in a free exchange both sides became better off. Quite simply, nobody would enter an exchange if they expected to lose from it. The buyer profits, just as the seller does. Imports are just as valuable to us as our exports are to others. We do not need to impoverish others to enrich ourselves: indeed, we have more to gain if our customers are wealthy.

Given the essential truth that free exchange benefits both sides, Smith maintained that trade and exchange increase our prosperity just as surely as do agriculture or manufacture. The wealth of a nation is not the quantity of gold and silver in its vaults, but the total of its production and commerce."

To be fair, Sri Lanka is not alone in turning its back on free trade, Smith's insights are important because they are counter intuitive. We don't need to look back to Adam Smith however, we can learn from our own experience. Sri Lanka tried similar policies between 1956-77 that did not succeed but that took place over two generations ago. We may end up repeating the mistakes of the past, but given weak economic conditions and fractured society I don't know if we can afford to make any more mistakes.

On Totalitarianism

 My friend Sven Gerst sent me some interesting thoughts on totalitarianism that I thought were worth sharing. He says that when he teaches populism he also includes some aspects of totalitarianism because he thinks there is much to learn from totalitarianism.

The politics of Sri Lanka are convoluted, one dynamic being a conflict between the older feudalism of society and modern constitutionalism, but studying these various systems is quite useful to deciphering some of the local complexities. The very last paragraph in particular - think of the MCC Agreement, the Shafi affair for example seems very apt. Dayan Jayatilleka, raises some interesting points on the subject in his commentary.

Totalitarianism is most accurately defined as the idea that exercising control and direction over every aspect of the lives of a society’s inhabitants will yield the best of all possible futures. For totalitarianism to succeed in establishing itself, two preconditions are required. The first is widespread psychological dispositions that make society susceptible to totalitarianism’s temptations. The second is the skillful use of manipulative propaganda. Once put into practice, totalitarianism is a ruthless, all-encompassing socio-political force, intolerant of loyalty to anything but itself. This is the antithesis of the constitutional republics and parliamentary democracies that are the models of modern Western government.

Totalitarian regimes begin in mass movements, but it should be noted that not all mass movements are totalitarian. The American Civil Rights movement was a mass movement and undoubtedly a hugely positive force for urgently needed change. Mass movements typically coalesce around political or cultural narratives and causes that draw people together from broad segments of a national population. In The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt observed that the masses have very little in common in terms of interests or politics, but that a mass movement can bind diverse groups of people together with common goals and grievances. In practice, however, it is not always easy to distinguish a totalitarian from a benign mass movement at inception. The main distinction between the two is in the all-consuming nature of the totalitarian variant. The Nazi movement aimed to deprive the people of any facet of life outside of an exclusive commitment to its mission. In fact, the Nazis, the Bolsheviks, the Maoists, and the Jacobins all sought to radically remake society by compelling every last individual to become nothing more than a cog in their revolutionary machines. Any life outside of political life was seen, by the movements’ elite leaders, as not only superfluous but suspect and as a challenge to the movements themselves. [SG: That's a Schmittean insight] Even morality and reason are subordinate to the cause. 

[...]

Eric Hoffer began his book The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements by pointing out that all mass movements are partly born of a desire for change in personal and social circumstances—totalitarian movements are no different. The individuals who are most susceptible to joining mass movements are characterized by loneliness, hopelessness, self-disdain, disappointment, and boredom. People who are contending with those kinds of feelings are initially attracted to the novelty and excitement of a mass movement, and quickly come to identify in it those aspects of their lives that are missing. In societies accustomed to progress, people who are actively dissatisfied with their personal and professional lives are especially susceptible.

In his book A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891–1924, Orlando Figes pointed out that, for the revolutionaries, the most appealing thing about joining the revolution was not the promise of improving society, but rather the “sense of ‘wholeness’ which might give higher meaning to their lives and end their alienation from the world.” Arendt likewise noted that mass movements thrive in societies that have experienced social atomization because this laid the groundwork for “self-abandonment into the mass” and “the passionate inclination toward the most abstract notions as guides for life.” An appealing mass movement creates the chance for the disaffected individual to lose the unhappy person that they are and remake themselves anew as a part of a seemingly benevolent mission.

[...] 

Humans are social creatures, but we also have strong tribal tendencies. It turns out that how we self-identify is closely related to the cultural groups with which we associate. In his essay “The Dangers of Tribalism,” the philosopher of science Kevin deLaplante argues that our ideas, knowledge, and values are largely shaped by our individual sense of tribal belonging, and it’s this perception of belonging to particular groups that provides the context from which we draw much of our self-esteem as individuals.One of the most relevant forms of tribal identity to have emerged in America in recent decades is partisan identity. In her book Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity, Lilliana Mason argued that partisan identity is more important to individual partisans than the actual issues. In fact, partisans often maintain their political identities in the face of contradictory policy positions. In the US, competing partisan identities have grown increasingly divergent since the 1980s as citizens have been sorting themselves into mutually exclusive geographical and cultural tribes.

....

A permanent feature of democracy accounts for much of what is potentially threatening about America’s relative political ineffectiveness as well as its fascination with social discord. In The Authoritarian Dynamic, Karen Stenner [SG: if you buy one book, buy this one] argues that about a third of people in Western liberal democracies have an authoritarian personality. People with this personality profile exhibit strong preferences for “unity and conformity” in society. They want society to believe in the same values and norms and they are avoiders of complexity. This type of personality is manifest in intolerant behaviors and attitudes, activated by perceived threats to “unity and conformity” in society. Accordingly, exposing authoritarians to a diversity of beliefs and the failure of political leadership to inspire the confidence of the citizenry, makes them less tolerant of any kind of differences in society. When authoritarians are experimentally exposed to news of social discord, they are much more likely to favor banning dissident political speech and to crack down on immigration.

This is a source of danger for democratic governments, which depend for their legitimacy upon the consent of the governed. Distrust in government as well as in the institutions of society allows totalitarian movements’ propaganda to thrive. Any information that is mysterious, hidden, secret, or granted attention by mainstream society offers a potential basis for totalitarian propaganda. Disaffected people want to escape from reality, but they also yearn for a consistent narrative—a desire that can be satisfied by movement leaders peddling paranoia and intrigue. It can be the inner workings of the Democratic National Committee or explanations for disparities in outcomes and other forms of potential social injustice.

The role of the opposition

The election is over and although the results are not yet clear, victory for the SLPP is certain. The only matter in doubt is the size of majority and whether the necessary numbers to muster the two-thirds of seats needed to amend the constitution can be obtained.

What then should the opposition do? Should it view its role as simply to oppose everything the government does? Out of disappointment and frustration it is tempting for opposition members to be obstructionist and oppose every single thing the government does, good or bad. Opposition members may realise that the country faces a deep crisis and may imagine that by obstructing necessary reforms-tax increases, privatisation or spending cuts for example that they will push the country into a crisis which can lead to them ascending to power.    

Not only is this view short-sighted, it is also selfish and immoral because it places the interests of the opposition members ahead of the interests of the people they are meant to represent.

"Guidelines on the rights and duties of the opposition in parliament", a document unanimously adopted by the participants at the Parliamentary Seminar on Relations Between Majority and Minority Parties in African Parliaments (Libreville, Gabon, 17–19 May 1999) sets out some duties that are summarised below. 

The most important is that they must offer alternative programmes to what the government is doing. It is not simply a matter of opposing, they must also offer an alternative plan to whatever is being proposed. An alternative tax or investment policy for example.  

"The opposition in parliament has a duty to offer voters a credible alternative to the government in office to make the majority accountable. To be a credible alternative, however, the opposition must also be ready to exercise the responsibilities to which it aspires on a lasting basis. In other words, it must have a programme which it is ready to implement." 

The programmes need to be properly thought out and be ready to implement, meaning it must not just be an idea, practical administrative aspects must also be worked out.

"In democracy, political life is enriched by free competition of political programmes; it is impoverished by rivalry based on personal ambitions which merely disqualifies it in the eyes of public opinion.... It must engage in constructive and responsible opposition by making counter-proposals. In its action,

the opposition must not seek to hinder pointlessly the action of the government but rather endeavour to encourage it to improve such action in the general interest. " 

They need to act on the basis of principle within the basis of a moral framework, including elements like honesty and compassion.

The three guiding principles for public policy that should inform all their actions are:

1. Minimising suffering.

2. Fighting tyranny.

3. Promoting tolerance

(Taken from here)

J R Jayewardene's government with a 5/6th majority was notorious for its abuse of power. There is always a danger that a super majority can lead to tyranny, the opposition needs to stop it; by highlighting and campaigning against the abuse of power and oppression. It must speak for those who have no voice, the weak and the vulnerable. In this there must be no compromise, it must be unwavering and tenacious. 

The lack of principled opposition has been one of the causes of the destruction of democracy in Sri Lanka. Instead of offering credible alternative programmes or constructive criticism opposition parties have resorted to populism and ethnic outbidding to score political points.

The UNP looks set to lose badly in this election. There is an opportunity for the SJB to take its place but to be effective they need to start afresh, eschew cheap populism and build a principled opposition.

   

 

Hayek on economic Freedom and Security

In the chapter on Freedom and Security in the Road to Serfdom, Hayek observes:

"the policies which are now followed everywhere, which hand out the privilege of security, now to this group and now to that, are nevertheless rapidly creating conditions in which the striving for security tends to become stronger than the love of freedom. The reason for this is that with every grant of complete security to one group the insecurity of the rest necessarily increases. If you guarantee to some a fixed part of a variable cake, the share left to the rest is bound to fluctuate proportionally more than the size of the whole."

He was of course speaking of economic freedom, the freedom to engage in productive activities of our choice but it seems quite apt for the politics of Sri Lanka.

The problem he argues is that if economic security is to be guaranteed society must be organised on military lines. 

A watershed election

I have been reading John Richardson's Paradise Poisoned, an excellent book on conflict and development.

It uses Sri Lanka as a case study and traces important events in post-independence history to build a model of conflict. One of the most useful aspects is that gives proper weight to the economic problems and the role that they played in the development of the conflict.

I was struck by the similarities between tomorrow's election and the one faced by Dudley Senanayake in 1970.      

The election of 1970 marked a watershed. Mrs Bandaranaike swept away the government of Dudley Senananayake to be elected the Prime Minister for the second time. Dudley is said to have muddled through between 1965-70, trying to find a middle path and compromising with different forces in parliament. From the little that I have read, Dudley did seem to have carried out a difficult balancing act with relative success, a far better overall performance than the shambolic Yahapalanaya government which is it's present day equivalent.

Mrs Bandaranaike remade Ceylon in her own image with the new constitution; renaming the country, granting prominence to Buddhism, eliminating the upper house of parliament, abolishing the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London and judicial review of legislation.

We face a similar moment today as the Rajapaksa family ascends to power. Like Mrs Bandaranaike 1970 they do so for the second time and like her, they promise to remake the state.

AJ Wilson, writing about the new government of 1970 said:

 

"first, the Senanayake-type Westminster-style constitution' which gave a certain entrenched status to the United National Party (UNP) will now be replaced with a Bandaranaike oriented indigenous type structure that will be advantageous to the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and its marxist allies, the trotskyist Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP; Ceylon Equal Society Party) and the Ceylon Communist Party (CP-Moscow), and will provide a socialist orientation to the island's economic development; second, the public sector will consequently have much the dominant role in economic development; and third, a foreign policy will be evolved which is not necessarily anti-west but is more deliberately contrived to obtain economic benefits from both blocs"

Fifty years on, the country finds itself at almost the same place, with similar issues being debated. At the time Prof Wilson was confident to asset that "fears of Ceylon going totalitarian are mistake". Although it did not become totalitarian, the government of the day did become increasingly authoritarian. 

We shall have to see what fate ultimately brings but make no mistake, this is another pivotal moment.

 

British colonialism and "divide and rule"

Indi recently alluded to a British policy of "divide and rule" in administering its colonies.  Lord Elphinstone is supposed to have said “Divide et impera was an old Roman maxim, and it shall be ours”, post the revolt of 1857 in India.

What does this mean in practice? A definition on the internet is

 "the policy of maintaining control over one's subordinates or opponents by encouraging dissent between them, thereby preventing them from uniting in opposition."

While this may be a good military strategy, as a system of rule it dubious at best or counterproductive at worst. A historian with the  International Islamic University, Islamabad, Akhtar Hussain Sandhu argues that:

" The very principle can be practical in a battlefield to cut the numbers of the enemies or create rift among the confronting forces but this strategy cannot be used by the rulers who seek peace or law and order in the region under their possession. Not unrest and communal clashes but regional peace and communal or factional harmony can better serve the aspirations of a conqueror who decides to stay and rule". (Reality of ‘Divide and Rule’ in British India, March 2015).

Regardless of whether the British practised this or not the burning question in India and Sri Lanka today is why post-independence rulers have adopted this tactic.

The open economy and corruption

I was chatting to a professor of economics a few days ago and he mentioned something interesting:people associate the opening of the economy with an increase in corruption. He said that this is one reason why the 'free-market' is unpopular in this country.

Liberal ideas, especially those related to market economics are definitely unpopular. The Professor's insight is interesting, it is a plausible explanation for at least some of the hostility to markets. This confusion can be easily cleared up.

The UNP government that was elected in 1977 did two things:

1. a partial, somewhat polticised liberation of market forces and
2. a dismantling of governance institutions, principally through the new constitution.

Corruption expanded mostly because of the dismantling of the systems of governance. The  liberalisation was also politicised, which created new opportunities for corruption.

Admittedly, some genuine reforms did take place including replacing quantitative restrictions on imports with tariffs  and revising the tariff structure to achieve greater uniformity; financial  reform: adjusting interest rates to levels above the rate of inflation, opening the banking sector to foreign banks and freeing credit markets to determine interest rates, reducing restrictions on foreign investment, with new incentives for export-oriented foreign investment under an attractive Free Trade Zone (FTZ) scheme.

Unfortunately too many reform measures were politicised and lead to crony capitalism, resulting in increased corruption and rent-seeking.

 “The UNP government commenced a program of economic liberalisation in 1978, reversing the two decades of socialist economic policy. The economy began to improve and there was an upsurge in domestic and foreign investment. Despite this deregulation, the government retained enormous powers of patronage. Large-scale projects needed government approval, firms needed all sorts of permissions and authorisations to do business and a range of services were still provided by government including security. The returns from investment in Sri Lanka increased exponentially but so did the opportunities for corruption owing to the remaining government controls on trade and investment. The governing party was able to use these powers to benefit party supporters and to buy electoral support. This practice of highly politicised liberalisation led to higher levels of corruption on an unprecedented scale”[1]

Dismantling the governance mechanisms was an absolutely illiberal move. Liberals believe in limited government : government that is bound by known laws. The centralisation power in a presidency while dismantling checks on the executive, reducing the oversight of parliament and the courts was thus profoundly illiberal. 

The UNP had the opportunity of a lifetime. Even with all their stupidity, if they had not instigated the ethnic violence of 1983 our trajectory would have been different. The next watershed was in November 2003 when Chandrika Bandaranaike sabotaged a reform process that showed real promise. In 2015 another UNP government squandered, stupidly and needlessly the last opportunity.

Now there will be no further discussion of markets or liberalism. 

---

[1]Ruwan Wathukarage, ‘Independence of the Judiciary in Sri Lanka: An institutional Analysis of its Woes’, [2007] LAWSASIA Journal,  186

The traits of fascism

Max Eastman (1883-1969) was a poet, radical editor, translator, and author. He edited the socialist magazine The Masses (1912-1917) and translated Leon Trotsky into English. He traveled to the Soviet Union where he expected to discover the success of socialism but left in 1924, disillusioned by the bitter struggle that followed Lenin's death in which Trotsky was brushed aside by Stalin. 

One of his books, Stalin's Russia and The Crisis in Socialism (1940) details some of the problems he witnessed in Russia.  One section, reproduced below deals with the characteristics of fascism. It is worth reflecting on today.

There is too much dispute over the connotation of fascism for one simple formula to hold . We can as yet only point to all those traits which are common to the regimes in Italy and Germany, and not to be found in even the most caste-ridden of democratic countries . I have counted twenty-two such traits.

1. Nationalistic emotion is hysterically exalted. "Patriotism is the supreme law of life," was the way Stalin's Pravda expressed it in 1934, and he was then still hampered by relics of the old slogan of Marx and Lenin: "Workers have no fatherland." By now patriotism in Moscow must be pretty nearly the whole law of life.

2. A single party, disciplined, centrally controlled and having a monopoly of the political field, takes over the power of the state . The state is reduced to the position of a false front, whose function is to "ratify" the decisions of the party.

Needless to argue that this system exists in Russia, since it was there that Hitler and Mussolini learned it.

3 . Dissenting opinion is coerced by means of patronage and intimidation to the point where the party and its leaders can assert themselves to be the nation as a totality . The regime is called totalitarian exactly because it is not so, but this is a threat, not a boast . It means that all disagreement or even indifference, where it cannot be bridled, will be ruthlessly stamped out .

In Russia they talk of the "monolithic party" instead of the "totalitarian state," but this only because the system is so perfect that the state can be ignored .

4. The religion of nationalism comes into conflict with supernatural religion. The church, like the state, is permitted to exist, but its priests, and even its God, must recognize the superior authority of the party.

Under "Socialism in One Country"-which is emotionally, even more than logically, the same thing as "National Socialism"-not only religion, but philosophy is regimented by the party!

5 . The new religion finds its focus of devotion in "the Leader," who becomes to all intents and purposes a God.

In Russia, less civilized to begin with, this return to primitive superstition has gone farther than in Italy and Germany. In many minds it has gone to the point of literal deification. The adulation of the "Liubimii Vozhd," printed almost weekly in full-page headlines in the great metropolitan newspapers of Russia-"Our Beloved," "Our Infallible," "Our Incomparable Stalin," "Our Sensitive Stalin," "Our Teacher," "Our Father of Nations," "Our Sun," "Our Soul"-would provoke laughter in any Western metropolis .

6. Anti-intellectualism, in a degree heretofore found only among guttersnipes, becomes a public policy. It takes the form of flattery to the ignorant and lazy-minded, persecution, jail, death, or exile to those who stand for strenuous and honest thought.

Because of Stalin's personal jealousy of the brainier lieutenants of Lenin, and because the prejudice so easily aroused against highbrows was useful to him in over-whelming them, this policy has been more deliberately put through in Russia than in Italy or Germany . Moreover, with one exception, Stalin has not exiled his highbrows, but locked them up or shot them.

7 . Anti-intellectualism also takes the form of a physical destruction of books and records, a rewriting of history and revamping of science to make it fit the momentary needs of politics.

Hitler made a public bonfire, but what Stalin has done in his craftier way to Russian books and documents and films, and even spoken memories-to all recorded truth-makes Hitler's bonfire look like an Independence Day celebration.

8. Anti-intellectualism also takes the form of an attack on "pure science"-described by the Editors of the New Republic as "one of the weirdest aspects of the weird Nazi ideology."

Exactly the same attack on pure science was made, with Marxian flourishes and police assistance, by Stalin's Politburo.

9. The manipulation of public opinion is substituted for its enlightenment. Human minds are regarded as receptacles for officially decreed opinions. It becomes the function of the press and radio to put over the Leader's ideas, and misrepresent those of his enemies . Debate is abolished, dogma enthroned . Whatever intellectual life survives consists of inferences from temporary pronunciamentos of the Leader.

Here Stalin beats Hitler because he is operating upon a more primitive people .

10. Cultural isolation of the country is essential to this operation. The population is taught to believe all sorts of fables about their own merits and prosperities and the desperate condition of the outside world.

In Russia this has gone so far that private citizens cannot travel abroad, and are afraid to have friendly relations with a foreign visitor. It is, as we have seen, a crime of treason, punishable by death, to "escape across the border."

 11. Party control of "scientific fact" (except in the industrial and military spheres) is accompanied by a similar control of creative art. Mussolini decrees the size of women's hips in Italian painting; Hitler suppresses as degenerate all the experimental art-works of the period.

Both Hitler and Mussolini learned this from Stalin, who inaugurated his aesthetic Inquisition in 1930. (See my Artists in Uniform .)

12. Immoralism takes two forms . Political lying and governmental hypocrisy are adopted as a system. Libel and slander become civic virtues . Fake plebiscites, solemn caricatures of judicial procedure, parodies of representative government, are accepted as the normal course . "Fooling all the people all the time" becomes the essential function of the state apparatus.

Stalin's "most democratic constitution in history," with its joker guaranteeing the political monopoly of the communist party and this party's domination in every social organization in the country, is the incomparable climax of this system . It is the most insolent hoax in history . It not only fools the people all the time, but fools them with the same trick, and hands it to them hand-embossed on parchment as the fundamental law of the land .

13. Immoralism takes also the form of state-planned assassinations, frame-ups, blood-purges, Reichstag fires, piracies in the Mediterranean, etc . The worst crimes in the code of civilization become the daring virtues of the totalitarian state.

Stalin, with his deliberate starvation of four to six million peasants, his deportations of whole villages, his millions in concentration camps, his whole counties consecrated to forced labor, his execution of practically every man in the country who has occupied a prominent position within the last fifteen years, makes Hitler's little blood-purge and Mussolini's regimen of castor oil tempered with assassination, look like a sophomore hazing party . If the shed blood of innocent men were measured, Stalin's would be a lake, Hitler's a duck-pond ; Mussolini's could be dipped up by the tank-carful

14 . Besides its own crimes, the state encourages the population to bait, torture and destroy some public enemy. The hate and persecution of this internal enemy serves as a peacetime substitute for war, which is necessary to keep the passion of tribal solidarity on which the whole thing is based at white heat .

What Hitler has done to the Jews compares palely with what Stalin has done to "Kulaks," and to prominent people generally. He has reversed Napoleon's maxim: "Careers are open to all men of talent." The place for men of talent in Russia, generally speaking, is the bloodstained cellar of the Lubianka prison. Still Stalin has not-as yet-overtly persecuted the Jews or other Russian national minorities. He belongs to one of them himself.

15 In baiting the Jews, Hitler revived-from the Old Testament!-the principle of tribal guilt for the crime of an individual.

Stalin has written this principle into the Criminal Code. As we have seen, his treason law holds guilty not only the family of the traitor, but everybody who lived, however innocently, in the same house with him.

16. Besides an object of hate, the tribal passion must have an object of love. There must be some real glorywork to consecrate oneself to . Accordingly, we find in all totalitarian regimes a process of economic revival or reconstruction . Absolute tyranny and complete regimentation of a population does solve-temporarily, I think one or two of the anxious problems of civilization, although at the cost of civilization itself. It is a great way of climbing out of a hole . And only in countries climbing out of a hole have such regimes been established.

 Russia was in a deeper hole than Italy or Germany, and she has more abundant resources. She is a backward nation still to be industrialized. The real job to be done, the object of honest devotion, is bigger, more sure of success, more exciting.

17. The national revival is focused around and sustained by preparations for war. The war industries dominate, and the population is completely militarized from youngest childhood.

In this, Russia, Italy and Germany are alike, and Russia has now joined these other military despotisms in aggressions against peaceful neighbors.

18. Together with militarization goes a reckless campaign for increased population. Birth control is discouraged, abortions are outlawed, large families are boosted with state propaganda . Here Stalin was impeded by Lenin's extremely liberal and humanitarian legislation . He has repealed all that legislation, and Russia is now making cannon fodder with the best of them .

19. Woman is relegated to a subordinate position, and laws are passed against her independence . The totalitarian regimes are male regimes . Woman's business in them is to breed.

Here, too, Stalin has repealed the equalitarian decrees and proclamations of the October revolution. He is traveling in the anti-feminist direction. But he is still a good way behind Hitler and Mussolini.

20. All three totalitarian governments are characterized by a paternal concern for the welfare, or at least security, of the toiling masses-in so far as they are completely submissive . This fact about fascist regimes has been little appreciated in America, but it is the foundation of their success. It is the price at which the German and Italian masses sold their freedom. In Russia, notwithstanding the legends spread by Stalin's propagandists, this concern for the toilers is no more real, and is on the whole less effective, than in Germany . The Russian masses, accustomed as they were to slavery, have sold their freedom at a lower price. In both countries all the unions are company unions, and the company is the state.

 21 . All totalitarian regimes make a liberal use of the phraseology of working-class revolution against capitalism. They call themselves "proletarian" ; they denounce democratic nations as "capitalist" ; Mussolini asserts that he is still a "revolutionary socialist" ; Goebbels promises a "socialism of nations" ; Hitler calls his party "National Socialist," denounces the "Jewish capitalist world" ; Goering describes Germany as a "workers' and peasants' state ."

Stalin uses this language more plausibly than the others, because he stems from a revolution that did involve a rising of the workers and peasants. In so far, however, as it implies that the workers and peasants run the government or receive a slice of the profits of industry, the language is as false in Russia as in Germany and Italy. The profits are disposed of by the new holders of totalitarian power, the class of bureaucrats, whose principal public expenditure is on militarizing the country mind and body.

22 . In all totalitarian regimes, industry, commerce and agriculture are controlled by the state-that is, the party and its leader. "Almost the only freedom left to the German employer," says Geoffrey Crowther, Editor of the London Economist, "is to put his name on the firm's stationery." And Stephen Raushenbush * adds that the German "business-owner," as well as the "homeowner," shows a "perfect obedience" to the state because he knows that "it is perfectly possible for the state to take the last feature of the older system away from him ."

Random thoughts on lockdowns and their costs.

I have been thinking about the response to the pandemic and the use of lockdowns.  I have many questions but not much in the way of clear answers, so these comments may be treated as thoughts that may be worth discussing.  

My initial question when Sri Lanka announced the curfew was – ‘what is the end game?’

A curfew is only a short-term measure to slow the spread of the infection, it is not a cure. How long must we endure it and to what end?

Other countries seem to be using lockdowns as a measure to buy time; to increase public health care capacity (procuring emergency hospital space, breathing ventilators, medical protective equipment, and testing kits). I have been assured by friends who have been following this closely that Sri Lanka is implementing a system of tracing, testing and isolating all potential infected persons and that there is reasonable, although not complete success in this.

The larger questions are the social and economic costs of the exercise.

Lockdowns are now widely adopted in various degrees of intensity, in many countries. We know the costs of the lockdown tend to weigh more heavily on the poorer sections of the population - their jobs cannot easily be done from home, therefore they are more likely to lose income. They are also more exposed to infection due to the nature of their jobs.

Is a lockdown therefore something of a luxury? Something the richer sections of society can afford but not the poorer ?

More developed countries have tried to ease some of the economic pain by way of relief - it may not be adequate but it is something. The lockdown, however also imposes costs on other countries through the closure of export markets. How do we evaluate these costs? 

For example, what Sri Lanka faces is a near complete closure - almost like being under economic sanctions. Orders for the garment industry, which is estimated to employ 350,000 people are at zero for the next three months at least. Even goods that were shipped are being returned. 

The industry initially faced supply constraints from January/February when China locked down. Buttons, yarn, accessories and fabric were being sourced from Wuhan so factories faced difficulties in finishing products. Then Europe locked down, leading to contraction in the market. Finally Sri Lanka went into curfew-so 2-3 months of slowing activity ended with a stoppage of local operations. 

Some 30-40% of the garment factories claimed they were unable to pay salaries in April and may be forced to close. A 100,000 jobs are at immediate risk. The bigger ones are holding on, MAS/Brandix have closed their factories for 3 months but are still paying workers (management salaries have been cut) but for how much longer can they hold on? The cash crunch arises because the factories have stocks of raw materials and finished goods which they have paid for but are now unable to sell.

The suppliers to the garment industry, from the large packaging material suppliers to the smaller ones who provide staff meals, cleaning services, transport, security etc face a knock-on shock. 

Similar problems seem prevalent in other manufactured exports – I heard of a solid rubber tyre factory that is running at 5% capacity for example. There is no proper information but things seem pretty bad. Tea seems to be functioning normally, experiencing a (probably temporary) boost in March as overseas markets stockpiled groceries. 

Rubber gloves are booming and some factories are adapting to PPE but how many can switch is the question. Supplies of some raw materials for PPE are not easy to source and it may require some retooling of the factory. Margins may not be great either, but better to have some work than none.

Returning to the problem of costs within a particular country, poorer countries have a greater challenge because a much larger proportion of the population is in informal work. Therefore a far greater part of the population will have to suffer deprivation in a lockdown. The costs of a lockdown are much greater in poorer countries and made worse by much weaker safety nets. In India about 80% of the workforce is in the informal sector in Sri Lanka it is close to two thirds.

Livelihoods of two thirds of the workforce may be lost

Sri Lanka has adopted the most extreme measure a curfew, not a lockdown so almost all economic activity has ceased. Unlike most developed nations, almost two thirds of the workforce is employed in the informal sector; people who earn by the day or the week and who may have little in the way of savings. A curfew will deprive them of their livelihood; without income how do they live?

Even where people have income inaccessibility to cash presents another problem. Many delivery services operate only on cash. With banks only intermittently inaccessible even those with money may be unable to buy goods.

Relief measures may not reach those most in need

Sri Lanka has announced relief through Samurdhi but this programme has been criticized for poor targeting. It is believed to reach only some 55% of its intended beneficiaries and may not cover the working poor – the daily wage earners.

Some debt and tax relief have also been offered to businesses but this may not be adequate and is unlikely to touch the informal sector. It may not even reach most SMEs. The majority of Sri Lanka’s businesses are informal and have little or no connection with the tax net or the formal banking sector. Small businesses find it hard to borrow and micro enterprises may find it impossible. Big businesses can make use of debt relief but for small businesses operating outside the formal system; debt relief has little meaning, as does tax relief.

The poor in Sri Lanka will suffer far more under a curfew than those under lockdown in other countries because of the twin impact; they have their livelihoods disrupted and even the little relief offered does not reach them.

Even within the formal sector, if workers are to be paid, businesses need to find the money to pay them. The relief offered by government will certainly help but it does not cover the entire staff cost, so unless a business is able to operate at some level they will find it difficult to pay staff. Under a curfew most businesses remain closed. In such a situation only larger businesses will have the necessary reserves to be able to pay even a month’s wages.

Therefore a curfew or near total lockdown is something that Sri Lanka cannot afford, except for perhaps a short time. Norman Loayza of the World Bank sums up the dilemma:

“we are facing an acute public health, economic, and humanitarian crisis. What makes managing this health emergency so challenging is that if unattended, it could lead to countless numbers of fatalities—yet if drastic measures to contain the spread of the virus are imposed, it can produce a deep recession with business closures, mass unemployment, and poverty.” 

Loayza’s full post, which neatly sums up some of the social, economic – and political costs is well worth reading.

The broader question is how did we arrive here?

If I am not mistaken the train of events was that China, having concealed the problem at first overreacted and locked down a region. Until the Chinese did it I don’t think any country has ever attempted to quarantine such a large area. Then Italy panicked and copied aspects of it and much of the rest of the world seems to have followed on the basis of China's apparent success.

Question 1- ONE region locking down can do so with limited social and economic costs but if the whole world pretty much closes down I think the damage multiplies exponentially - as most travel and trade stops. Does the cost/benefit of a strategy applied in a limited area change completely if applied widely across many countries? If so how?

Question 2 : China claims the lockdown was a success. They initially concealed information but later became much more open. Are the Chinese claims of success quite reliable? I hope we are not basing on policy on information as reliable as their claims with the success of Vocational Education and Training Centers for the Uighurs.....

More philosophically, wondering how what is, in effect, a system of mass house-arrest in an entire region implemented by an authoritarian regime become accepted policy across much of the rest of the world.

Meanwhile the local media, quite dreadful even normally seem to be following the pandemic like a game of cricket with outbreak-by-outbreak commentaries on infection rates, the death count and the ‘curve’; seemingly to show how we are ‘winning the match’.  People seem similarly obsessed and I can’t really understand why.

There are some risks in life which we can eliminate, others can only be mitigated. Some things are beyond our control, call it fate or nature. We can't really hope to defy death and I try not to worry too much about things I can’t control and get on with life. This recent letter in the Economist struck a chord with me:  

There is a trade off of money versus lives. But what is the point of being alive if you can’t study, spend time with friends, or just enjoy the sound of water sloshing as you swim? Not everything has to go back to normal immediately, but we are all going to die, so the real question is whether we’re going to live?

Tony Bruguier
Milpitas, California

Unfolding train wreck

Something I wrote a few months ago when Islamaphobia was raging. It may yet return.


I have been watching, with growing fear the racism directed towards the Muslims of Sri Lanka.

What makes it  difficult to understand is the rapidity with which it emerged and the sheer intensity of the emotions involved. People seem to be turning against colleagues, neighbours, associates and even friends. Were the Tamils as hated and as ostracised as this?

I have been observing the development of Sri Lanka's conflict since the early 2000's and I dont recall anything like this.

The sensation I have is like observing, in slow motion and at a distance, an unfolding train wreck. One can see it happening, even as we speak, yet unable to do anything to stop it.

What is inexplicable to me is how few people seem to be able to see what is happening and how little people seem to care. How quickly have we forgotten the last war that we no longer see the ground being prepared for another ? How can other minorities, particularly Tamils now indulge the very invectives that were once directed at them? 

We know the venality of the political class but to think that they can once again stoke the flames of racism and hope to contain the resulting fire? Bandaranaike succumbed to the very forces he unleashed. Premadasa parried with Tigers, collaborated supplying arms to eject the Indian Peace Keeping Force-and then fell victim. Prabhakaran collaborated to with the regime in waiting, to enforce a Tamil boycott of elections that scuttled the peace, before it eventually consumed him.

J R Jayewardene alone, the Old Fox, who contributed more than any other survived to die of old age. 

I have been writing about this but it feels like screaming into a hurricane.

Anxiety & Doubt

Anxiety & Doubt

by Erich Fried

don't doubt of
someone
who's saying
he's anxious

but be anxious of
someone
who's saying
he's without a doubt

Words to Music: Eastern Man, Western Man

EASTERN MAN, WESTERN MAN



Eastern man walks slowly

Afraid of the flash in the sky,

Western Man walks swiftly

Less reason why.


Eastern man walks slowly

Afraid of the bolt from the blue,

Western man walks swiftly

Blind to the view.


Eastern man walks slowly

Shakes as the rockets boom,

Western man walks swiftly

Swiftly to his doom.



      -- Guy Amirthanayagam

EU Data protection rules

European Union laws require you to give European Union visitors information about cookies used and data collected on your blog. In many cases, these laws also require you to obtain consent. 

As a courtesy, we have added a notice on your blog to explain Google's use of certain Blogger and Google cookies, including use of Google Analytics and AdSense cookies, and other data collected by Google. 

You are responsible for confirming this notice actually works for your blog, and that it displays. If you employ other cookies, for example by adding third party features, this notice may not work for you. If you include functionality from other providers there may be extra information collected from your users. 

Learn more about this notice and your responsibilities.

Are Sri Lankans really peace loving? - (updated)

A friend of mine raised a question at a discussion yesterday. He said that there are two statements we commonly hear:

1. We have bad politicians who appeal to nationalist sentiments/play the race card to win elections.
2. All ordinary Sri Lankans are very peace loving and do not share in the racist sentiments expressed by politicians.

His questions were:

1. Can both of these statements hold true at the same time?
2. What if the Election Commissioner had a moment of real insight when he said that most Sinhalese welcomed the attacks on the Muslims?
3. Assuming politicians are elected on the basis of statements made then either one of these statements must be false. Both may be partly true.
3. Given the violence against Muslims in 2013 and 2018, the long conflict with the Tamils, riots and insurgencies (1987-89, 1983, 1971, 1958) are we really as peace loving as we like to think?

On November 6, 1959, ten years after returning to West Germany in the wake of the Nazi period and Holocaust, the philosopher Theodor W. Adorno addressed teachers from the Society for Christian-Jewish Cooperation with a lecture whose central question continues to echo more than a half-century later: “What does working through the past mean?” Underlining the need to confront the persistence of fascist structures within postwar democracy, Adorno argued powerfully against the desire in the German society of the 1950s to “close the books on the past and, if possible, even remove it from memory.” The potential for a relapse into catastrophe was all too real, according to Adorno.

After 1945 antisemitism In West Germany did not die out. Studies carried out between 1946-52 showed a third of the population to be strongly antisemitic while another third was antisemitic. The defacing of a synagogue in 1959 lead to a public repudiation of antisemitism by the media, political parties, trade unions and the church.

From that point on, openly antisemitic attitudes encountered more vehement criticism. The Nazi past and the extermination of the Jews became topics that were given increasing importance in the media, schools, historical research and cultural activities. By the end of the 1980s, only 5% of the West German population was blatantly, and over 15% considerably, antisemitic. Attitudes in Germany were thus statistically in line with average West European populations. From now on, the younger generations proved to be the least antisemitic.

After the most recent violence should Sri Lankans also start questioning themselves as to why this seems to keep happening? It is uncomfortable to think about it, we prefer to do something to salve our conscience, perhaps help a few Muslim friends or charities and then move on. To forget painful incidents seems preferable to dwelling on them.

Should we start by trying understanding the story of these conflicts? What happened in 2013 and 2015? What were the chain of events that lead to 1983 and the war in earnest after that? Can a team of historians with sufficient independence and distance set out a broad common narrative, at least as a starting point. There is a fog of disinformation and misinformation, would trying to dispel this be a start? Different groups hear different stories. They don't interact or understand.

I remember some classmates discussing the habits of Tamils, perfectly harmlessly but in utter ignorance- referring to them in the same terms as we would to Chinese, Indians or other foreigners. They had never had any interaction and only knew of them through fables.

If we are even arguing over history, refusing to acknowledge one-another's mistakes, how do we move forward?

Any one of the events above (and many smaller ones besides) could be dismissed as an aberration. If it was really so, why does the cycle of violence keep returning?

 Adorno’s argument about the need to confront the persistence of the past in the present seems relevant to Sri Lanka today. What do you think?

My friend was interested in hearing the responses from Sri Lankans on these questions. Please put in your views as comments?

I am not trying to debate the issue, just trying to see what people think, just put your thoughts down in the comments section.

-Updated-

Muslim owned shop attacked for allegedly selling food adulterated with birth control medication

A Muslim-owned shop and a mosque in Ampara were attacked yesterday after the shop was accused, on social media, of mixing birth control medication in the food being served.

According to news reports, a video was posted on social media by a Buddhist organisation where a man is forced to confess to mixing the pills in the food.

The allegation can easily be proved wrong. All one needs to understand is how birth control pills work. Taking a birth control pill is not like popping a tablet of Panadol, something that will provide quick relief within a couple of hours.

Birth control pills work by regulating a women's hormonal system, to work you need to take a full course over a month. There are number of different formulations and depending on the type, need to be taken daily over the course 28 days, 21 or 91 days. Just to be clear, if it is alleged that the pill is one that makes males sterile, it does nor exist. 

If anyone in the restaurant was mixing birth control pills in the food then it would simply not be effective, people would need to eat every day from the same place (and stop eating on prescribed days).  If they do not follow the exact instructions it simply does not work. 

Rumour and myth will proliferate amongst ignorant minds. People need to learn to ask questions, not blindly believe what people tell them. The Internet is easy to access, a simple search would have revealed the truth.

Property has been damaged and racial tensions inflamed, all because people seem unable to think.

 

    

Abortion in Sri Lanka : 27 February at 17:00–19:30 at Centre for Society & Religion

 A discussion on abortion in Sri Lanka will be held on the 27th of February (Tuesday). Details below. Link to Facebook event page. All are welcome.

Date: Tuesday 27th February 2018
Time: 5pm to 7.30pm
Venue: Centre for Society and Religion (within Fatima Church Maradana premises)
Description:


What do you know about abortion in Sri Lanka? Is it completely illegal in Sri Lanka or legal under certain circumstances? Do women actually become sterile after undergoing the procedure? Are rape-related pregnancies significant enough to justify aborting?

There is a lot of misinformation and and confusion about the truths and realities in Sri Lanka. Join us for this discussion with three distinguished speakers to address the legal background of this conversation on abortion, medical realities, and history and context of women's reproductive health in Sri Lanka and around the world. We will also reflect on Catholic theology really teaches us about a woman's right to choose.

SPEAKERS:
Ermiza Tegal is an attorney at law, practicing mainly in the areas of fundamental rights, family law and domestic violence. Her advocacy work focuses on legal and social exclusion in areas of women rights, civil and political rights and urban eviction.

Dr. Lakshmen Senanayake is an obstetrician-gynecologist. He was the National Coordinator of the FIGO/IPPF Initiative on Reducing Unsafe Abortions in Sri Lanka from 2005-2011 and was the co-consultant for the UNCP/Ministry of Women initiative to develop Sri Lanka's National Plan of Action ot address gender-based violence. He currently serves as a member of the Expert Committee on Women's Health of the Sri Lanka Medical Association.

Anupama Ranawana researches religious political thought and the global political economy, focussing on Buddhism, Catholicism, and feminist theology.. She is a Senior Researcher for the Centre for Poverty Analysis.

DISCUSSION - 5.00PM - 7.00PM FOLLOWED BY FELLOWSHIP UNTIL 7.30PM

Organized by the Feminist Catholic Network

The Feminist Catholic Network are an independent collective of Sri Lankan Catholics who seek to amplify the voices of the laity in social justice debates. We are guided by the principles of Catholic Social Thought, and by Catholic feminist theology. Using community learning and collaborative discussion, we endeavor to provide an alternative voice for Sri Lanka's Catholics.

Abortion and the law in Sri Lanka

Abortion is legal in Britain, but only when carried out under conditions of strict medical control. If not carried out under medical supervision it is still a criminal offence in the UK under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

As this article explains:

"As things stand, a terrified teenager, who takes abortion drugs that she has bought over the internet rather than tell anyone that she is pregnant, is committing a crime that is punishable by life imprisonment."

This clearly inhuman. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has voted strongly in favour of supporting the removal of criminal sanctions associated with abortion in the UK.  

Sri Lanka has similar, archaic laws on abortion that should be revised.The Government has proposed some minor amendments that have been vehemently opposed by the Catholic church which has lead a successful campaign to have this blocked.

A study undertaken in the late 1990s estimated that 125,000 to 175,000 induced abortions,mostly illegal are performed annually in Sri Lanka (1). A subsequent study estimated a much higher figure of 658 induced abortions per day, giving an abortion ratio of 741 per 1000 live births (2). The latest study applying Bongaarts’ models estimates an induced abortion rate of 0.035, 0.147 and 0.087 per women in years 1993, 2000 and 2007 (3). In other words 8 out of every 100 women are likely to have an abortion at some point in their lives.

Illegal abortions are dangerous. In the year 2013, the percentage contribution from abortion to maternal mortality was around 10%, making it the third most common cause of maternal death (4).

Clearly, prohibition does not prevent abortion but drives women to seek dangerous illegal abortions. There are sound moral and public health reasons for ending the legal prohibition on this matter.

Catholics make up only 6.1% of the population of Sri Lanka but the Church’s role in influencing public policy  affects everyone—Catholic and non-Catholic—by limiting the availability of reproductive health service to all citizens.

To deny access to certain medical services to over 90% of the population who are non-Catholics on the basis of the church's teaching is unfair and unjust.

Even in a predominantly Catholic country, laws governing access to abortion need not adhere to the official Catholic position. Portugal voted to allow abortion in 2007. The Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom called Catholics to respect other faiths. This is significant, given that the Catholic church’s position on abortion is more conservative than other major faith groups. Catholics can and do support public policies that appreciate the Catholic tradition while honouring others’ freedom."

The Church should cease its campaign against the propsoed legislation while calling upon its flock to follow the teachings of the church. Christianity is a religion of faith, the church must trust its flock to follow its teachings not rely on secular law to enforce an article of faith.

A group of Catholics who dissent with the church's official view has organised a petition to the cardinal.

If you are Catholic of Sri Lankan origin and would like to sign and support this, please send your name to femcathnet@gmail.com along with any titles and affiliations you would like to include.

The statement explains using theology and social consciousness how supporting the current amendments to the Penal Code are not in contradiction with the faith.


References

1. De Silva IW. The Practice of Induced Abortion in Sri Lanka, Harvard School of Public Health: Takemi Program in International Health 137, 1997.

2.Rajapaksa LC. Estimates of induced abortion using RRT Technique. Colombo, 2000.

3. Abeykoon ATPL. Estimates of abortion rate in Sri Lanka using Bongaarts model of proximate determinants of fertility. Colombo: The United Nations Population Fund, 2012.

4. Family Health Bureau. Annual Report on Family Health 2013. Colombo: Family Health Bureau, 2014.