Disclaimer: This piece is written very much from a place of personal opinion on discussion, narratives, and discourse about economics, and how I see this playing out in an electorally and political charged period. I very much recognize the inherent bias here and will attempt to address this. A big part of this also comes from my personal belief that 9 times out of 10, the political future for Sri Lanka will effectively end up with the same broad socioeconomic outcomes regardless of the actual electoral outcome.)
There is little doubt that public conversation in 2024 will skew towards the partisan and political - after all, it is an election year. For Sri Lanka, this electoral moment is obviously a monumental one, being the first election after the crisis and a very significant one as well. For a country reeling with and recovering from an economic crisis, this can easily create a moment of discourse that is volatile, partisan, and pretty disagreeable. How do we deal with such a moment when we continue to need to have an economic discussion, and ideally one that acknowledges, but moves past the partisan nature present in this moment? For me, this has to be through a process of aggressive neutrality, with all the bias that such an approach comes with as well.
Economics is still and will still be a factor of the Sri Lankan story
Why do we need to have a discussion about economics at all? Why not focus largely on the social side of things, the political side of things, or some varied other aspect of the Sri Lankan story now that the depth of the economic crisis is done with? This is a point that I feel is a bit circular, but in short - Sri Lanka’s crisis was deeply economic in my view, and will thereby continue to need an economic discussion for much longer as well.
Of course, economic doesn’t merely mean macroeconomic. The socioeconomic story is a key part of the economic discussion, as is the interplay between the political and economic spheres. Regardless of whether one holds a view of the primacy of corruption or social inequality or macroeconomic policy handling, the interactions across these sorts of spheres, not just one affecting the other but then the other affecting the one yet again - coevolving with each other - is a key aspect I think is critical to keep front and centre of mind. Thereby, I do continue to believe that these discussions cannot happen in isolation, and need to be closely integrated with the overall economic discussion in all its elements.
This continued integrated discussion is critical in my view, since this overall economic story will not be something that disappears anytime soon. For years more to come, possibly even longer, the economic story is one that will in all likelihood, continue to be one that is shaky and volatile, even if it does well, and broadly on an upward trajectory, even if it does badly. This is both from the direct Sri Lankan side, but in many cases will also be from the clearly shifting global economic landscapes as well. Continuing to proactively engage with all this is an important tool in my view, for Sri Lanka to maintain and build a pathway towards a better country and for everyone involved to try and make sense of the pathway we will be on.
Underlying narratives matter and are a key part of navigating this moment
A pretty obvious development of the story so far is that the public discourse around the economic crisis has become incredibly partisan. I’ve talked (complained) about this before, but let me try to set out how I see this having happened over the last few years.
I think there have been broadly three types of economic messages/narratives in Sri Lanka for a while. One has been that of “growth will fix us, and better for it to be national” - I will call this the National Growth narrative. Another has been that of “we need macroeconomic reform and better policy” - I will call this the Reform narrative. The third has been that of “Sri Lanka has been wasteful and corrupt” - I will call this the Corruption narrative. The National Growth narrative was very much the kind of nationalist-centric argument that came in with the 2019 election, and continued as the major narrative until the crisis itself. There, the other two narratives took hold and have been tussling ever since.
How can we think through these narratives? For me, its absolutely critical to think of the incentives that led towards these being adopted and the biases that keep them going. The fact that the Reform narrative took hold when the country was in the depths of its worst economic pain - of shortages and galloping inflation (and the causes and costs of both) - is quite clear. If the current situation is not working, obviously there needs to be a reform of the current system. I believe the absolute intensity of the pain here meant that ideological or partisan messages against economic reform in particular, were very hard to fully take hold. It’s difficult to argue that with a country with immediate economic crisis, that economic reform is not needed.
However, this is not to argue that the Corruption narrative wasn’t present - it very much was. However, I don’t think it was in conflict outright with the Reform narrative during most of 2022, simply because there was enough space for both to be present. But as the worst aspects of the crisis started to be resolved and left behind us, the incentive to hold the Reform narrative on a wider level slowly petered out, and the cost of the reform pathway meant that there was now also an underlying incentive to reject it. I believe the strength of the Corruption narrative after 2022 can be understood at least partly from such a perspective.
These shifting narratives put us in an interesting place moving into 2024. In the traditional story of the macroeconomy, there has been lots of improvement on the topline variables - which strengthens the power of the Reform narrative. On the other hand, the pain of this Reform continues to weaken it at least on some level. On the other hand, the continued pain that exists despite the overall improvement in the economy, especially the pain on the ground for many people across the country, also strengthens the hand of the Corruption narrative as an alternative. Where will this story go?
The incentives and biases within the narratives cannot be ignored
Today, these two narratives are playing out not just from an ideological basis, but also from a partisan one. This creates a specific challenge - how do we engage with any specific idea in the current moment, without getting overly tied in with either angle?
Here, attempting to be “unbiased” and “objective” can be the straightforward answer, but I would still be very cautious about this myself. More than any other reason, such language itself has in Sri Lanka’s case and in many other cases, also been coopted by varied aspects of the partisan spectrum (traditionally by the “neoliberal” but very much also by those who claim to know the “truth” on the ground). Neutrality itself holds baggage, and it’s very easy for anyone claiming it, to also claim no incentives and biases. Obviously, this isn’t true. I think direct engagement with all the incentives and biases present in the moment can help somewhat, and here I will try to lay out a few I see playing into the partisan narratives overall but also those that prevent specific action happening one way or the other.
There are three “truths” I would like to bring out that I believe and hope most and almost all Sri Lankans would agree with. First, that there is at least some level of unfairness and abuse in the Sri Lankan economic system. Second, that in the presence of personal pain, most people would want to avoid it. Third, that for many people if not almost all, things have worsened since 2021, even if things have remained “good” for some. The specific extent to which these three truths matter, I will not explore, except the fact that I think most people will agree with these at least partially. These three truths create a series of incentives in my view both towards the Corruption narrative and towards the Reform narrative.
The truth on the unfairness of the system easily means BOTH that there is a lack of general faith in the system and thereby, an incentive against it, but also as importantly, a strong resistance by the beneficiaries of this system towards the system continuing. This is not just the politicians or the cronies, but everyone who directly or importantly, indirectly benefitted from the system - including burecrats and even general citizens who benefited from some aspect of the system. This is thereby, the same pain by the second truth of pain that most people would want to avoid, and the third truth that relates to their lot having worsened and seeing it as unfair. While the overall system’s continuance isn’t what this results in, it does and can mean that specific aspects of the system’s reform are resisted - and especially when people don’t see it as part of the system itself. All this applies not just to the economic reform, but also to the integration of the social and political dimensions as well - incentives for and against all aspects here.
There are varied additional ways this can manifest as. Those with ideological baggage one way or the other can easily tie their ideological story into these truths. Those with partisan messages one way or the other can tie their preferred political party into these as well. For both of these, there are incentives - sometimes personal (hope to get some money, status, popularity, grants, research funding) and sometimes larger than that (power in parliament, bigger place for your organization, potential for future). These incentives aren’t BAD in my view, everyone will have incentives of their own, but I do think we must be aware of these and the very fact that people ARE driven by these incentives and thereby, the “neutrality” of their action must always be questioned.
Aggressive neutrality is needed despite all this for Sri Lanka’s future
In my view, the current moment will likely be one where the partisan nature of the election year, in all likelihood, dominates the discourse of the year (not just relevant for Sri Lanka, but for all the other countries going through elections this year). Driven by incentives both personal and beyond, these stories will push forward and the biases that keep them fuelled might not necessarily be seen.
One positive aspect of this situation, is that very opposing ideas will very likely be easily seen. In Sri Lanka’s context, both the Reform narrative (now increasingly tied to incumbency) and the Corruption narrative (now increasingly tied to opposition) will have loud, strong, and at least in some cases, well argued proponents. The back and forth between these camps are visible in some places though not in all. Both of those angles I think, are quite well covered in the current moment in Sri Lanka, and personally I believe should be made - a case for why the movement of reform is needed and a case for those that are left behind.
What remains broadly underserved as an area, is the story that can be feasibly called neutral or at the very least, non-partisan. There are some who are in this space, but for obvious reasons (lack of incentive being the main one, but also for being caught in the existing crossfire) this isn’t a particularly populated space. Given the strong and powerful narratives at play and the incentives that guide and keep them going, I would feel that this middle space becomes additionally important in an election year - both for a welcome reprieve from the toxicity that partisanship can bring but also importantly, the bridge some gaps therein. I generally would believe that it provides better arguments, better space, and better options that people in general can arm themselves with more understanding and better navigate the partisan landscape itself.
This is not to say that anyone in this middle space is unbiased, objective, and fully neutral. I don’t think these are possibilities in the full sense of those words. What could be possible, however, is being open and aware of these, and engaging directly with whatever biases present. In many cases, the ability to be within this space itself is an incentive as can many others that stem from the benefit of occupying this space as well as the costs of avoiding it. These aren’t points that can be ignored in my view, but someone in this space, by definition should be able to tackle that better.
In the end though, even if this isn’t perfectly done, I do genuinely believe it’ll be a positive addition to Sri Lanka’s economic story moving ahead. The path ahead will be long and the need for a continued dialogue on economics in all its aspects will definitely be needed. Aggressive neutrality has a clear part, to me, in making sure this dialogue continues to take place. All this will still mean the future of the country is a long slog, but even long slogs can end in better places eventually.