Andi Schubert
The trade union action of the Federation of University Teachers’
Associations (FUTA) is now about to enter its fourth month. Prior to and
during the strike a number of debates and discussion have raged between
supporters, opponents and observers about the issues raised by FUTA
viz. education and the crisis facing the education sector in Sri Lanka.
In this short article I hope to examine the nature of the debate so far
and hope to broaden it by introducing the dimension of social
emancipation. This article is the further development of a point I
raised during the "Forum with Eran" program organized by Eran
Wickramaratne MP on the 26th of September which brought together Dr.
Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri and Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha MP for a discussion
on the education crisis in Sri Lanka.
Current discussions on the FUTA strike
The debate on the FUTA strike has brought to the fore a number of key
questions about education, trade unionism, policy development and the
future of students in this country. In this section I try to document
some of the major debates on these issues as they have appeared in the
media since the beginning of the FUTA strike. I must note that the list
below is not an exhaustive one but I have tried my best to capture some
of the key debates that have taken place so far. In doing this I don’t
attempt to take sides but simply hope to document some of the key issues
that have been raised in the media.
The discussions on the issue of education include the need for higher
allocations for education, the question of whether private expenditure
on education should be considered part of the government’s education
allocation, the way in which an increased allocation for education
should be spent, the financing of higher allocations for education as
well as the question of the introduction of the private sector as an
education provider (especially at the university level). Another aspect
of this debate has been the discussion on the quality of education
generally and more specifically on the quality of teaching in the
university as well as in schools around the country. Questions have also
been raised about the quality of research and knowledge production
within academia mainly because of the call by FUTA for better salaries
for academics. Most importantly FUTA has succeeded in creating debate as
to the purpose of education (specifically tertiary education) in the
country and a wide debate has raged on whether the primary aim of
education should be for employment or for knowledge or both (and to what
degree of each).
In terms of trade unionism the debates in the media have ranged from the
legitimacy of FUTA’s trade union action to whether it is within the
scope of a trade union action to call for policy change. There have also
been a number of articles that either critique or praise the tactics
employed by both FUTA and the Government in seeking to resolve the
current standoff. Another important aspect of the debate on trade
unionism has been the question of voice in a broader social movement for
change and questions have been raised about the capacity of FUTA to
represent a variety of interest groups as it evolves into a larger
social movement calling for serious change in the education sector.
This has also led to serious debates about the process through which
policy development takes place in Sri Lanka, and questions have also
been raised as to who should be consulted in policy formulation and
whether there is a need for wider public consultation in policy
development. Furthermore in the light of a number of educational
blunders, serious questions have been raised as to who should take
responsibility for educational policy though there appears to be very
little consensus on this.
Interestingly much of the debate has also focused on the "student" and
both FUTA and its detractors have invoked concern about the student in
seeking to legitimize a variety of stances. I must note here that "the
student" appears to be stuck in a time warp between the present and the
future as FUTA’s detractors point to the plight of current students
while FUTA has sort to emphasize the need to think about the future
student and the capacity of education to support her/his development.
A blind spot in the debate?
Three months into the FUTA strike it would be unlikely that there has
been any aspect of the debate on education that has not received much
attention. However, there is one significant issue that is yet to
receive much attention but which I believe would significantly broaden
the terms of the debate on education that has taken place so far.
In an extremely interesting article, a key FUTA member and prominent
academic Prof. Jayadeva Uyangoda excellently argues that the
introduction of free education provided by the welfare state was widely
seen as a stepping stone to social emancipation for a class of people in
the country that had been severely marginalized and excluded during
colonial times by the elite as well as the British. It was hoped that
education would open doors to employment in the public sector that had
hitherto been limited to the elite who had the capacity to pay for a
private education that in turn secured them employment in lucrative and
respectable public sector jobs.
However, the welfare state was unable to cope with the surging demand
for public sector employment or provide the necessary infrastructure to
ensure that all students across the country received the quality of
education that would enable them to secure similar employment prospects
in the public sector. As a result Uyangoda argues that the State could
only provide partial social emancipation in so much as it provided a new
generation of youth with the education but it could not secure complete
social emancipation for the vast numbers of rural, lower middle-class
young men and women. Or as Uyangoda puts it "the system could not help
them beyond purchasing one way tickets to higher education."*
Social emancipation in an era of patronage politics
I want to build on Prof. Uyangoda’s insights to argue for the need to
re-examine the link between education and social emancipation. In a
country that has come to rely more and more on patronage politics, the
onus is placed on personal relationships to mediate and facilitate
personal interests in order to achieve social emancipation. In this
context it is hardly surprising that the Government’s intransience seems
to suggest that the existing system is adequate to bring about social
emancipation.
Amidst the cacophony of the voices that are speaking out on education in
Sri Lanka, I believe that at the heart of the issues raised by FUTA and
its supporters is the question of the contribution of education to the
social emancipation of marginalized youth around the country. What is
not articulated however, is the question of as to how increased funding
for education will enable this social emancipation.
Therefore, it is necessary to pose a few questions that I believe can
broaden the debate on the current education crisis in Sri Lanka. What do
marginalized young people expect from education today? What is the link
between education in Sri Lanka today and the desire for social
emancipation? Does education still only offer partial emancipation?
Would the increased allocation of funds for education bring about social
emancipation or stymie it by creating expectations that cannot be
fulfilled? Is the creation of employable graduates the answer to the
demand for social emancipation? This can also broaden the understanding
of who is responsible for bringing about social emancipation, and goes
beyond the narrow confines of the debate on graduate employability.
By seeking to answer these questions we can broaden the discussion even
further into the role that education is expected to play in a developing
society. While lauding FUTA for creating and generating debate on the
current status of education, I believe it is important that there is
also an articulation of the relationship between education and social
emancipation. This is because in the final analysis the questions FUTA
has so successfully raised are not limited to education alone but
impinge on the very meaning of social emancipation and its role in
combating oppression.
*I have made a rather clumsy attempt to paraphrase what is a truly
insightful and thought provoking article. For the full version of this
article see Uyangoda, J. (2003). Social Conflict, Radical Resistance and
Projects of State Power in Southern Sri Lanka: The Case of the JVP. In
M. Mayer, D. Rajasingham-Senanayake, & Y. Thangarajah (Eds.),
Building Local Capacities for Peace: Rethinking Conflict and Development
in Sri Lanka (pp. 37-64). New Delhi: Macmillan India.
