As Sri Lanka navigates a new political chapter under the National People’s Power (NPP), a familiar contradiction has resurfaced: can a movement rooted in Marxist ideology dismantle oligarchic influence without creating new centres of concentrated power?
The ideological tension is not new. Classical Marxist theory frames communism as a direct challenge to elite rule — an effort to abolish class divisions and private ownership. Communist movements historically positioned themselves as adversaries of the “super-rich” and the entrenched capitalist class.
Yet history tells a more complicated story. From the Soviet Politburo to the upper ranks of the Chinese Communist Party, decision-making power in communist states often became concentrated in small leadership circles. Sociologist Robert Michels’ “Iron Law of Oligarchy” suggests that all large organisations — even revolutionary ones — inevitably consolidate power among a few.
Patronage Capitalism
In Sri Lanka, the NPP has campaigned on dismantling what it describes as “patronage capitalism” — a system where business magnates and political elites operate in mutually reinforcing networks. The party has pledged investigations into alleged tax evasion, duty fraud and abuse of state resources, signalling a willingness to challenge powerful figures.
Among those frequently cited in economic discussions is Dhammika Perera, a prominent businessman with extensive investments across sectors. His interests reportedly include acting as a local agent for major international carriers servicing Sri Lanka. Critics argue that when representation of foreign airlines overlaps with influence over local aviation or tourism policy, the competitive balance of Sri Lanka’s most profitable air routes can become distorted — potentially undermining the national carrier’s earnings on key destinations.
Oligarchic Control
Similarly, in the agricultural sector, Dudley Sirisena has long been associated with dominant rice milling and distribution networks. Detractors often refer to entrenched rice millers as a “rice mafia,” alleging that concentrated control over storage, supply chains and wholesale pricing can shape market outcomes in ways that disadvantage farmers and consumers alike. Supporters, however, counter that scale and logistical control are necessary to stabilise supply in a volatile market.
Both cases highlight the same structural question: when a small number of private actors maintain strong influence over essential industries — aviation and staple food supply — does that constitute efficient enterprise, or oligarchic control?
The NPP’s challenge lies in balancing reform with economic stability. Aggressive dismantling of established business networks risks investor uncertainty; failure to act risks reinforcing the very structures the party campaigned against.
Political Influence
Sri Lanka’s political history demonstrates that oligarchies are not confined to one ideology. They can emerge under free-market capitalism, state socialism, or hybrid systems. The central issue is not merely wealth, but the concentration of decision-making power — particularly when economic leverage intersects with political influence.
As the NPP advances its anti-corruption agenda, the real test will be whether it can reduce entrenched economic dominance without allowing new elite networks to take their place. In the end, dismantling oligarchy is less about rhetoric and more about ensuring transparent markets, independent regulation and genuine competition in industries that shape the daily lives of Sri Lankans.
– The News Girl –
