<!--[if gte mso 9]>
| by Jayadeva Uyangoda
Member, Arts Faculty Teachers’ Association (AFTA)
University of Colombo
( September 20, 2012, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Some politicians and media officials linked to the
government have begun to describe the FUTA strike as an attempt to overthrow the present
government. Some have even come out with the fantastic idea that the F UTA is
planning a ‘Suharto style’ conspiracy. I
understand that my name has been linked to this imagined conspiracy, either as
a co-conspirator, or even as the leading conspirator. I don’t think I deserve
such an honour.
Although I am amused by these conspiracy stories, which are
nothing but political mud-slinging against the FUTA, I am also concerned about
them, because they are propagated in some sections of the government media,
with sinister objectives.
First, for the protection of FUTA leadership, myself and our
families, I strongly reject these conspiracy allegations as malicious, absurd
and totally untrue.
Making allegations against trade union struggles as
‘anti-government conspiracies’ is not new. This has been a practice resorted to
by all Sri Lankan governments for decades, beginning in the early 1950s. It
became worse since the 1970s. But,
there is a difference between then and now. If some organization or an
individual is branded publicly by powerful people linked to the government as ‘conspirators’,
it can lead to serious consequences for the safety and security of individuals
thus targeted. The Sri Lanka in which we live today is no longer a place where
the rule of law protects its citizens as a matter of course.
To return to the FUTA strike, it is not incorrect to say that
the FUTA strike has political overtones. It seeks policy changes with regard to
education. It challenges the government’s positions on education, allocation of
public expenditure, and, the role of the state in social issues. It critiques
the government’s policy priorities. It actually argues for policy reforms on
education, particularly in higher education. This is an attempt for minimalist
regime reform, and not in any way a project of regime change. Therefore, to
construe the FUTA strike as an attempt to provoke an Indonesian style, or even
Arab-Spring style, political uprising is according a totally unwarranted
negative significance to a middle-class trade union action.
Interestingly, the logic of the conspiracy thesis,
propagated by the government supporters, also suggests that it is based on the
assessment that President Rajapakse’s UPFA government is weak, vulnerable to a
strike action by just one trade union, and utterly incapable of managing the
strike without allowing it to spread to other sectors. This is actually wrong
logic. All in the FUTA are quite aware of the fact the UPFA is not a weak
government that can fall, merely because academics are engaged in a protracted
strike. They know that brining political pressure on the government is a legitimate
and lawful strategy to win their trade union demands. Unions usually do such
mobilization as a part of trade union politics. However, mobilization can
spread to other sectors, not because of the FUTA action, but because of the way
in which the government handles it. If
the government resorts to outright repression, as some in the government appear
to insist, then it may generate further opposition in society. Then, the
government will also be compelled to be more repressive, producing a new logic of
repression-resistance-repression-resistance. But, prudent governments do not
usually handle trade union issues in that fashion, as Mr. Jayewardene did three
decades ago, on the argument that the government should not give into demands
from trade unions. Actually, the government of President Rajapakse has ample
reasons to listen to FUTA demands, because many university academics, who are
in the strike now, --except a very few -- have been in the forefront of the
campaign to elect and re-elect him in 2005 and 2010. Prudent governments also
usually listen to their constituencies, instead of antagonizing them.
It appears that the government has two parallel tracks to
deal with the FUTA strike. One stresses a hardline approach with no concessions
to, or compromise with, the striking academics. The conspiracy story seems to
emanate from the faction which advances this hardline track. The other is for a
negotiated settlement though compromise. When the negotiation track has begun
to show some positive directions, the other line seems to be determined to
undermine the possibilities of a compromise. That is why they appear to be
trying to re-define the FUTA action as a national security issue. Let us hope
that leaders of the government will not make the mistake of treating trade
union issues as national security issues, as being suggested by some fringe
elements.
 University of Colombo ...){kind=link}