 |
| Look who got the front-row seats at the end of the Long March! |
Dr. Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri, President of the Federation of
University Teachers’ Association (FUTA) came up with a classic re-quote (i.e.
from Bertold Brecht): ‘Although the Government accuses us of falling pretty to
the designs of various political parties, our union action is not about
regime-change but affecting democratic social transformation, not of bringing a
new government to power but to obtain a new public, a new people that can comprehend
well the existing social injustice.’
The condescension about public intelligence aside, it is
nevertheless an admirable stand to take.
FUTA, for all its many flaws, has made a mark for itself, thanks largely
to Devasiri’s leadership. The march from
Galle to Colombo was disciplined and conducted with minimal inconvenience to
the general public. This is all the more
significant considering that the parties that marched with FUTA by both habit
and intent wanted otherwise and moreover had the arm-twisting options of
capital and numbers. Devasiri is
reported to have said that if the lines were broken, they could leave. That is courage, conviction, the spirit of
democracy and exceptional leadership.
Salutations are in order!
The following Facebook status message is symptomatic of
public angst and hope: I don’t care (if) FUTA is ‘sensational’ coz it is not
just some Silva’s drama, but something worth ‘sensationalizing’ for publicity!’
This was my response: ‘True..it’s not some Silva’s drama,
but drama nevertheless. Not a great
script, poor acting, some shady ‘producers’ and all that…but still, there are
good people, honest intention and decency. That’s something to cheer.’
This was endorsed: ‘What I meant was it is for a worthy
cause’. And I elaborated, ‘”6%” is part
of the sensationalism. That’s not
‘cause’ but ‘effect’. There is a lot of
MIS-education about this free education business (but) the Government is the
FIRST Respondent in this case.
FUTA doesn’t have much of a case when it comes to the salary
issue. This is perhaps why it expanded
the political ground by sidelining the legitimate pertaining to union action
and choosing a wider platform, free education.
They went further, or perhaps narrower, with the ‘6% demand’ (i.e. a 6%
of GDB equivalent as allocation for education).
Out went the details. Out went
sober economic analysis. In came the
matter of throwing more money into a flawed program, an eventuality that would
most certainly exacerbate the problem.
FUTA asked for the moon and called it ‘free’. Good for politics, bad for ethics. FUTA marketed ‘free education’ and kept mum
on responsibility. Good for politics,
bad for the future.
For all this (perhaps necessary) frilling, there’s something
about this agitation that is solid.
Hollow as the slogans are, the spark that might become a fire is real
enough. That spark has been misnamed,
but it is about policy or rather the lack of it. The Government is the First Respondent
here. No question about it. Just as the 17th Amendment, flawed
though it was, was nevertheless the best intervention at obtaining better
governance in almost 25 years and therefore deserved salutation, FUTA’s
position and action remains the best chance for getting the education policy
right. Sparks can create infernos. They
can also light lamp that dispel darkness.
I don’t see the Government getting any lamps ready.
This is what makes Nirmal’s Brechtian an important sentiment
that also points to crisis as well as solution.
Politicians just won’t do it, and so the people must. It is a lovely idea of course. Where it falls flat is on the uneven map of
the political. At least in this
instance.
The March was disciplined, but coherence of objective was
absent. There were UNP supporters
screaming ‘Ape anagatha nayakathumaata jayaweva (Victory to our future
leader)!’ That’s Sajith Premadasa. The
front seats of the rally were reserved for UNP stalwarts. Nirmal had center stage of course and as a
people’s and power-to-people kind of articulator one can stretch the point and
say that the parties (UNP and JVP) were off-staged.
It also happened in the early 1990s, friends.
Academics, journalists, NGO personalities and other activists took to the streets. It was not Chandrika Kumaratunga’s party they attended. She was just one more party to the euphoria of the possible. In 1994, there was an election. The party-makers turned into voters. The ‘backers’ ran for election. They went to Parliament. End of story.
‘Making’ a ‘new’ people is not easy. Political parties don’t want people to be
‘new’. Nirmal has got the line
right. He has to get the people right
too. He is getting the Right people and
they are not in love with anything but markets and capital. He has asked for pledges regarding free education. Chandrika was not asked to pledge, but she
did vow to abolish the executive presidency.
Nirmal can count on follower-naiveté but that’s not the way to go about
making a ‘new’ people.
It is the ‘government’ after all that according to Brecht
dissolves the people and appoints another one.
Governments can do that.
Insoluble people are rare. They
will be there at the end. And they are
enough. Innocence is a necessary
ingredient in all this. It is not
sufficient.
2 comments:
Whatever one may say, the involvement of politicians has a tendency to cast doubts on the credibility of the whole exercise!
As we all know, the standard of the university education has by now deteriorated tremendously. First, Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri and others should work hard to restore it. No point in spending 6% of the GDP in eduacation to make it still worse.
Post a Comment