Change can happen while the goods are delivered to the people of this country. The cry for transformation is heard loud and clear, and there is an attempt to interpret this appeal as some kind of an invitation to foster anarchy. But, the elite of this country — the captains of business and so on — have to learn to keep the system in good trim while the possibility for change is still kept alive.
The interpretation of what is change may vary depending on whom you talk to. The regime’s top political leadership is of the view that change can happen within the ruling dispensation. That is by a simple mechanism of a Cabinet reshuffle, for instance.
Others think that this is impossible. They call for changes from the top, and some ask for systemic change. But among Government, Opposition or in-between, there is a national consensus on the fact that deep-going change is necessary.
Does this transformation have to emerge from the total breakdown of the social order i.e. out of the debris of a systemic collapse? Some seem to think so. They are willing to risk possible anarchy, if it gets them where they want, which is a total overhaul of the system as we know it.
About this aspect, it can be said that there is a consensus in the world these days that the Arab Spring type of revolution brings needless chaos and grief in its wake. The experiences of countries such as Libya, though that was not exactly a case of Arab Spring, have scarred people’s minds about that type of transformation.
Do the people of Sri Lanka want change within the framework of democracy? Politicians seem to think so. By ‘politicians’, it is meant the key political players whose membership is represented in the Parliament. It goes without saying that it would be in their interests to resolve the current crisis within the democratic framework.
But the people — or at least a good cross section of them — are not happy with these so called people’s representatives. They want radical change. Some of them feel that this radical change cannot be delivered without causing disruption of society, and an interruption of the regular social order.
Revive
It is the job of the elites of society which includes the business leadership, to aim to have social transformation delivered with the least amount of friction i.e. by having the economy function so that the people could meet their basic needs and get about their normal lives no matter what happens out there on the streets.
However, it does not appear that the business leadership has sounded the correct tone in pursuance of their task of being the stabilising influence. They appear to be aghast, and are sounding off as if they have a right to deliver a schoolmasterly pep-talk to those whom they presume are errant and foolhardy, namely the young people — and the rest of those who are out on the streets calling for systemic change.
This will not go down well. If they think stability is essential to revive a troubled economy — and they are of course right in that calculation — they need to change their tone. The young have come out of their comfort zones and essentially do not care that the economy would have to collapse if it has to, to achieve their end of systemic change.
The elite business leadership seems to think that it is their responsibility to talk down to these youth and to appeal to the ‘good sense’ of other sections of society to knock some sense into the youngsters, who have opted for radical systemic overhaul. This is a dangerously patronising strategy.
The protestors — and its erroneous to think of all of them as being young — are up in arms at this conjuncture, when the objective conditions are in existence for their radicalism.
They have seen and experienced an economic breakdown in the past few months, and moreover they have heard no less a person than the Speaker of this Parliament say that serious food shortages are a possibility in the near future.
These active participants in the movement for social change are therefore very unlikely to be swayed by pep-talks about the economy. They would feel that such talking-down a rear-guard of the system and would prefer to ignore what sounds like patronising calls for calm by the captains of industry.
This kind of chasm between what the wealthy business leadership thinks and the views represented by the protestors, strikes at the very core of the threat of breakdown we are facing now as a society.
There is a lack of empathy on the part of the powerful sections of society for the masses — the workers, and the managerial and technocratic talent — without whom they cannot run their factories or transport and export their produce.
How do the captains of industry get it so wrong? It is partly because they do not want to take a holistic view of what is happening in our country today. They know there is a serious issue, and anybody who does not understand that much would be a lunatic. But they cannot think beyond their noses i.e. go beyond the constricting limits of their own reality, and relate to the larger issues that face our troubled society.
Ironically, it’s partly that mindset that has brought us to where we are today. The elite movers and shakers in this country are in a born to rule mindset. They have been too used to calling the shots in society, and having the rest follow. They are only willing to make concessions when fault lines appear, that threaten to tear the social fabric apart.
The business elite did not share their wealth with the labour classes when the lockdowns occurred due to the spread of the virus. It is not likely that they have been forgiven for this aloofness by the working class demographic.
Required
Moralistic statements do not cut these days. It is apparent due to the nature of the current protests which are happening by and large due to systemic failure. It’s why there are stand-offs that are occurring in various parts of the country which are becoming difficult to contain by a single strategy of ‘slash and burn.’
This reality seems to have sunk in slowly but surely among the business leadership too, which seems now more circumspect. They do not rush to print, issuing condemnatory press releases. They seem to have now adapted a stance of wait and see.
They also seem to be aware that they cannot possibly censure what is essentially non violent. But in the boardrooms decision making is not in abeyance, just because there is a degree of disquiet on the ground.
That’s the maturity that was need from the business community that did not stop delivering, when a battle was on in this country for instance. However, essentially the business community was not required to make statements on the war, or take sides.
This time they are required to take a long hard look at what’s happening. The gravity of the recent events has ensured that they cannot gloss over what’s going on. They have to look at what’s happening and take a decisive stand. But while they do that they are required to deliver the goods and keep the economy humming.
That may be a tall order. But they have to do it because it is in the interests of their own survival.
If they do not see this situation through, they are no longer relevant, either to society or to themselves. They can do business and accumulate wealth because there is the societal leeway that allows them to function, despite the vast wealth disparities between them and the others.
Now that comfort zone is increasingly threatened. It doesn’t mean they could afford to panic. They have to be the calming influence and keep their heads while ‘everybody around is losing theirs.’ It’s imperative for their own survival, uppermost.