Identity politics

Identity politics is a two edged sword. Around the world as well as in Sri Lanka identity politics was embraced by politicians belonging to different communities on the grounds that these underdog communities should be politically empowered to fight for equal rights and representation. But there is now danger of communities becoming trapped in the increasingly narrow spaces created by ethnicity or religion and failing to connect as Sri Lankans. 

Identity politics is when people of a particular race, ethnicity, gender, or religion form alliances and organize politically to defend their group’s interests. The feminist movement, the civil rights movement, and worker movements are all examples of this kind of political organizing. This can also be community based as seen in Sri Lanka where Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim communities have consistently backed certain politicians because they cater to a specific group or are seen as representing the interests of one community above others.  

Identity politics seems to be experiencing a surge in recent times, which has led some people to decry this approach to politics, calling it divisive. Critics of identity politics claim that it only deepens the divides that exist between different groups in society. In Sri Lanka for example the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) was routinely criticized when it was the main Opposition before the Constitutional crisis for backing concerns of the Tamil community but not adequately representing the problems of the Sinhala Buddhists. This was one of the main reasons for the formation of the Joint Opposition, which gained traction in the media for representing other communities in the southern part of the country. The TNA has of course denied they were focused on one community but it underscores the seriousness of political representation colours political views in Sri Lanka.  

Since the Easter Sunday attacks the identity politics of Muslim ministers have gained more focus. The controversy over the Batticaloa campus and its shadowy funding, allegations that conservative Wahabism  was supported and encouraged in Sri Lanka due to generous Saudi funding, concerns of tensions emerging between the Tamil and Muslim populations in the East due to perceived support for the latter from politicians are just some examples that have grabbed headlines of late. There is nothing intrinsically wrong about politicians supporting their vote banks but as the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake pointed out in parliament this week, when it is done excluding the idea of a Sri Lankan identity it opens the door to deepening divisions. There is no doubt that other politicians have done the same. Sinhala Buddhist politicians have whipped up populism, at times to dangerous levels, drawing heavily on vituperative identity politics. In recent times that has spilled over into populism and threatened the tentative peace Sri Lanka managed to laboriously piece together after 2009. Identity politics and populism had a large part in ensuring that peace in post-war Sri Lanka remained fragile and intolerance remained plentiful. 

As Dissanayake pointed out politicians of different communities also added vastly to their wealth through their political platforms. Many if not all have amassed fortunes and there is no doubt that corruption and questionable actions are a common thread that binds all Sri Lankan politicians together irrespective of their ethnic or communal leanings. Unfortunately the consequences are being felt by the masses and it is now up to all Sri Lankans to work extra hard to forge a common identity that celebrates rather than condemns the “otherness” of their identities.