DEFEAT OF THE COALITION GOVERNMENT ‘IN CEYLON
By Edmund Samarakkody,
Secretary of the Lanka Sama Sama ja Party (Revolutionary)
‘The defeat of the SLFP coalition. government in parliament, [December 3] was the result’ of the defection of a section of the . SLFP [Sri Lanka Freedom party] that voted against the government on the Throne spéech, .
This crisis in the coalition government was the reflection of the impasse which this government has come to within six months. The increasing financial difficulties of the government consequent on __. poor exports for the main primary products made it impossible for the government to grant any concessions to the working class and toiling. people. Any expenditure of money, or tax relief, or subsidies to _ ease the living conditions of the working masses was practically ruled out. The government continued to enforce its wage-freeze policy as before and therefore was opposed to working-class demands and remained antiworking class. The policy of severe import. restrictions was also maintatned. Accordingly, consumer goods were scarce and remain high .; in price'as before. Unemployment continued to increase. ~
= awl
-While the coalition government refused to be pressuned by the working class and the Left, it sought to win over sections of the capitalist class and the rightist forces, The following concessions to the ‘rightist: forces need to be noted: — a a
1). Abandonment of. the proposal to allow licerices for tapping of toddy to please the: Maha Sangha [Buddhist clergy]...
-. (2) Failure to Amplenent the proposal to tex tea estates: ‘of the rich, A
(3) Failure to implement the proposal to tax immensely rich house. owners.
(4). ‘Further concessions to Sinhalese Buddhist bourgeois: re= action by. ia: cabinet decision to bring legisiation to give Proper place to Buddhism."
(5) Failure ‘to grant any concessions to the Tamil minority on the language issue, On the contrary the implementation of the government language policy to the severe harassment of Tamil govern= ment. employees . oo
(6) Concessions to Sinhalese chauvinism through. the , recent Indo-Ceylon Agreement by which the coalition government proposes to send by force to India’ 525,000 persons of Indian origin (mainly plantation. workers ).
Consequent on the “lear gains made by Sinhala Buddhist reaction, these forces of reaction insisted on further demands from the coalition government, The break away of a section of the right wing of the SLFP was in fact not on one particular issue, but on the broad issue of insufficiency of concessions to the Right, The struggle between the opposition led by the UNP [United National partyj-and the SLFP coalition government was in fact the competition between: these’ two bourgeois centres to test which bourgeois group was ready: to make more concessions.to the worst reactionary forces.
~The. issues of the "press take over," "licences to ‘tap today," " safeguarding Buddhism from Marxism," produced sufficient confusion | and helped. to camouflage this struggle as one between the rightist — forces in the country led by the UNP and the Left forces in the country led by the SLFP coalition government, But in fact this was far removed from any polarisation of class forces, On the other hand, the logical results of the coalition between the bourgeoisie and a section of the working class through the ISSP: (Reformist) . [Lanka Sama Samaja party -- reformist wing] was the sowing of further illusions in class collaboration as a method for the working” classe:
‘However, six. months : after coalition, | due .to the. inability of, the coalition to solve thei problems of the wage éarners and: tolling : people, a very gradual process of disillusionment in the coalition
. wlb=
had begun. But illusions and faith in the cdalition broadly remained within the working masses, What remained concealed was brought out. by the defeat of the coalition government in parliament. It. is clear that the extent df the illusions of the working class and toiling people in the coalition is still considerable. Now, of course, the -process of disillusionment that had commenced has been-arrested, and will remain so, till, probably, the new government is elected at. the general elections, At present, however, the coalition government appears to have the backing of a large section of the working class and the village poor. In the result, the coalition government: has = contrived to maintain a left coloration,
Does mass support for a government with a left coloration «°° mean polarisation of left forces around that government? This, by no means, is.a new question in Ceylon, The break away of Bandaranaike. from the- UNP helped ta-arrest the polarisation that might have. taken place at that time. This was the beginning of class collaboration as a conscious policy for the working olass.
Politics of coalition began in 1956 with the participation of Phillip and William, etc., in a bourgeois government, the MEP [Maha-~ jana Eksath Peramuna -- People's United Front] led by Bandaranaike, The left coloration of this government by the participation of ex- Sama Samajists and the resulting mass support ta the government did not mean the polarisation of; the Left forces round the MEP, The. back. door acceptance of the theory of polarisation in 1956::led the LSSP to decide on the policy of “responsive co-operation" to the bourgeois government of Bandaranaike, The situation after the LSSP- SLFP. coalition of June 1964 was only-a further development of coalition politics. This second coalition with the participation of the majority of the. largest.left. party im a: bourgeois government has re-: sulted in. a more pronounced. left coloration for: the bourgeois govern-
t
In the situation, the. government has. obtained the support and. sympathy of a fair section: of the working class and toiling’ people,» ° But the character of the changes in the mass situation is definitely. not polarisation. It is once again the reflection of confusion of the masses.resulting from 4, more effective form of class collabora tion -- LSSP-SLFP ‘coalition... The present conflict is therefore only’ the struggle for governmental power by two: bourgeois groups -- the — one led by the UNP and the other by the SLFP of Mrs, Bandaranaike:: ; with the support of a section of the Left. Oh ts
A prominent spokesman of. the: coalition: {Colvin R. de Silva) has accidentally blurted the. truth and brought out the real content: of the situation, . According: to this spokesman, the choice for the © working. class.and masses in Ceylon is like: the' choice that faced the. American working class; that is, the choice between Goldwater and Lyndon: Johnson. If the support for Mrs, Bandaranaike and coalition is similar to support of Johnson in:the United States, then - the theory of polarisation is..jettisoned and must be rejected.: :
Besides, polarisation is not the mere fact that the working class and the toiling people in their thousands enthusiastically support a government. Polarisation is..the gathering of the class around a class banner and a class programme, however indistinct or meagre. The gathering of the masses around the slogans of Buddhism, anti- Tamilism, antiplantation workers, can never be a polarisation of the class. For polarisation to bégin, the working class must move to ‘break from the policies of the coalition and class collaboration, » Such a movement must be a movement away from the coalition government. And = cannot be a gathering around it.
If the road forward for the working class and the toiling people is through a break from the policies of class collaboration, tt follows that a party of thé working class must be guided by a | policy of irreconcilable opposition to a ‘bourgeois coalition govern~ ment. Only such a ‘policy couldlead to removing the illusions of coalition and class collaboration. |
The call to the réformists to break with the bourgeoisie is ‘at the same ‘time a call to the working class to break from the politics of coalition, For the working class to get | back to the road of class struggle is the need of the hour... ..
The slogan of "All Anti-UNP Forces Unite" is the slogan of class collaboration and must be rejected.
The slogan leading to the road of class struggle is "All Anticapitalist Forces Unite!" —
‘The regroupment of the working class is concretised by the slogan: "Forward.to the United Front of all working-class parties and organisations to fight the capitalist class and its organisations whether Led 5 tne UNP SLFP, or a bourgeois combination of the Right
90,000 HOMELESS IN BRITAIN
There are at least 90,000