Written by Laurence Brahm - Published by Review Asia on 12/02/2007

Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa built his reputation on opposing many of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank approaches to economic development that have been criticized for robbing societies of their spirituality and fostering the “Latin Americanization” of their cities, characterized by the urban blight of slums and crime-ridden ghettos.

In opposition to the Western approach to development as championed by the IMF and the World Bank – known as the Washington Consensus – Rajapaksa has called for sustainable growth through micro-initiatives at the village level. He has backed efforts to revive the village as the source and focus of people’s livelihood, where traditions are kept and a place people can return to.

Rajapaksa’s approach defies the Washington Consensus models that have created massive slums crammed outside the major cities of Central and South America. The Sri Lankan leader foresaw this danger and by using grassroots approaches combined with government support in the right areas, he steered his nation away from programs espoused by Western financial institutions that have been blamed for cyclical poverty.

Even the World Bank has finally, albeit reluctantly, recognized the success of Rajapaksa’s approach. For instance, instead of following the Western theoretical efficiency formulas that centralized economic activities in cities to the detriment of traditional communities, Rajapaksa consolidated Sri Lanka’s garment industry at the grassroots level, empowering villages with the capability to absorb production. His approach assured livelihood for the people without disrupting their village life.

Sri Lanka’s government also provides free meals to village children, a program seen by some World Bank-types as one that smacks of socialism. But the scheme serves to address a crucial need, even as it roots people in their own villages and stimulates local growth and the sense of community. In Rajapaksa’s view, it is essential for Sri Lanka to retain its traditional social values amid sustainable economic growth.

Sri Lanka and China have faced similar problems. China’s efforts to urbanize townships have begun to backfire by often stimulating a rush of migrant workers to congested cities. While urbanization has led to rapid economic growth and improved standards of living, the quality of people’s lives – especially those of the migrant families led by overworked parents – oftentimes deteriorates to dismal levels.

In Sri Lanka, Rajapaksa faced a similar dilemma. Following China’s approach of providing rural infrastructure, Rajapaksa also sought to seek local solutions to development such as consolidating the garment and textile industries in rural areas. But instead of coping China’s penchant for officially created consolidated townships, the Sri Lankan leader has allowed villages to evolve organically.

This approach has spared Sri Lanka from some of the crises China experienced after it uprooted its village culture, nearly obliterating its own heritage of values. According to Rajapaksa, it is important to keep the village social structure intact so that its values can evolve from its traditions, instead of allowing those traditions to be destroyed.

This year, Beijing and Colombo are marking 50 years of diplomatic relations. To mark the event, Rajapaksa visited Beijing and presented his hosts with a replica of the ancient Samadhi Buddha statue. With Chinese President Hu Jintao promoting social harmony as a new ideology for China’s people, are both leaders reaching back to past traditional values in building a new regional consensus?

ReviewAsia: In commemorating 50 years of diplomatic relations between Sri Lanka and China, you presented Beijing with a replica of the ancient Samadhi Buddha statue. Some observers have described this as the start of a “new age Buddhist diplomacy” for forge a Himalayan consensus.
Rajapaksa: Here, religions can help keep people calm and provide the right thinking. When people lose their direction, they have no goals, no purpose – they end up on drugs and alcohol.

How do you control illegal-drug problems and alcoholism that have come with the social disorders exported and disseminated together with the benefits of Washington’s concept of globalization?
We launched a widespread campaign against drugs, alcohol and tobacco that we have deemed effective. We had a street party and I saw 20,000 to 30,000 people dancing at the festival but not a single one under the influence of drugs or liquor.

Do you feel that the IMF and World Bank approach to economic development robbed societies of their spirituality and individuality?
They [those caught in the cycle of exported American materialism] live with personal uncertainty. No respect for life! This can be changed and people of our region understand each other regardless of which country they come from because, in Buddhism, we are all equal regardless of country, income or status.

What do you think of Chinese President Hu Jintao’s efforts in drawing upon and reabsorbing ancient values to build a new “harmonious society” built on Buddhist precepts?
Buddhism in the region has common factors. We can share. We can understand each other’s inner thinking, habits and mind. We have no castes. The Big Brother political attitude of a superpower must be changed – then we will have a society where we can respect each other.

Sri Lanka is a nation where non-government organizations effectively working to address poverty and support sustainable enterprise at the grass roots level are so active they are often labeled as “anti-globalization” by Western aid agencies trying to discredit their efforts. Can you put this misinterpretation into perspective?
We are not anti-anything. There are simply different international approaches. This is something you need for the people to retain the values they want. Without their values, development is useless.

What, in your opinion, is the danger of applying this Washington Consensus model to traditional societies such as Sri Lanka’s?
We have to provide for the practical needs of the people, not what some theorist thinks.

Is it true that you challenged and even confronted the World Bank model for development through your self-pioneered village grassroots approach?
The World Bank said our old buildings were underutilized, so the people should be moved to the urban areas and their land given to multinational corporations to take over the village and redevelop the land. They claimed it was a question of economic efficiency. So then we had slums and with them many social problems like rising crime and drugs.

While the IMF and World Bank promoted rapid urbanization, people raised in rural traditional villages became stranded in urban ghettos. Did this dislocation contribute to the social decay we see in most Latin American cities?
Instead of multinational corporation development, what the villages need are good schools and hospitals. They need school meals. That is what the government now provides. Children before did not even eat breakfast.

Putting state investment into the right places seems to be a similar formula for both China and Sri Lanka. It worked for both. How does your approach differ from the Chinese model?
Government infrastructure in rural areas reaches the villages where no previous infrastructure existed. At village level, people need better roads and then they will start to move back towards the village rather than congesting in cities.

How would you summarize the growing aspiration of a Himalayan Consensus to counter the Washington Consensus?
How people chose to live is a concept the people have to decide – not politicians, not the World Bank or IMF.

Laurence Brahm is a global activist, international mediator, political columnist and author. He is the leading advocate of a fresh development paradigm - The Himalayan Consensus - an innovative approach to development.

Back to Top