|
The
Economy and Political Instability
The
political instability that exists in the country is palpable, the
pronouncements to the contrary from the president and government
notwithstanding. The Chandrika Kumaratunga presidency has entered
its "lame duck" stage even if the tenure ends only in
2006 December. This relative draining of power and influence from
that theoretically all powerful office was evident a few weeks ago
when the candidate for the key position of lay custodian Diyawadana
Nilame - of the Dalada Maligawa that the president openly backed
lost badly in the election.
The
government, reduced to a minority position of about one-third of
the total House, too is a lame duck in parliament. This means its
legislative program has to be limited per force to those that meet
with the approval of the opposition. This may promote a certain
type of consensus politics. But the trade off is lack of strong
government.
The
P-TOMS mechanism that was supposed to deliver tsunami assistance
to the north and east is in a state of suspension following the
Supreme Court verdict that found two of its provisions to violate
the Constitution. More generally, there is a widely held view that
the highly centralized Colombo-based tsunami mechanism that the
government set up has denied the district and sub-district administrations
the required decision making power and flexibility to craft assistance
programs to suit local community needs.
The
World Bank (WB) whose views are key to understanding the attitude
of the donor community in general has voiced its concern over the
political instability eroding business confidence. A few weeks ago
WB published a report that reviewed Sri Lanka's prospects for attracting
foreign direct investment (FDI). It pointed out that this country
in recent years has received around 1.0% to 1.5% (US $200m to 250m)
of GDP as FDI when many of our Asian neighbours were receiving 3.0%
or more. There are several reasons including poor infrastructure,
especially bad roads, for this comparatively poor performance. But
one of the principal factors that discourages FDI is political instability
and attendant uncertainty of economic policy.
The
World Bank representative in Colombo Peter Harold stressed the latter
point when he recently addressed a group of industrialists in Colombo.
He called for a discourse on industrial policy that would lead to
a framework that the left, right, centre and all others could agree
upon.
The
country will have to pay dearly in terms of lost investment, jobs,
and incomes for the failure to have a stable political environment
and agree on the basics of economic policy broadly defined to include
not only FDI but also taxation, power, transport, and financing
of education, health and social welfare.
India's
Congress-Communist coalition government is busy building bridges
to Washington, DC. This policy is no different to that followed
by the "ultra nationalist" Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJB)
when in power. "Communist" China is such a haven for capitalist
exploitation of workers that it now annually attracts over $50 billion
in FDI. That is about one-third of all FDI that goes to all countries
outside the industrialized western nations. More than 400 of the
world's top 500 multi-national companies have operations in China.
With such policies China has also lifted at least 400 million of
its poor above the poverty line.
Viet
Nam which is another nominally communist country is effecting major
economic reforms and assiduously wooing foreign investors. In 2003
the country got $1,450m in FDI when we got only $229m. Our politicians
and political parties are in a dog fight to gain and retain power
on the pretext of saving and serving the nation. Indeed when one
listens to some of the fiery speeches that our politicians deliver
one wonders whether they have any real clue as to what is actually
happening in the rest of the world.
|