Colombo -
The worst economic crisis in Sri Lanka has turned into a political one. After the Corona pandemic that hit tourism for two years, the war on Ukraine accelerated the deterioration of the economy, and the state treasury no longer had the ability to import basic materials, such as fuel and foodstuffs.
The crisis has caused the mass resignation of all members of the government, with the exception of the president and the prime minister. According to the expert in Sri Lankan political affairs and advisor to the Factum Institute for Studies, Dr. Ranga Kalansurya, the solution appears intractable with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa continuing in power, and there is no way out of it except by responding to popular demands.
Since the president has broad executive powers, an opposition government cannot work with him, and international loans and aid are contingent on the stability of the political system, the safest option for Sri Lanka is to hand over power to the president and his brother, the prime minister, and form a government whose mission is to save the country.
Here is the text of the interview with Dr. Ranga Kalansurya on the crisis in Sri Lanka:
Ranga Kalansurya believes that the only way out of the political crisis in Sri Lanka is the resignation of the president (Al Jazeera)
Dr. Ranga, the economic crisis is not born today, and is the result of the cumulative failures of successive governments, so why blame the current government?
You are right in saying that the economic crisis is the result of the failure of successive governments. This is true. As for blaming this government for many reasons, including:
First: I pledged from the first moment of assuming power in 2019 to work to address the economic crisis, and there were recommendations from experts in the economy on how to get out of the crisis, but what the government did was to reverse these recommendations, and it did not take the right decisions at the right time.
Second: If we take the total debt owed by Sri Lanka, we find that 78% of it was borrowed during the Rajapaksa I regime, from 2005 to 2015, the largest amount was borrowed by the government of this family.
Third: What is important is that this money was not spent on serving the people, but on projects that are useless to the people and benefit from certain people.
So what are the causes of the crisis, if you admit that successive governments are responsible for it, and what are the main reasons for this failure?
Mismanagement and arrogance, and just as the current CEO does not have the experience and wisdom in managing affairs, and adding to these factors combined, the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine exacerbated the problem.
How did the war on Ukraine affect Sri Lanka's economy?
Definitely the first factor has to do with tourism.
But has tourism not been affected by the Corona pandemic?
No, we did not close our doors to tourism. Russian tourists continued to visit the country during the pandemic, and special trips were organized for Russian and Ukrainian tourists, and they were almost the only ones who did not stop visiting Sri Lanka under special procedures.
Then tea exports, Russia and Ukraine are the largest importers of Sri Lankan tea, and hit this market directly after the outbreak of the war, in addition to the high global fuel prices, and many other repercussions of the war in Europe on Sri Lanka.
There are those who link the crisis in Sri Lanka to the Indo-Chinese competition over it. How do you see that?
The fight between China and India over Sri Lanka began a long time ago, and this is not new, and it dates back to the immediate post-independence phase, when China was not the great China today. The Chinese influence is evident in Sri Lanka, such as the Conference Palace that the Chinese built in the seventies.
The relations between China and Sri Lanka are historical, as is the case with India, which we consider the big sister. In the current context, I do not like to use the term fighting, but rather a competition between the two countries to acquire a larger share of economic interests and other various other interests.
As for the Sri Lankan government, especially the last three or four governments, they failed to manage this competition in the interest of Sri Lanka, and they employed it for the benefit of some people. I do not think that we succeeded in managing the relationship between them politically. Therefore, we are facing the current crisis, at least in an important aspect of it.
The Sri Lankan street is angry at the economic crisis and demands the resignation of President Rajapaksa (Reuters)
Did Sri Lanka fall into the Chinese debt trap?
I do not want to use the word trap in this context, because it would not be politically and diplomatically appropriate to use the word trap, and the problem is that we were very flexible in our borrowing from China, and I do not say the state, but rather some political leaders who exercised very great flexibility while negotiating terms, for example The loans include interests of up to 8%, and these are not aid loans, but commercial and investment loans, and these debts were not after the 2019 elections, but as I said earlier that 78% of them occurred during the era of the previous Rajapaksa government to build communications networks and private projects.
What about ports and infrastructure projects?
If you go to the south, you will find conference centers and cricket stadiums, as you see in the capital, Colombo, commercial towers, all of which do not bring economic benefits to the people, and were built with debts from the people’s money, while the port city is at least serving the country.
But the port raised more problems and political and economic controversy than the expected benefits.
Yes, this is true, it has caused a security concern for India, so I say that we did not manage this competition properly, and we have to know how to manage the diplomatic game between the two countries.
Going back to the crisis, there is an elected government. If it is a failure, why don't we wait until the next elections to see change?
Because the government system has failed miserably, and does not offer anything to the people, it is not possible to wait.
Punishing the government should not be through the polls and not in the street?
This is a huge challenge, because the president has legal immunity, and he cannot be punished.
I mean that the people will punish him through the ballot box
If we wait another 3 years in order to punish the president through the ballot box we will not find Sri Lanka, and we may discover with the passage of time that Sri Lankan markets have been sold to interest groups, we cannot wait, and with people I say we cannot wait for another 3 years.
President Rajapaksa (centre) enjoys unprecedented electoral legitimacy, but the street is calling for him to step down (Reuters)
But going to early elections may not be reasonable in light of the economic crisis?
We cannot go to the elections at this time. The elections cost about 12 billion rupees (about $38 million), and even if some money is available, we do not have the price of the ballot papers, and here lies the dilemma of the crisis.
So you do not want elections and you do not want the president, so what is the solution?
There are 3 options:
The first is to go down to the demands of the people, which is for Rajapaksa to return to his home, to resign and someone else to take his place, and he has to do so voluntarily, it is up to him, and it is just a demand and it is up to him to accept it or not, and the constitution in Sri Lanka is clear what will happen in the event of his resignation There is a succession system of power in the constitution, and in order to do so, he must resign.
And the second option: to form a parliamentary government without him resigning, and this will be under his control, a new government without Rajapaksa person at its head, in addition to other details.
The third option: The president should not resign, but the opposition is the one who forms the new government, and this means reaching a dead end, because we will have an executive president and a hung parliament, and it is not possible to work in this case.
If we study these scenarios together, the first scenario is possible and practical, which is to reach a deal that requires the president to step down in order to preserve the country, while the other two options will not be practical.
But the president is still defying, saying that I am elected by 7 million citizens, so why should I resign?
Exactly this is what he argues, and I stick to it, but we are waiting for how things will interact during the next two weeks, and I cannot confirm that the President and his brother the Prime Minister can continue in these conditions for another two weeks. The interest of Sri Lanka requires a strong government, and the international community wants a stable government to provide aid or grants Or loans, so the country's economic recovery depends on a strong government, and as long as Mr. Rajapaksa clings to his position in the presidency, the country will not be stable.
But there is a wide conviction that he is the most powerful president in Sri Lanka, he won a majority of more than two-thirds, and he is a war hero, so why did he fail?
I'm also confused, because that's what we were saying, we weren't expecting, and today he's restricting the media and banning social media, and he's proven not to be the person we were hoping for.
Another dimension, what does the resignation of all ministers mean?
The resignation of members of the government does not mean anything, and this is nothing but an attempt to buy time and mislead the people, because the next day you will see a group of other ministers taking the oath, and this will mobilize more people in the streets.
There are about 40 parliamentarians who have announced their abandonment of the government and remain in Parliament as independent. Does this mean that Gotabaya lost the majority in Parliament?
Yes, he lost the majority because those who announced their abandonment of support are more than 40 members, and there are more than 30 other members waiting to choose a strong leadership from within Parliament.
Why didn't you address the option of impeaching the president?
To remove the president needs 145 members at once out of 225, to form a majority of two-thirds, and I do not think that those who seek a project to withdraw confidence from the government with the majority of half have this number to remove the president. Reaching this number is not easy because the positions of parliamentarians are sometimes formed by commercial deals, and it is possible to buy some easily.
But exerting more pressure in the street means more pressure inside Parliament, because the failure of parliament members to respond to the street means that they have to leave, and we need a sufficient number in Parliament to create a hung parliament that paralyzes the political system led by the current president.