Since the end of the war in May 2009, there has been a lot of talk about 'reconciliation and development' in Sri Lanka. Though this is a slogan promoted primarily by the government, many, including the business sector and civil society, have welcomed such rhetoric. This has been buttressed by the support of some donor agencies, whose main agenda has been the promotion of a capitalist economy. There is no doubt that the defeat of the LTTE has created an environment more conducive for positive expectations in the country, nor should one underestimate the importance of this development. After all, it is far better to be in an environment in which politics, rather than the clash of arms, dominates. However, the question remains as to whether Sri Lanka will make use of this opportunity to develop a more just society, or merely to move in a direction that consolidates the structures of social exclusion.
As history has shown, capitalism can indeed lead to development in societies that ensure economic growth, equity and personal freedom. But this comes about through interventions of human agency, and there are no 'laws' of the market, or inevitable historical processes, that can ensure such an evolution. Far from the suggestions of some, capitalism is not a model of development promoted through a Western 'conspiracy', but rather is the product of a historical process characterised by social struggle. In some parts of the world, these social struggles have been more successful in developing a capitalism that ensures basic rights and entitlements for the masses. In other places, these struggles have been less successful. These differences are seen even developed capitalist countries. Despite the fact that the US is still the largest economy in the world and is the only superpower, it remains unable to ensure health-care facilities for all of its citizens. In Europe, on the other hand, the right to universal health care has been taken for granted for generations.
Given this contradictory character of capitalism, one of the major tasks that face progressive political forces in Sri Lanka today is to identify and tackle the major social contradictions generated by more than three decades of liberal economic policies. These interventions have to be at the local as well as global level. It now appears certain that the stability created by the end of the war is bound to intensify the capitalist relations in the country's economy, and unless specific targeted policies are put in place, the social contradictions are bound to intensify.
Independence ideals
There is enough data available today to show that inequality has increased in Sri Lanka since the liberalisation of the country's economy in the late 1970s. Absence of equity is seen in terms of both social and geographic distinctions, yet an analysis of inequality through macro-level statistics does not tell the whole story. In fact, this inequality has repercussions in all aspects of Sri Lankan society, allowing the elite classes to largely control society. Lack of egalitarianism also goes against a set of ideas that has defined post-colonial Sri Lanka; fighting against various forms of inequality has been the hallmark of national politics from the time of Independence, and has been a critical aspect of the country's national discourse. For example, breaking the power of the Westernised English-educated colonial bourgeoisie who inherited power from the colonial masters has been a main characteristic of Sri Lankan post-colonial politics. Of course, a Sinhala-speaking indigenous elite has replaced them. But there is an ethos of struggling against inequality in Sri Lankan politics. Therefore, if the trends against this social ethos become accentuated, there can be a political backlash.