Mahinda regime is neither proletarian nor socialist
by Dr. Vickramabahu Karunaratne
Some people believe that the Mahinda regime, is an anti American, anti West, nationalist regime. One cannot blame them too much when, the old Left including Vasudeva is busy white washing this regime. The old Left too, insist that the Mahinda regime is progressive and better than the UNP regime. Of course, they find it difficult to explain the political and social policies of the regime. In our presence, in husky voice, with rosy cheeks they claim that they are there for tactical reasons. They deny that they have betrayed any Marxist principles.
On the other hand, their presence is a powerful instrument available for the regime. Government propagandists have made use of this fact to win the hearts of many left oriented regimes in the third world. Recently we saw that even Hugo Chaves has fallen into the propaganda pit of the Mahinda regime. We were shown a picture of Colonel Gaddafi keeping his hand on the shoulder of president Mahinda. But Gaddafi has changed a lot from the time when he was seen as an arch enemy of the American imperialism. Today, the world has changed so much that we are unable to say where the other hand of Gaddafi was. In fact, he could have been whispering to Mahinda not to shout too much against the West, while squeezing the belly of Mahinda with the other hand.
This is a global development. In the 50s and the 60s in the so- called third world, we witnessed the rise of nationalist populist leaders with strong anti American rhetoric. They were all dependent on soviet Russia and the Red China regime. However, in spite of their claims for socialism, all of them were products of the economic boom in the western world. at that stage, Western powers were interested in certain democratization in the developing world in order to facilitate capital investment. Hence, they indirectly helped populist leaders in their radical steps, as long as these did not push towards a special alliance with the Eastern powers. In fact, only one of these radical movements really, went out of control; that is Cuba. All the other populist leaders made radical changes to remove maligned sections of the neo-colonial establishments. The Mc Namara policy of the World Bank showed the real nature of the global capitalist policy.
By now the world has changed. The populist movements started by leaders such as Nehru, Sukarno, Bhutto, Nasser, Ben Bela, Peron and Bandaranaike have ceased to be anti American or anti capitalist. In India, the modern Gandhis are hand in glove with the Western powers. In fact, they work as the regional leaders of global capitalism. Man Mohan Singh is not an agent of Obama but really a guru. Similar changes have taken place everywhere.
The collapse of the Stalinist states, only accelerated the degeneration of third world national populism. However, unfortunately the vocabulary and the rhetoric still survive, creating illusions in the minds of the people. In Lanka, the rise of Mahinda to power is some times depicted as a second coming of the MEP of maha Bandaranaike.
The picture is made easy by the participation of all left parties, except of course the Nava Sama Samaja party, in the coalition. But, the Mahinda regime today, is completely dependent on American and Indian handouts. It is indebted to these powers in all aspects. Hence, it is an anti proletarian, Sinhala chauvinist regime following the global capitalist agenda. To claim this as an anti American leadership is as bad as claiming that the Obama leadership as been anti American.
In fact in the US there are people who seriously believe that Obama is a secret communist agent sent to destroy the free society led by the rich whites. They accuse him of taking over control of banking and industry. Also, they condemn his attempt to revise the healthcare policy. Both are according to them, neo communist policies! In a world of such lunacy it is not surprising to see intelligent people defining the Mahinda regime as a progressive nationalist regime.