Sri Lanka is looking to a new era, with a newly elected Executive President (from September 21), who comes to office after a strong popular vote for change. The COVID-19 pandemic has played its part in the upheavals that underlie this popular will for change.
Over the past 18 months we (Sarvodaya and the World Faiths Development Dialogue—WFDD) have reflected on lessons that Sri Lanka’s experience with the pandemic suggests. The review began with a focus on public health, but it was swiftly apparent that the story could not be told without looking far beyond, to roots in the past and to different social and economic forces at work. Recent history is often told with only passing reference to religious roles, but in our review, we wanted to ensure that these vital and dynamic parts of society and community were looked at front and center.
Through history pandemics have upended trends and defied “normal” patterns. Some changes were unmistakable in the immediate times, but the seismic shifts that massive health crises caused were often masked at the time. Looking back, large and often unexpected shifts become clear: changes in land tenure patterns, roles of men and women, and political alignments are examples. Even with a short time horizon, the COVID-19 review points to some paradoxes that are part of the emerging story of change.
A central paradox is that Sri Lanka’s well established and equitable health system, sensible pandemic preparedness policies, and rapid deployment and action were largely exemplary models (seen in a global context) of pandemic response. Sri Lanka offers leadership in the global discussions about pandemic preparedness, including the proposed pandemic treaty. Yet Sri Lanka's government was toppled by massive demonstrations and an economic and financial crisis saw massive increases in poverty rates.
Some explanations are pretty clear. Deep economic and governance failures were masked in many ways pre COVID-19, and it was only the economic disruptions of the pandemic that made deeply problematic weaknesses and governance failures and their impact so clearly apparent. In other words, the crisis was a revelation, in the sense of removing veils that obscured harsh realities.
Among possible hypotheses for the changes in understanding was the too little unexplored roles, actual and potential, of forces at work in communities, and particularly Sri Lanka’s vital and diverse religious actors. There has been much focus on roles of religious leadership at the national level, even transnationally, but far less at what was happening at the level of communities, where people interact on a daily basis with the diverse institutions linked to religious traditions for health counsel, education, and aspects of livelihoods. The institution I (Dr. Vinya) lead, Sarvodaya, through its 60 year history, has built on core Buddhist values that stem from a deep belief in the agency of the local community and thus in its diversities.
But the seismic shifts that so disrupted Sri Lanka’s economy and society went deeper. In our review of the COVID response, a first part looked at performance by those in charge, thus government entities. Nothing is perfect but it is generally hard to fault the early public response, with the notable exception of discriminatory burial requirements that called for cremation, despite prohibitions of such practices in Muslim communities. Interviews took the review deeper, seeking to link different parts of the crisis that were specific to the pandemic but extended well beyond. It was in focus group discussions that significant new insights emerged. Above all they highlighted the enormous diversity of community response and the failures of the policy apparatus to take Sri Lanka's vibrant civil society, including especially religious actors, into account in practical, workable ways.
In short, worthy policies were constructed around siloes that were dominated by assumptions of government leadership. The distinctive spirit of Sri Lanka's ethos was not well integrated into governance, health policies, and the capacity to respond to the swiftly changing circumstances. Some obvious policy errors that led, for example, to acute shortages and contributed to inflationary pressures aggravated the situation and led to widespread misery and social tensions.
It was shortages of medicines and food and inflation that were a straw that broke the camel's back. Aspects that can be linked specifically to COVID-19 combined with these challenges. Three prominent examples were the sense of fear and foreboding that came with an unknown pandemic, isolation linked to movement restrictions and quarantines, and the unplanned return of migrants to an unprepared society. All combined to spark the crisis that threw the country into crisis.
What should we learn? Good policies and systems are necessary but not sufficient. What counts most is what's local. It is never easy to take rich diversity well into account, but a central lesson is that better mechanisms are needed to do so, to work with and benefit from the distinctive features of local, very different communities. Sri Lanka’s political leaders need to find mechanisms that address this as a priority.
Visiting another country recently, I (Dr. Vinya) observed that a deeply worrying and frustrating bureaucratic and misguided regulation (in this case ridiculous procedures that fouled traffic), would never be tolerated in Sri Lanka. That's part of the paradox here - a culture of questioning and demanding but gaps that allowed the deep crisis to worsen and cause setbacks that cost a generation of progress. Now is the time to face the challenges and work to address them. Community action that looks in practical ways to the core values of the different communities and to recognizing and respecting difference while building on reconciliation and a real sense of the common good is the way to go.
