On the backdrop of the present government adopting some of her policies, Sirima Bandaranaike has become a champion to many in social media. After watching the interactions for some time I decided to conduct a social media poll to see the juxtaposition of Bandaranaike against her rival Jayawardene, whose 25th death anniversary coincidentally falls this year. This was through one of the social media accounts I maintain for such research. The audience of this was limited to millennials and Gen-Zs – born after 1990 and thus couldn’t have remembered either of the two leaders in active political life.
The outcome was interesting. (See charts 1 and 2). While many recognised Sirima Bandaranaike as a great leader, Junius Jayawardene was viewed as someone who ruined the economy with a set of misguided policies.
This is hardly conclusive. My sample size was small. Still, this is adequate to conclude the existence of a section of millennials and Gen Zs that believe the opposite compared to the generations before them.
Their parents witnessed the grand folly of Sirima Bandaranaike – in her economic policies. Those policies were eschewed by every government since until recently.
They also witnessed the rise of Jayawardene. He anticipated to secure 120 seats (out of 168) in 1977, but ended up with 140, creating the only post-independence parliament with a five-sixths majority in parliament. Jayawardene changed the constitution, appointed himself Executive President of the country and launched multiple mega projects unprecedented for that era. His re-election in 1982 happened with the least effort. It was a one-horse race. During his heyday, Jayawardene was a larger than life leader. He was known for the positive transformation of the nation.
So what influenced a generation without firsthand experience of Jayawardene views his legacy as one that promoted poor policies?
This is an attempt to answer that question.
Junius Jayawardene spearheaded a socio-economic transformation that was, unprecedented. Through a series of policy reforms he “opened” up the economy to market forces. The outcome of these reforms were felt deeply at the ground level. For example, as a primary school student, I was proud to carry a high quality ‘Made in China’ pencil to school – after years of using low-quality, Sri Lankan made HB pencils. A relative of mine converted his house at Hikkaduwa to a “tourist hotel”. The beach was full of Europeans who spent lavishly.
Some of my friends at school started bringing all sorts of gadgets to school. They had one of their parents, in some cases both, working in the Middle East. Dubai had become a household name. We found travel by private busses more comfortable. A stagnant society burst into life. So many exciting things were happening. Everyone seemed to have more money than they did in the past. New shops were opened. The middle class came out of their enclaves to shop at freshly opened ‘World Trade Center’ at Fort. Nobody had to wait in queues wondering about the next meal, as they did in the 70-77 period. It was like a fantasy coming true
Those who didn’t experience firsthand that change, are free to criticize Jayawardene for presumed negative outcomes. But millennials and Gen-Zers criticize his policies for other reasons too. They don’t doubt the power of the open economy. They just ask, if opening markets were so great why, more than forty years later, do we remain a developing nation. Why is not Sri Lanka, a Singapore or at least a Malaysia?
There are many reasons for this. One – Jayawardene opened markets but he did not end the war. As a result, the conflict remained top of the government’s agenda for decades consuming planning time and finances. Two; others who succeeded him may not necessarily have followed Jayawardene’s path. Three; as competition grew with other countries too opening to market forces eroding Sri Lanka’s early competitive edge.
Despite all this, could it be possible that Jayawardene’s policy changes did not result in the world he envisaged?
A real-world comparison. Shenzhen, the fourth largest city in China, is a global centre in technology, research, manufacturing, finance, and transportation. The Port of Shenzhen is the world’s fourth busiest container port. Its nominal GDP has surpassed neighbouring cities of Guangzhou and Hong Kong and it is now among the top ten cities with the largest economies in the world. Until 1979 Shenzhen was a provincial town. The transformation began in 1980 with the establishment of China’s first Special Economic Zone following Chairman Deng Xiaoping’s “reform and opening-up” plan. Sri Lanka opened its own Katunayake Free Trade Zone around the same time. There were unconfirmed reports to say China copied the idea from Jayawardene. So where is our own Shenzhen?
Let’s admit it. While the journeys of Lee Kuan Yew, Park Chung-hee, Deng Xiaoping and Mahathir Mohamad were completed, Jayawardene’s has been an incomplete journey. It has a great start but lost momentum. Can we blame him for that?
This requires we take a closer look at what Jayawardene did; what were his policies? They were typical of those multilateral lending agencies recommend that economists have suggested they weren’t original. Revaluation of the local currency (Devaluation, to some), the introduction of special economic zones, privatisation, opening up for foreign investments, reduction of import tariffs, relaxing foreign exchange controls, low-interest loan schemes for SMEs, market competition and automation of the state sector were some of the key reforms from 1977/78. While state domination in some sections was ended (private commercial banks and private buses were introduced) in others like railway and petroleum was untouched.
These are common developments seen in all countries that receive multilateral assistance. One key weakness of this type of reform is all objectives are short-termed. They don’t stem from a deep national interest. They are structural adjustments to resolve a few problems at hand.
Lee Kuan Yew was one of the first to see through Jayawardene. In the second volume of his autobiography, ‘From Third World to First’ Lee frankly revealed the long term issues with Jayawardene’s ‘strategies’; the latter’s inability to see and stubbornness to accept them.
He wrote: “In his 70-odd years, he [Jayawardene] had been through the ups and downs of politics, more downs than ups, and become philosophical in his acceptance of lowered targets. He wanted to move away from Sri Lanka’s socialist policies that had bankrupted it. After meeting me in Sydney, he came to Singapore, he said, to involve us in its development. I was impressed by his practical approach and was persuaded to visit Sri Lanka in April 1978.’
“He wanted Singapore Airlines to help [setting up Air Lanka]. We did. I advised him that an airline should not be his priority because it required too many talented and good administrators to get an airline off the ground when he needed them for irrigation, agriculture, housing, industrial promotion and development, and so many other projects. An airline was a glamour project, not of great value for developing Sri Lanka. But he insisted. So we helped him launch it in six months, seconding 80 of Singapore Airlines’ staff for periods from three months to two years, helping them through our worldwide sales representation, setting up overseas offices, training staff, developing training centres and so on. But there was no sound top management. When the new airline, decided to buy two second-hand aircraft against our advice, we decided to withdraw. Faced with a five-fold expansion of capacity, negative cash flow, lack of trained staff, unreliable services and insufficient passengers, it was bound to fail. And it did.’
When measuring the performance of a national leader we evaluate on results, not personalities
“It was flattering to have Sri Lanka model their country after Singapore. They announced that they would adopt the Singapore-style Area Licensing Scheme to reduce traffic entering the city. But it did not work. They started a housing programme in 1982 based on ours, but there was no adequate financing. They set up a free trade zone only slightly smaller than the area of Singapore which might have taken off but for the Tamil Tigers whose terrorist tactics scared investors away.”
Jayawardene can also be called the father of another evil trend, the results of which today threaten the foundations of the Sri Lankan economy. Sri Lanka has taken bilateral and multilateral loans before, but he was the person who took that to a new height. All his successors followed. Most of these funds were spent on infrastructure projects that earned a slow return over a long period. Sri Lanka did require capital, but surely, could have done it in a more prudent manner. While Jayawardene might not be the one to blame, his influence could not be ignored.
I do agree with the new generation that Jayawardene was not even close to development giants of Asia such as Lee Kuan Yew, Park Chung-hee, Deng Xiaoping and Mahathir Mohamad who transformed their nations. While his government encouraged exports his ambitious plans to place Sri Lanka on the regional trade map never materialized.
However, I don’t agree with Sirima Bandaranaike being hoisted to a higher pedestal. While her foreign policy was admirable, her economic policies were disastrous. They could not have taken us anywhere.
Both Junius Jayawardene and Sirima Bandaranaike were respectable statespersons who loved their country and contributed what they thought the best. Their intentions would have been noble, no doubt. When measuring the performance of a national leader we evaluate on results, not personalities. In that sense, neither of them made an exceptional contribution. Had they done that, Sri Lanka would have been a developed country today.