This book presents a historical and analytical overview of social development in Sri Lanka within a social policy conceptual framework. The author identifies three distinct phases of development of social policy in the country-that of the early, late and post colonial state. Further, he shows how Sri Lankan social development has since been reframed by a combination of neo-liberalism and a protracted civil war. This shift from the country's unique social welfare structure to one marked by warfare is examined in the context of the impact of a new `welfare regime` on its society
Access options:
The following links lead to the full text from the respective local libraries:
Following the presidential and parliamentary elections in 2010, the Sri Lankan political system has seen the rise of a 'one-party dominant state' and a 'hybrid regime'. This new political order consists of a mix of democratic and authoritarian elements largely seen in countries such as Malaysia and Singapore. This essay examines the social and political changes introduced by the highly militarized regime led by Mahinda Rajapaksa, which has slanted towards a Kautilyan ideology and authoritarian constitutionalism. It is argued that Sri Lanka needs a glasnost, marking a new political and social ethos based on the principles of accountability, openness, transparency, freedom and justice.
Just war, a concept stemming from Christian theological scholarship, has become part of the Western social and political lexicon. This article examines how Buddhism as a non-Abrahamic faith has dealt with just war thinking. To this end, it specifically analyzes some of the recent scholarly studies of just war ideology in relation to the civil war in Sri Lanka. It is argued that just war thinking is essentially a question of how issues of religion and politics are handled in Buddhist countries.
Conclusion: In summing up, an overriding theme of this Paper has been that the dynamics of the Australian-Asian connection are deeply grounded in the Australian dilemma, the celebrated tension between history and geography. It is a tension that runs right through how we conceive the Australian political community. As we have endeavoured to show — be they questions of national security, trade relations, or foreign policy — they are all constrained by the Australian dilemma reflecting the questions of what it means to be an Australian. A focus on identity has been largely fuelled by 'a shift in the way we perceive Australia's position in the Asian region' (Dixon 199, 75). As argued, identity in the sense of what it means to 'being an Australian', pertains above all, to questions of equal citizenship and membership of the political community or what Smith (1992) has aptly termed the 'politics of people building'. Hence, the future directions of the Australian-Asian relationship rests on how we set about the task of creating a sense of Australian nationhood and citizenship in a diverse and plural society. This, as argued, underscores the centrality of immigration policy – particularly settlement – in unravelling the tensions between history and geography, or stated differently, of how to cope with Australia's proximity to Asia in dealing with this perplexing question. This is not a question of the 'Asianization' of the country; rather, it one that rests in coming to grips with social and cultural diversity with the framework of a normative multiculturalism – as a constitutive principle of the nation. The institutional response we make to being a 'multicultural nation' holds the key to this problematic. For example, the commanding heights of the society – be they in politics, business, the professions, or even academia – show little signs of being responsive to the new pluralism in Australian society. As I have argued elsewhere, this requires that we reframe the multicultural discourse within the parameters of the political, and not the cultural nation (Jayasuriya 2004). The new Western Australian Charter of Multiculturalism (OMI 2004), based on a notion of 'differentiated citizenship' and a culture of social and political rights and duties, may indeed herald a new course for the languishing multicultural discourse. Finally, it begins to become more apparent and compelling to recognise that 'Australia's future lay not just in Asia but with Asia' (MacMahon Ball quoted in Rix 1985) it is imperative that we make a more constructive and creative response than in the past in fashioning our 'Asian centredness'. This is not just confined to the realm of politics and economics but more centrally focussed in getting out of being in a cultural cocoon, and able to meaningfully engage with the many cultural traditions in Asia. In this we need to be reminded of the prophetic words of Alfred Deakin over a hundred years ago. In his reflections following his visit to India, Deakin observed wisely in 1893 that: Today's Australia is full of hope, as Asia of despair. racially, socially, politically and individually far asunder as the poles. Their geographical situation, brining them face to face may yet being them hand to hand, and mind to mind. They have much to teach each other While commending these wise words to the current Australian political leadership, we might add a footnote to Deakin from Bruce Grant (1983), a former Australian Ambassador to India in his prophetic remark that 'Asia remains the most likely catalyst of Australian civilization'
As we ponder the significance of Australia's recent entry to the inner sanctum of East Asian Summit, many questions come to mind: does this signify a radical change in Australia's view of itself? If there has been a change in how we comprehend the Australian-Asian connection, what underlies this sudden embrace of an 'Asian future' by John Howard who has previously been forthright in his criticism of the regional policies in the Hawke & Keating era? Adapted from the source document.
This article examines the political foundations of Australia as a multicultural nation in the context of the republican debate and the prospect of constitutional reform. In establishing a constitutional basis for the pluralism inherent in Australian society as it has evolved over lime demographically and normatively, there are symbolic and functional considerations which need to be addressed. It is argued that the key to restructuring the political foundations lies in a postmodern concept of citizenship based on a rights‐based society which gives formal recognition to differences within a liberal democratic framework.
