Seven reasons why I would not vote for a socialist utopia

Effectively steering the economic agenda of an entire nation requires an entirely different skill set 

– Pic by Shehan Gunasekara 

There is a certain age that socialism sounds super sweet. Who wouldn’t appreciate a system in which everyone lives merrily, receives free education and healthcare, shares their food with others, and experiences a sense of community and compassion? Who would not want a highly paying government job whether you study hard or not? 

In this ideal society, there are no grievances about the contributions made for the greater good. Individuals are duly recognised with bronze medals for their exemplary efforts. We hold admiration for the industriousness displayed in factories and fields, where the masses work diligently and joyfully express their solidarity through revolutionary songs. We applaud when a leader reminiscent of Lenin emphasises that the best things are for the children. Truly, this superlative utopia leaves no room for comparison.

In the same fantasy, we greatly appreciate leaders who exhibit integrity, receiving modest salaries that necessitate wearing donated clothing from their supporters. Their warm gestures of placing their hands on our shoulders and calling us ‘Sahodaraya’ or ‘Sahodari’ resonate deeply with us. It is truly inspiring to witness them bring thick files to parliament, exposing the corruption within capitalistic political parties. The sight of our leaders adorned in vibrant shades of red or magenta fills our hearts with admiration.

In reality, we don’t live in this dreamland forever. We wake up. At least I did. This realisation dawned upon me during my second year of an engineering degree. By then I was accustomed to think like an engineer, and it became abundantly clear that the world does not naturally manifest itself as a utopia. This understanding was further reinforced by the collapse of the Soviet Union two years later. So here I find myself today, 34 years later, meticulously assembling a comprehensive list of reasons why endorsing a socialist government, at least at this point, will not help. I thought of sharing seven reasons I could collect, as they may be useful for others. 

Reason #1: Lack of capacity: Currently, there is no socialist party in Sri Lanka that has demonstrated its capacity to handle the intricate macro-economic issues the nation faces right now

The management of a national economy, regardless of its scale, is a multifaceted endeavour that demands a well-defined vision, extensive expertise, and a capable team with a profound understanding of international economics and market dynamics. None of the socialist parties in Sri Lanka, including the Lanka Samasamaja Party led by one of the esteemed economists of the times, Dr. N.M. Perera, who held a PhD from London School of Economics, has been able to demonstrate such capabilities. If even the LSSP in the 1970s, with multiple PhD holders in its politburo, could not meet the country’s expectations, it begs the question of why we even discuss others. 

Specifically, Dr. N.M. Perera showed three major weaknesses during his tenure as the finance minister in the United Front Government. Firstly, he prioritised his political interests over economic sensibility, and secondly, he failed to make his vision a shared one for the officials who worked with him. Then he had unwavering faith in achieving national self-sufficiency, despite its lack of practicality. Consequently, his five-year term was largely regarded as a failure. He even lost his seat in the general election that followed. No other left party ever since came even close to the LSSP in ‘70s in terms of maturity and capacity.

The current macroeconomic landscape is highly intricate. In 2022, Sri Lanka encountered its most severe post-independence economic crisis, with unsustainable debt accumulation. The country sought assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). While not the optimal solution, this course of action is irreversible now. The IMF intervention provided essential support, allowing us to navigate the crisis. However, the path forward involves a complex debt-restructuring process that necessitates protracted, intricate negotiations with our creditors, which so far has not materialised. Such an undertaking is not within the purview of a socialist party with populist inclinations. Rather, it requires the leadership of an extreme right-wing government unafraid of pursuing bold strategies to achieve economic stability, even if it means pushing societal boundaries.

Then the teams. I typically hold reservations regarding the intellectual capacity of the “teams of professionals” behind any current Sri Lankan political party. Among these teams, the left parties have the worst lot. After listening to several interviews conducted by these individuals on YouTube, I am predisposed to anticipate a state of complete mess should they assume power. Being a professor at a local university is one thing but effectively steering the economic agenda of an entire nation requires an entirely different skill set. Sorry guys, you do not have the capacity. So far you have not convinced me. 

Reason #2: Outdated thinking: The entrenched ideologies held by socialist parties in Sri Lanka may present a significant challenge to the potential implementation of an export-driven economic strategy in Sri Lanka. (Contrary to what happened in countries like Vietnam)

Socialism per se is not the problem here. If it were, we wouldn’t be discussing the remarkable success story of Vietnam. Vietnam operates under a single-party political system, with the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) serving as the sole legal party and wielding complete authority over the country’s political and social affairs. 

Despite its communist government, Vietnam’s economy has experienced impressive growth, positioning it as one of the fastest-growing economies in Asia. Over the past few years, Vietnam has maintained an average annual GDP growth rate of approximately 6.5%. In 2022, the country’s GDP surpassed $ 409 billion, and the per capita GDP for the same year stood at $ 4,164. Furthermore, Vietnam’s national imports amount to $ 360 billion. The country’s priority sectors encompass energy, processing industry, high-tech industry (specifically, electronics), mining, metallurgical, and chemical industries. These industries thrive, defying conventional expectations for a developed economy.

Vietnam’s success can be attributed to the Doi Moi reforms of 1986, introduced by the Communist Party of Vietnam with the goal of transforming the country’s economy. Before the reforms, Vietnam faced many economic problems like difficulties in production, imbalances in supply and demand, inflation, debt issues, and being isolated from the international community. The Doi Moi reforms were a response to these challenges and played a vital role in revitalising Vietnam’s economy. As a result, Vietnam achieved impressive accomplishments such as high economic growth rates, increased exports, reduced poverty, and greater integration with other countries.

The issue in Sri Lanka lies in the ideological lag of the local left parties. They have not undergone a similar evolution in thinking like CPV. The inability of our left parties to engage in meaningful dialogue and draw lessons from the Vietnam case study is apparent. While it is theoretically possible that, if elected, they may adopt a more rational approach and align themselves with the right path with time, that is not a chance I would be willing to take. 

Reason #3: It could end in a real economic mess: The potential consequences of implementing a blend of Socialist/Statist and populist policies right now could intensify the country’s economic crisis, surpassing the levels experienced in 2022. The lack of fiscal responsibility may lead to a significant surge in inflation and an alarming increase in poverty rates.

What are the potential consequences that can be expected if a socialist government assumes power? This question can be addressed by drawing upon historical instances in various nations, including our own.

The key challenge confronting the nation right now is the successful completion of the debt-restructuring process. It is highly unlikely that a socialist government would be able to achieve this objective, even as a more market-oriented administration grapples with the same task. Likewise, it is highly improbable that a socialist government would be able to comply with the conditions stipulated by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The immediate consequence of a left oriented government will be the failure of the debt restructuring process. While accusations and excuses may be exchanged, they will not alleviate the underlying issue. So it will only be a matter of time before the IMF withdraws its support, leaving Sri Lanka not merely at square one, but actually regressing further.

How would a socialist government react to that? Please note they have to meet the populist demands of the masses they have brought into power, even at the cost of maintaining high budget deficits. Any incompetent government would attend to this issue either in two ways: taking more loans or printing more money. The first option may not be possible for a socialist government, so eventually they would resolve to printing money. We have prior experiences in the outcome of this. However, with a socialist government in power and no control over the amount of money that could be printed, it is highly possible the country will be facing the risk of hyper-inflation. If this happens, there is hardly a path of return. Sri Lanka will end up as the next Venezuela. 

It is ironic that socialist governments, which often adopt populist policies, have inadvertently contributed to the rise in poverty levels within society. This could well happen in Sri Lanka too. I prefer staying away from this possible mess. 

Reason #4: Risk of the return of “nationalisation”: The craze of socialist governments to “nationalise” and eventually ruin everything from estates to Hotel De Buhari might lead to another dark era where the private sector may encounter a significant threat.

Those who are old enough would recall the manner in which nationalisation was implemented during the years 1970-77. The fervour for “nationalisation” had been present for quite some time, but it reached its pinnacle during this period. Numerous thriving enterprises were forcibly placed under state control, resulting in their deterioration due to inadequate management. The majority of those affected were supporters of the United National Party (UNP), the key opposition party at the time. Additionally, the government imposed limitations on land ownership, capping it at 50 acres, and any holdings exceeding this threshold were seized by the government with minimal or, in some cases, no compensation. The estate sector, which had previously been highly profitable, suffered significant damage as a consequence of this undertaking. Who looks forward to a repetition of history? Certainly not me. 

Reason #5: Education system at risk: The potential implementation of a socialist government poses a significant threat to the current hybrid free education model, which allows individuals to choose their preferred educational path while also increasing access for the underprivileged. Additionally, based on past encounters with left-wing parties, the state education system would be highly vulnerable under a socialist government

The existing education system in Sri Lanka is characterised by a combination of state-sponsored education and privately owned or state-owned fee-levying institutions. Although the predominant approach is to provide free education to all, a considerable number of students opt for these fee-based institutions. However, if a socialist government were to come into power, it would pose a significant threat to this hybrid model. 

Left-wing political parties in Sri Lanka have always had a detrimental impact on the country’s university education system since the 1960s. That started with Samasamaja and Community parties. In 1971, the socialist forces spearheaded an armed youth rebellion that tragically resulted in the loss of 5,000 lives. Their opposition has thwarted any attempts to introduce fee-based medical education thus far. Fortunately their influence in fields such as Information Technology has been minimal, so non-state universities have successfully produced a substantial number of high-quality graduates in these areas.

During the period of 1988-89, left-leaning political forces initiated another rebellion that caused a significant disruption in the university education system for nearly four years. The ramifications of this interruption are still evident within society. As a member of the generation that experienced an extended period of study to obtain my degree, I am acutely aware of how many individuals from my cohort pursued higher education solely due to the consequential gap caused by this disruption.

Left-wing parties continue to manipulate university students, diverting their focus from dedicated learning to engage in political protests that serve their own interests. Our student community often becomes pawns in these movements either blindly or under political pressure from external parties. Sorry, nobody in their right mind would ever entrust the responsibility of education to a left-wing party. In the context of the popular Sinhala saying, it would be akin to entrusting a fox with the responsibility of safeguarding the hens. (“Nariyata kikiliyo baara dhunnaa vagei”)

Reason #6: Further promotion of dependency culture: Left-oriented policies will lead to extensive welfare programs that could further foster a culture of dependency, disincentivising individuals from seeking employment or pursuing self-sufficiency

Sri Lanka’s problem is not just opportunistic politicians. Sri Lanka’s problem is its people. They are so used to depending upon the freebies offered by the Government, it has come to a level they take some of these as rights. The successive post-independence Governments, in their pursuit of self-preservation, have consistently increased the provision of welfare to the citizens, almost as if it were a competition. What originated during colonial times as free education and healthcare has now extended to include even fertiliser subsidies and land allocations for the general population. Consequently, this has engendered a culture of dependency in Sri Lanka, a phenomenon rarely observed in developed nations.

Achieving progress as a nation becomes a challenge when a significant portion of the population relies on external support. While certain dependencies are inevitable, it is crucial to recognise that healthy and capable individuals should contribute to their livelihoods. Subsidies for farmers solely based on their economic status are not sustainable; instead, their agricultural practices must yield commercially viable products. Failure to address this issue may perpetuate the existence of this culture, potentially leading to the rise of an extreme left-wing government. It is imperative to take proactive measures to avert such a scenario. 

Reason #7: Neighbours’ failed attempts: Experiments with socialism by some of our neighbours have left only a bitter taste in the mouth

Sri Lanka’s per capita GDP was $ 3,354 for the year 2022 while India performed at a much lower rate at $ 2,411. Still there are states and union territories in India that do far better than Sri Lanka. Goa ranks first at $ 6,215 followed by Sikkim ($ 6,102), Delhi ($ 5,128), Chandigarh ($ 4,396), Telangana ($ 3,566), Karnataka ($ 3,497) and once one of the poorest states in India till recently, Haryana ($ 3,487). Tamil Nadu will be on par with Sri Lanka in another 2-3 years’ time. Towards the latter part of the list one finds West Bengal, once a truly majestic state, at $ 1,643, among India traditionally poor states. 

So what went wrong with West Bengal which governed the whole British India for 139 years? Easy question. It was ruled by communists for more than three decades. All began in 1977 when the Communist Party of India (Marxist) led Left Front came to power, marking the start of an uninterrupted 34-year rule in the state. This period was characterised by the implementation of land reforms aimed at economically empowering the rural poor, who had been neglected in the past. However, over time, critics accused the communist leaders of corruption, cronyism, and failing to deliver on their promises.

“Bharat Bandh” is a very common term in West Bengal. It stands for a form of civil disobedience, where people voluntarily participate in the strike by closing their shops, offices, and other establishments, and refrain from engaging in any economic activity. It was not unusual for the entire state to become standstill frequently over the socialist days. How can one expect an economy to thrive under such circumstances?

The decline of the industrial sector in West Bengal can be attributed to several contributing factors, such as a deficient work culture, political interference, and governance failures. These factors have resulted in an environment of industrial anarchy, deterring private investment. Specifically, Bengal’s once world renowned jute industry has been significantly affected by these challenges. The Left Front government’s inability to reverse the trend of industrial stagnation during the 1980s has further exacerbated the situation. 

The West Bengal government’s industrial strategy has primarily focused on employment generation, with a deliberate effort to support small and medium enterprises. However, economist Sanjeev Sanyal argues that the Left government of three decades not only harmed the economy of Kolkata and Bengal but also caused a decline in the intellectual and cultural sphere. This decline has resulted in a decreased production of exceptional talent and the migration of industrialists to other cities. Despite these challenges, the government has achieved some success in increasing food production, positioning West Bengal as a leading food producer in the country. Still that was nothing compared to the downturn the socialists were responsible for.

Kerala story is not too different. Currently, the state is governed by a left-leaning administration, and it is grappling with a significant financial crisis. Over the course of its history, Kerala has been marked by a trade union culture that embraces anti-business policies, frequent mass strikes, and high-level scandals. These factors have contributed to a detrimental business climate and an overall lack of economic progress. Despite possessing considerable potential in sectors such as tourism and Ayurveda, Kerala has been unable to fully capitalise on these opportunities due to the above challenges.

So, why should Sri Lanka re-experiment with socialist fundamentals? What additional achievements could be gained from this approach? Are the conditions conducive for Sri Lanka to emulate Vietnam’s success, rather than adopting a socialist administration similar to West Bengal or Kerala? These are some of the questions any prospective voter might consider at this point. As for me, whatever their other downsides, I am 10 times more comfortable with a right-wing party governing Sri Lanka than placing my trust on a socialist one. 

(The writer, an independent policy researcher, can be reached at [email protected]. The opinions expressed are personal.)