Sri Lankan parliament boosts president’s autocratic powers

K. Ratnayake

Last Thursday, the Sri Lankan parliament rubber-stamped the 20th Amendment to the constitution, which gives sweeping autocratic powers to the executive presidency—in line with the demands of President Gotabhaya Rajapakse,, who was elected last November.

Rajapakse’s Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP)-led alliance government secured the votes of 156 MPs, or more than the two-thirds majority required in the 225-member parliament, to push through its constitutional amendment.

Several MPs from the Muslim parties, affiliated with Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB), the main opposition party, voted for the bill as did a SJB member, who declared that the country needed a “strong president.” Rajapakse visited parliament prior to the vote, ensuring that all his party’s MPs endorsed the constitutional change.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa (AP Photo/Eranga Jayawardena)

The amendment repeals the 19th constitutional change introduced in 2015 that limited some of the president’s powers. The restrictions included: preventing the president from dissolving parliament until after it had served four and half years; establishing independent commissions to appoint top state officials and judges; and ensuring that the president could appoint or remove ministers only on the advice of the prime minister.

Opposition parliamentary parties, including the SJB, Tamil National Alliance and the United National Party (UNP), and several other groups, filed petitions in the Supreme Court arguing that the 20th amendment nullified the “sovereignty of the people.” They called on the court to rule that the amendment had to be endorsed by a referendum, as well as a two-thirds parliamentary majority.

The Supreme Court, however, gave a green light to the amendment, with changes to some of the clauses but keeping intact the amendment’s key dictatorial provisions. It ruled that if its proposed changes were adopted, the bill could be passed with just a two-thirds parliamentary majority. Accordingly, the government made some cosmetic modifications and the amendment was put to the vote.

Under the amended constitution, the president is empowered to appoint or remove the prime minister and cabinet ministers; dissolve parliament after only two and a half years; appoint the chairmen of commissions on elections, police, human rights, bribery and corruption and finance. The president can also appoint top judges and the attorney general.

A parliamentary council, which includes the prime minister, parliamentary speaker and the opposition leader, will be established to offer advice on the appointment of these top officials. The president, however, is not bound by the council’s opinion.

Presidential immunity from litigation was proposed in the original 20th amendment, but was dropped after the Supreme Court ruled that this clause required endorsement by a referendum.

Presenting the 20th amendment to parliament, Justice Minister Ali Sabry claimed that there was nothing new, it only reestablished the 1978 constitution. The country had been ruled under that constitution for four decades and so there was nothing to fear, he declared. “Our attempt is to enable the president to exercise people’s power once again.”

Sabry’s claim that the president will be exercising “people’s power” is ridiculous. Every constitution since Sri Lankan independence has been an anti-democratic conspiracy by ruling elites against the working class and the poor. He failed to explain why Rajapakse needed such sweeping autocratic powers enshrined in the 1978 constitution today.

The 1978 executive presidential constitution, which was established by the then UNP government and appointed its leader, J.R. Jayawardene as president, was introduced in response to a deep political crisis of the Sri Lankan ruling class.

The president’s autocratic powers were used to crush popular opposition to the government’s open-market economic policies, and the associated assault on the social rights of workers and the poor. These powers were also used to invoke and conduct the 30-year communal civil war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and to divide, weaken and suppress the working class and oppressed masses.

The move towards dictatorship in Sri Lanka is in line with the drive by the ruling classes in every country towards fascist and autocratic rule. The Trump administration is rallying fascistic forces and preparing a coup, amid the November presidential elections, while in India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is bolstering his own autocratic government. Rajapakse has even promised to go beyond the existing laws and introduce a new constitution.

Since coming to power, Rajapakse has installed many retired and in-service generals into key government posts and repeatedly claimed the need for special powers. On October 9, he summoned ruling alliance MPs to a meeting, in order to address some “differences” over the 20th amendment.

While all of the alliance parliamentarians had agreed that the president should be given strong powers, some Sinhala extremist MPs were critical of allowing people with dual citizenship to be given government office positions. The Sunday Times reported that some of these critics were “shouted down” and that Rajapakse “kept repeating the words, ‘I want to deliver’ several times during interventions.”

In fact, the Rajapakse government will respond to the increasing impact of the pandemic and collapse of the Sri Lankan economy with even more ruthless attacks on workers and the poor. While COVID-19 cases now exceed 7,800 and many parts of the country are under curfew, the government, like its international counterparts, is determined to keep the factories open and wants everyone to keep working.

The opposition parties made bogus protests and criticisms inside parliament, but let the government pass the legislation. Many grossly inflated the “positive sides” of the 19th amendment and made futile appeals to the government.

The 19th amendment was introduced by the President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe-led government that came to power in 2015.

During the 2015 presidential election campaign, Sirisena and the parties now in the opposition pledged to abolish the executive presidency. Once in power, however, the “unity government” dropped its promise, turned against workers and the poor, and introduced limited changes in the 19th amendment.

Former President Maithripala Sirisena, skipped last week’s parliamentary vote but shamelessly directed MPs from his Sri Lanka Freedom Party, now in alliance with the ruling party, to back the new amendment.

Opposition leader Sajith Premadasa from the SJB, a recent split-off from the UNP, declared that there must be a rule with “checks and balances” for democratic governance. SJB MPs arrived at the parliament in a motorcade, wearing “No to 20A” armbands. Premadasa did not explain why the UNP had introduced the 1978 constitution and maintained it for decades.

Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna leader (JVP) Anura Kumara Dissanayake demagogically declared: “Unlimited power was in the hands of the leader of tribal societies and the king of monarchies. This constitution is a return to those eras.”

In 2004, the JVP supported the autocratic executive presidency and joined President Chandrika Kumaratunga’s regime. It hailed the use of these anti-democratic powers which were utilised to conduct Colombo’s bloody war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

Last week, as COVID-19 infections rapidly spread across the country, the JVP declared that the “people should be united as a country,” echoing the positions of the SJB. As the economic and political crisis deepens, every faction of the bourgeois establishment is joining together in class unity, with the aim of covering up the real target of these new dictatorial powers: the working class.

There is no constituency among the bourgeois parties and their pseudo-left hangers-on for the defence of democratic rights. The working class can only defend its democratic and social rights by mobilising its political and industrial strength, and rallying the rural poor and the youth.

COVID-19 “long-hauler” phenomenon presents in children and teens as schools reopen against expert advice

Katy Kinner

As schools reopening across the globe result in catastrophic consequences in the spread of COVID-19, Facebook groups and recent articles showcase the stories of children and adolescents who continue to have extended and often debilitating symptoms weeks to months after an initial COVID-19 infection.

In May, adults began reporting persistent and sometimes debilitating symptoms weeks to months after their initial COVID-19 infection. They gathered on social media and began to call themselves “long-haulers.” They demanded that the condition receive attention from the scientific community and published a patient-led research paper on the condition.

Formal research on the subject of long-haulers is slim and in pediatric long-haulers there are only a few studies and surveys percolating.

People wait in line outside of a COVID-19 testing site during the coronavirus pandemic, Thursday, July 16, 2020, in Opa-locka, Fla. (AP Photo/Lynne Sladky)

Existing research on post-viral illnesses following previous viral outbreaks such as SARS suggest that roughly 5-10 percent of adults infected could experience extended symptoms. Data from an Italian study published in JAMA showed that only 12.6 percent of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 reported being symptom-free after 60 days.

The CDC also published results from a survey of symptomatic adults who had a positive outpatient test result for COVID-19, which showed that 35 percent of participants had not returned to their baseline health 2-3 weeks after testing. Physicians from a hospital in Paris, France recently reported seeing roughly 30 long-haulers per week beginning in mid-May. All of the above studies showed that even those with no previous health issues who had mild initial infections could become long-haulers.

The evidence in children is only anecdotal, but during a time of a quickly developing, unprecedented pandemic, this type of evidence should not be discounted. The first murmurings of extended COVID-19 symptoms in adults were discussed on Facebook groups that quickly swelled to contain a collective membership in the tens of thousands.

On the Facebook group “COVID-19 Long-Haulers Discussion Group”—a group with 9,600 members—parents participate in a thread on long-hauler symptoms in their children. The discussion thread has hundreds of comments through which parents describe their children’s symptoms and offer advice to others.

Parents share a sense of helplessness as they watch their children grow weak and stop participating in activities they once loved. Others describe watching their children faint from low blood pressure or cry from new onset anxiety. Below are several comments, each from different mothers, that illuminate the struggle with this phenomenon. Their names have been removed for their privacy.

• “Both of my kids and I have had post-COVID symptoms. Fever, sore throat, GI issues, aches, exhaustion. On month three now; [my kids] are starting to have more energy and fewer fevers, but they still have symptoms.”
• “My daughter has been sick for almost three months. The GI issues and the anxiety are the worst part. I just don’t know how to help her. She just turned nine.”
• “Two of my kids are having long-hauler symptoms. They are eleven and eight and they both have hypoglycemia issues now and they are tired all the time. They seem pale to me. My eight year old told me today that the back of his neck and shoulders hurt and he sometimes feels a sharp pain run through his brain. My heart breaks because I have had long-hauler symptoms too and I know how he feels and I don’t want him to feel anything like it.”
• “My daughter has lost thirty pounds, she has heart problems, she has joint swelling and pain, she spends four hours a week at therapy, she has weird infections, she fights fatigue daily, she has brain fog. I just found out yesterday that she has a weak heart with a constant rapid heart rate. She just hasn’t been the same.”
• “My kiddo couldn’t believe all the little kids going to school this morning. She started crying for them. She doesn’t understand why the kids are going to school when they can end up like her. I wonder how many kids are like ours? Not much mention of them. All you ever hear is [covid is] not that bad for kids.”

A recent New York Times article profiled a 12-year-old girl who fell ill with COVID-19 in March and still has symptoms. She describes having chest pain, fatigue, dizziness and difficulty concentrating. While she now attends some in-person classes at school, she is unable to walk her usual 15-block commute and still doesn’t have the energy for once-loved extracurriculars. The same article tells the story of a 19-year-old former collegiate track and cross country runner who still has severe respiratory symptoms, and a 14-year-old girl, struggling with severe fatigue, who told the New York Times, “The future is not looking too bright for me personally.”

The concept of viral infections inducing chronic or post-viral illness is not new. Previous studies of illnesses like SARS and Epstein-Barr show long recovery periods that sometimes turn into life-long chronic medical conditions. While it is too early to tell exactly what long-haulers are suffering from, some physicians agree that the clinical course appears to mirror conditions like Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS).

POTS is a dysregulation in the body’s ability to coordinate the act of blood vessel squeeze and heart rate response. As a result, blood pressure cannot be kept stable and the heart compensates, often beating quickly in an effort to raise blood pressure, especially during position changes. This can be a chronic condition, with varying levels of severity, the worst of which leaves people reliant on wheelchairs.

ME/CFS is a disabling and complex illness that requires much more research. It appears to affect all body systems and is life-altering, confining many to bed for months to years. There is no known cure and symptoms are vast and varied, and include fatigue, brain fog (forgetfulness, difficulty concentrating, difficulty word finding) and chronic pain.

Both conditions, especially ME/CFS, are frequently written off as psychological conditions. Patients are sent home with prescriptions for anti-anxiety medication and told it is all in their heads. Those who seek second opinions or repeat medical visits are chastised or labeled as drug-seeking. Many in the chronic illness community refer to this dismissiveness from medical professionals as “medical gaslighting” and studies show it can cause trauma or even medical PTSD in some patients. Medical gaslighting is also a common experience among long-haulers.

The stories of families and children dealing with continued COVID-19 symptoms is even more heartbreaking in the context of new data released by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The October 19 report revealed two particularly crucial pieces of data that run contrary to the lies peddled by the mainstream media and government officials that COVID-19 is not harmful for children.

Results from the report show that children represent approximately 10.9 percent of all COVID-19 cases, a figure that encompasses a total number of 741,000 recorded positive test results since January. This result is derived from data from 49 states as well as New York City, Washington D.C., Guam and Puerto Rico. Results also show that from October 1 to October 15 there were 84,319 new child cases reported, a figure which represents a 13 percent increase in child cases over two weeks.

Limitations in this data collection included differing definitions of “child” in each state ranging from 0-14 to 0-20 years. In addition, there is no universal, national format or metrics for reporting COVID-19 cases, so this differs substantially by state. Lack of sufficient testing, especially in the beginning of the pandemic, also warps the data and leads to underestimates of infections.

The American Academy of Pediatrics data continue to show low mortality rates in children. According to this report, 120 children have died from COVID-19. However, COVID-19 deaths across all ages are likely underreported.

Any death or any child saddled with chronic illness is unacceptable. Both are tragedies that could have been avoided with online learning, adequate personal protective equipment for teachers, longer shutdowns and a rational, science-based approach to school reopenings.

The drive to reopen schools is part of a global campaign by the ruling elite—both Republican and Democrat—who are intent on reopening schools and accelerating the spread of the pandemic in the name of “herd immunity.” The Democratic Party and its backers in the teachers unions are in full agreement with the campaign to reopen schools. Their only difference with the Trump administration is that, instead of using blunt force, they advance the fraudulent claim that reopening schools can be done “safely,” with cosmetic safety measures.

France recalls ambassador to Turkey over Turkish criticisms of law on Islam

Alex Lantier

Yesterday, the French Foreign Ministry announced that French Ambassador to Turkey Hervé Magro will be recalled to Paris for consultations, over Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s criticisms of French President Emmanuel Macron.

This exchange between two NATO member states points to the tensions tearing apart the trans-Atlantic alliance. The recalling of an ambassador is the most serious diplomatic gesture taken between states short of a complete breakdown of diplomatic relations and war. It comes as French and Turkish forces wage proxy wars against each other in a broad arc of conflicts from Libya to the eastern Mediterranean, Syria, and the Armenian-Azeri war in the Caucasus.

Erdoğan criticized Macron’s planned “anti-separatist law,” the far-right proposal of Prime Minister Jean Castex’s new government, which would set up state control over Islam in France and impose oaths of loyalty to the state on political and social organizations. The draconian law would trample upon France’s 1905 secularism law, which forbids state interference in religious life. Amid an explosive resurgence of COVID-19 in France, officials are stirring up anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic hatred, denouncing halal and kosher foods in supermarkets.

Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (left) and French President Emmanuel Macron, in Berlin, Germany January 20, 2020 (AP Photo/Michael Sohn, File)

Amid public debate over this reactionary legislation, a young Chechen Islamist brutally murdered a schoolteacher, Samuel Paty, in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine for showing obscene caricatures of the prophet Mohamed to a class to discuss freedom of expression.

As calls for boycotts of French goods spread from Kuwait, Qatar, and across the Muslim world, Erdoğan publicly criticized Macron. “What is the problem this individual called Macron has with Islam and with the Muslims?” Erdoğan asked during a speech in the central Turkish city of Kayseri on Saturday. “Macron needs mental treatment. … What else can be said to a head of state who does not understand freedom of belief and who behaves in this way to millions of people living in his country who are members of a different faith?”

Erdoğan also implied that Macron, who is bitterly unpopular for his anti-worker social policies and his “herd immunity” policies in the COVID-19 pandemic, would lose the 2022 elections. He said, “You are constantly picking on Erdoğan. This will not earn you anything. There will be. … We will see your fate.” Speaking of Macron, Erdoğan added, “I don’t think he has a long way to go. Why? He has not achieved anything for France, and he should do for himself.”

On Twitter, Turkish government spokesman Fahrettin Altun also criticized the Macron administration’s “anti-separatist” law, writing: “This is about intimidating Muslims and reminding them that they are welcome to continue to make Europe’s economy work, but that they will never be a part of it.” Altun added that this policy is “eerily familiar,” noting that it recalls “the demonizing of European Jews in the 1920s.”

French officials immediately declared that these statements could not be tolerated and would provoke a harsh response. “President Erdogan’s comments are unacceptable. Outrage and insult are not a method,” staff of the Elysée presidential palace told AFP.

Yesterday, the French Foreign Ministry published a communiqué claiming: “In the absence of any official token of condemnation or solidarity from the Turkish authorities after the terrorist attack in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine, now come hateful and slanderous propaganda against France in recent days, expressing a will to stir hatred against us and in our midst, as well as direct insults against the President of the French Republic, expressed from the highest level of the Turkish State. This conduct is unacceptable, especially from an allied nation. The French Ambassador to Turkey has been recalled and is returning to France this Sunday 25 October 2020 for consultations.”

France’s Junior Minister for European Affairs Clément Beaune also denounced Ankara. “It is very serious so we are responding with a very serious gesture, we are recalling our ambassador for consultations. This is very rare,” Beaune said. He attacked Turkey’s “provocative, aggressive, offensive political strategy” against French-backed forces: Greece in the eastern Mediterranean gas conflict, the Libyan National Army in the Libyan civil war, Kurdish nationalist militias in Syria, and Armenia. He pledged to deploy more French warships to waters off Turkey’s coast.

Again asserting that Turkey had made “no official reaction” to the Conflans-Sainte-Honorine murder, Beaune all but blamed Ankara for the killing. “We believe that Mr. Erdoğan represented a moderate form of political Islam. But there is no such thing as political Islam with a human face.” He said that the European Union might adopt stricter economic sanctions to strangle Turkey’s economy.

In fact, the accusations of the French Foreign Ministry and of Beaune against Turkey were false. Astonishingly, in their haste to recall their ambassador, none of the French officials noticed that Turkish officials had in fact officially condemned Paty’s murder.

On October 17, the day after the killing, Turkish Ambassador to France Ismail Hakki Musa tweeted in French: “I’m horrified by the appalling murder of a teacher in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine. Nothing can justify this. My condolences to his family.” The Turkish Foreign Ministry issued a statement recalling this yesterday and stressing again that it was “saddened by the murder of Samuel Paty.”

For now, however, it appears that Macron will nevertheless follow through and recall Magro from Ankara to Paris for consultations.

Macron’s decision to withdraw France’s ambassador, effectively threatening to cut off diplomatic relations, and work to encircle Turkey militarily is a reactionary provocation. After three decades of imperialist war since the Stalinist bureaucracy’s dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the entire Mediterranean-Middle East-Central Asian region is a powder keg. The region has teetered on the brink of all-out war throughout 2020, and these conflicts are now intersecting with toxic internal conflicts in Europe bound up with the bourgeoisie’s “herd immunity policy” on COVID-19.

Amid a rapid resurgence in Europe of the pandemic, with France logging over 52,000 cases yesterday, Macron is doubling down on nationalist appeals to anti-Muslim, law-and-order hysteria. While Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin has stressed his respect for neo-fascist presidential candidate Marine Le Pen and calling for banning Muslim community organizations, he is leading denunciations of kosher and halal foods taken straight from the political arsenal of the far right.

Erdoğan’s populist posturing as a defender of Muslims is undoubtedly hypocritical. The Turkish bourgeoisie is in fact an accomplice in the imperialist plunder of the Middle East, having supported NATO proxy wars waged by CIA-backed Islamist militias in both Libya and Syria, and provided its territory as a NATO base for military operations across the region. Its policies on the COVID-19 pandemic have also been disastrous. However, French officials’ attacks on Erdoğan’s statements are false and have dangerous implications for democratic rights.

Millions in France are appalled by Macron’s disastrous handling of the pandemic, his savage police repression of workers protests, and unabashed appeals to political racism and neo-fascism from top administration officials. Macron himself is perhaps France’s most widely hated president. Yet a press campaign is unfolding, denouncing all criticism of Macron’s law as “Islamo-leftism,” effectively equating opposition to Macron with support for terrorism.

The way forward is a rejection of attempts to divide the working class with appeals to religious and ethnic hatreds, and the unification of the working class and youth in struggle against imperialist wars, “herd immunity” policies and far-right attacks on democratic rights.

White House makes clear, “We’re not going to control the pandemic”

Benjamin Mateus

In an interview with CNN’s “State of the Union” talk show, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows made clear that the Trump Administration has abandoned any efforts to contain the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We’re not going to control the pandemic,” Meadows said, instead claiming, “We are going to control the fact that we get vaccines, therapeutics, and other mitigation areas.”

Meadows’ statement is the most explicit declaration to date that the White House is implementing a policy of “herd immunity,” allowing the disease to spread unchecked throughout the population.

President Donald Trump speaks about the coronavirus in the Rose Garden of the White House, Wednesday, April 15, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Last week, two unnamed White House officials told the press on background that the Trump Administration supports the Great Barrington Declaration, which calls for the abandonment of efforts to contain the disease, including the prohibition of large crowds and other “superspreader” events.

But Meadows’ statement makes clear what this policy, cynically presented by its apologists as “protecting the elderly,” will be in practice: nothing will be done to stop the spread of the disease.

Instead, those who fall severely ill are to rely on therapeutics, which have proven only marginally effective, and vaccines, which do not exist. That is, they will simply be allowed to fall sick, and the elderly will be allowed to die.

After Meadows made these statements, CNN moderator Jake Tapper said, “We’re getting the hook from your team over there at the White House,” cutting the interview short. It can be surmised that Meadows, who did not seem to be fully in possession of himself, said too bluntly what the administration is actually doing.

Meadows’ admission corroborates the World Socialist Web Site’s analysis that the White House’s embrace of the Great Barrington Declaration amounts to support for what can only be construed as a policy of mass homicide. As we wrote last week, the White House “plans to allow additional hundreds of thousands of people to die amid a global resurgence of the pandemic caused by the premature abandonment of business closures and other efforts to contain the pandemic.”

These comments come amid a massive resurgence of the pandemic in the United States. On Friday and Saturday, the US recorded a record 81,417 and 79,453 cases respectively. All over the country, hospitals are once again filling up, as epidemiologists warn that hundreds of thousands more people will die this fall and winter. The United States has had 8.89 million cases of COVID-19 and over 230,000 deaths.

In chilling remarks on Friday, World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned, “We are at a critical juncture in this pandemic… Too many countries are seeing an exponential increase in cases, and that is now leading to hospitals and ICUs close to or above capacity, and we are still only in October.”

He continued, “We urge leaders to take immediate action to prevent further unnecessary deaths, essential health services from collapsing, and schools shutting again. As I said it in February and I am repeating it today, ‘this is not a drill.’”

A recent study published by Columbia University’s National Center for Disaster Preparedness attempted to look at the “staggering and disproportionate” number of COVID-19 fatalities in the United States to determine how many could have been avoided. Using comparative analysis, they estimated that “at least 130,000 deaths and perhaps as many as 210,000 could have been avoided with earlier policy interventions and more robust federal coordination and leadership.” Such a scale of deaths required an all-in government approach.

The number of hospitalizations in the United States has grown by more than 40 percent nationwide. At least 38 states have reported a rise in hospitalizations over the last week, which underscores the ludicrous argument that rising numbers are a byproduct of increased testing.

Dr. William Haseltine, a world-renowned infectious disease expert, speaking to the Daily Beast, offered sobering words, stating, “You should be prepared for how bad it’s going to get. We’re looking at easily an excess 100,000 infections a day and overwhelmed hospitals all over the country.”

The initial wave of the pandemic in the spring was centered essentially in the densely populated Northeast. In contrast, the second wave over the summer remained regional, affecting the Sunbelt states. More specifically, facilities like retirement homes, meatpacking plants, and prisons were hardest-hit. Presently, infections are being traced to family gatherings, schools and universities, religious services, cafes, bars, and athletic events across all urban settings.

Dr. Haseltine continued, “We’re not even near the peak. What we can hope for is that this will plateau at 100,000, and that enough people will get scared enough, and that enough hospitals will get overwhelmed that it convinces the American public to wear masks, social distance, and exercise caution.”

Government of Germany DAAD Scholarships 2021/2022

Application Deadline: 30th October 2020

Offered Annually? Yes

To Be Taken At (Country): Germany

Type: Short courses/Training, Masters

Eligibility: Foreign applicants who have gained a first university degree in the field of the Performing Arts at the latest by the time they commence their scholarship-supported study programme.

What can be funded?

In this study programme, you can complete

• a Master’s degree/postgraduate degree leading to a final qualification, or
• a complementary course that does not lead to a final qualification (not an undergraduate course)

at a state or state-recognised German university of your choice.
This programme only funds projects in the artistic field of the Performing Arts (Drama, Theatre Directing/Theatre Dramaturgy, Musicals, Performance Studies, Dance, Choreography). Other DAAD scholarship programmes are available for applicants from the fields of Theatre and Dance Studies or for artists with a scientific project.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:

• A monthly payment of 850 euros
• Travel allowance, unless these expenses are covered by the home country or another source of funding
• One-off study allowance
• Payments towards health, accident and personal liability insurance cover

Under certain circumstances, scholarship holders may receive the following additional benefits:

• Monthly rent subsidy
• Monthly allowance for accompanying members of family

To enable scholarship holders to learn German in preparation for their stay in the country, DAAD offers the following services:

• Payment of course fees for the online language course “Deutsch-Uni Online (DUO)” (deutsch-uni.com) for six months after receipt of the Scholarship Award Letter
• if necessary: Language course (2, 4 or 6 months) before the start of the study visit; the DAAD decides whether to fund participation and for how long depending on German language skills and project. Participation in a language course is compulsory if the language of instruction or working language is German at the German host institution.
• Allowance for a personally chosen German language course during the scholarship period
• Reimbursement of the fees for the TestDaF test which has either been taken in the home country after receipt of the Scholarship Award Letter or in Germany before the end of the funding period
• As an alternative to the TestDaF for scholarship holders who have taken a language course beforehand: the fee for a DSH examination taken during the scholarship period may be reimbursed.

Duration of Program: 

• Masters/Postgraduate study programmes: Between 10 and 24 months depending on the length of the chosen study programme or project
• Complementary studies not leading to a final qualification: One academic year

How to Apply: The application procedure occurs online through the DAAD portal. You are also required to send additional documents by post to the specified application address. 

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Why does Indian Nationalism Undermine South Asian Solidarity?

Manjima Misra

With a long collective history and geographical proximity, the goal of forming an integrated vision for South Asian countries seems like a natural outcome. The South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC), formed in 1985, was an ambitious move to fulfil the goal of South Asian solidarity. The aim of SAARC was to “strengthen cooperation among themselves to accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region.” While PM Narendra Modi of India claimed to pursue a neighbourhood first policy, the underlying nationalist ideology of his policies has meant a setback for a shared South Asian vision of development.

The Case of Bangladesh

Contrasts in views about national development amongst SAARC countries are sharper than ever before. International Monetary Fund (IMF) has recently predicted that the per capita GDP of Bangladesh will overtake that of India in 2020. This has led to some negative reaction in India. In comparison to the protectionism of nationalist economic policies of countries such as India which are now emphasizing on investing locally, Bangladesh’s outward orientation and export led model of growth has contributed to its economic development.

While India continues to perform poorly in human development indicators, Bangladesh model of development has been better for human development. In Bangladesh, there has been massive improvement in the health sector with significant decrease in infant, child and maternal mortality rates. There has also been growth in primary school enrolment. In contrast, life expectancy was higher in India in 1990 but after that it has rapidly decreased. “Bangladeshis currently have a life expectancy three years longer than a typical Indian or five years than a Pakistani.” If India instead of learning from the development models of other developing neighbouring countries, views them in solely competitive terms, it does damage to its own prospects.

On 29 September 2020, the sixth round of Bangladesh-India Foreign Ministers’ consultative meeting took place. Several issues were discussed such as the repatriation of displaced Rohingyas. Here, the sticking point is the contentious relationship between nationalism and human rights. India has recently adopted policies which beat the spirit of human rights- the equal dignity of all human beings. There have been conflicts in India’s relationship with Bangladesh due to its nationalist approach towards citizenship and migration. India’s implementation of National Register of Citizens (NRC) and Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAA), both of which are problematic for human rights, has led to discontent amongst Bangladeshis.

Border Disputes with Nepal

Indian Army Chief will be visiting Nepal in November 2020. However, the planned visit comes in the backdrop of a border dispute with Nepal.

One of the goals of SAARC is to contribute to mutual trust, understanding and appreciation of one another’s problems. However, a recent border dispute with Nepal went against this purpose by strengthening the “trust deficit” (a term used by Lok Raj Baral, former Nepali diplomat) between India and Nepal.

On 8th May 2020, India’s Defence Minister Rajnath Singh inaugurated the 80 km long strategically important Lipulekh road, which will serve as the shortest route between India’s capital New Delhi and Kailash-Mansarover- a popular Hindu pilgrimage site. The Defence Ministry said in support of the construction that now the travel to Kailash Mansarover would be very short. India’s Nationalist government has consistently tried to encash upon the religious devotion of the Hindu majority. A construction of a road with appeasement of  Hindu piligrims as one of its goals led to a strained relationship with Nepal. Appeasing the religious majority is one of the components of nationalism.

The ties between India and Nepal suffered a setback following the inauguration of the road connecting the Lipulekh pass with Dharchula in Uttarakhand. Nepal protested against the inauguration of the road by saying that it passed through its territory. Nepal came out with the new map which showed Lipulekh, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura as its territories.India too published a map showing the territories to be its own in November 2019.

Conclusion

India is losing ground with other South Asian countries such as Sri Lanka and Maldives as well. Sri Lanka and Maldives are increasingly coming under China’s influence and ever-deteriorating India-China ties makes it worse for Indian interests.

Foreign policy is influenced by the ideological underpinnings of the domestic politics. The ideological base of the ruling establishment of India needs to be rectified in order to develop better cooperation with its South Asian neighbours.

Limits of Puritanism

Bhabani Shankar Nayak

The principles and ideological commitments in politics, culture, religion and social practices breed culture of puritanism both in its progressive and regressive forms. The transformation of society to lead an exemplary life is the core in the politics of puritanism as a movement of divinity. Both right wing reactionaries and left-wing radicals use puritanism like applied theology to the concerns of their followers. The confident control of individual conscience and sanctification in the name of purity is central to this gradual and subtle process of puritan socialisation. Such puritan praxis shapes individual rights, liberties, duties and obligations for the society, state, community and family in different stages of history. The puritan provocations change with the change of time, place and public opinion but certain unchanging core doctrinal elements of puritanism continue to exist in spite of growth of science and technology. In the idea of purity of race, religion, gender, sexuality, caste, language, region and nationalism, the puritans use core doctrinal elements to appeal to public for its legitimacy. The purity and coherence between thoughts and actions are central to the core of puritanism, which individuals and communities tend to practice as daily discipline in matters of all forms of relationships and interactions. Puritanism as an ideological force has influenced religious, cultural, political, secular, liberal, conservative and radical trends in the society.

The religious, right wing and reactionary puritans have relied heavily on the idea of god and nationalism in their effort to exercise political authority, influence government policies and control the state by forming informal and voluntary associations with missionary spirit. It is the idea of god and religion that works as the core and heart of puritanism. Religions provide ideological foundation to puritanism as an ideology of conformism, which emphasised on ‘work is god and god is truth’ for salvation. Such a narrow puritan essence has helped to hinder working class abilities to embrace emancipatory ideals of their own consciousness from their own work and workplace. Further, the religious puritanism has destroyed the organic relationship between the ‘work’ and ‘worker’ by converting it into a contractual language of ‘‘Covenant of Works’’ and the ‘‘Covenant of Grace’’ in Christianity. The spiritual relationship between the ‘work’ and the ‘worker’ was further destroyed by asking for desire free work (Niskama Karma) in Hindu religion as outline in the Bhagavad Gita. All major world religions follow this pattern of theological arguments, which are adopted by puritanism and its advocates. Any deviation is regarded as sin; a path towards hell and blind following is sacred; a path towards heaven. In this process, the glorification of god, complete surrender to work, unquestionable truth and morality becomes the core of right-wing puritanism that helps to domesticate individual freedom, individual labour and community space in the service of power; rulers, industrialists and capitalists.

Similarly, the radical sectarians and democratic dissenters have also reconfigured puritanism as a revolutionary ideology of counter culture led by marginalised communities to transform existing social, political and economic order. The mechanical understanding of historical transformations and conceptualisation of revolutionary processes follow certain outdated and unchanging narratives like puritans. Class struggle as a revolutionary project need to get away from the orientation of puritanism. Class struggle often demands political and ideological manoeuvres within different contexts. It is an adultery of ideas, people and strategies to uphold working class values and interests. The revolutionary organisational structure, its mechanisms and style of functioning need to get away from everything that disciplines individuals and their creativity abilities. The idea of disciplining is the core of puritanism that drags revolutionary processes into the reactionary puritan path. The individuals find themselves in an environment of disorientation; be it in religious congregations or in revolutionary political projects. Puritanism provides simple and readymade answers to higher questions guided by puritan morality. In this way, puritanism and its frameworks create a theological understanding of human life and natural world.  Puritanism discourages individuals for scientific scrutiny and inquiry into existing knowledge and its advancement.

The re-emergence of religious puritanism and its right-wing avatars are product of this larger philosophical terrain, which is concomitant with capitalism and its hegemonic control over individuals and communities. The domesticated labour is a central requirement for the growth of capitalism. The religious puritanism can only create conformist and subservient individuals. Therefore, capitalism promotes authoritarian and religious right-wing force in politics and society to nourish conformist and domesticated individuals, who live with limited resources with unlimited manufactured desires. The gap between reality and desire is so vast that individuals fall in line to fulfil the gaps in their life. Puritanism itself is a desire that exploits such a situation of unnecessary emptiness created by the capitalist system to control individuals and communities.

Puritanism fortifies the spirit of capitalism and ensures the survival of unequal economic relationships based on social and religious morality. The religious foundations of puritanism shape everyday lives by controlling our choices and freedoms in the name of morality devoid of any substance and materiality. Puritanism as a movement, it has sanctified the ruling classes virtues as natural social and political order. The ideas of subordination, hierarchy, exploitations and inequalities are normalised within puritan frameworks of divine order. In this way, puritanism is a detrimental ideology, which is against progressive social and political transformations. It is within this context, it is important to reject all forms of puritan ideals to pave a clear path for scientific inquiry for the advancement of knowledge for social and political change.

UK COVID-19 deaths surge to more than 1,100 over last week

Robert Stevens

Friday’s death toll of 224 took COVID-19 fatalities in the UK over the last seven days past the grim milestone of 1,000, to 1,142.

The virus is spiraling out of control, with official figures showed 141,741 new cases over the same one-week period, with the rolling 7-day average for daily new cases eclipsing 20,000 for the first time.

The R (Reproduction) rate of the virus remains above 1 nationally, with an estimated daily growth rate range of 3 to 6 percent.

Large areas of the UK were placed under local lockdowns over the last 24 hours, including six million people placed under the highest tier restrictions. Despite the massive resurgence of the deadly disease, the government, which rules on behalf of big business, is yet to enforce a national lockdown comparable with that put in place from March 23—which saved hundreds of thousands of lives. It was the premature ending of the national lockdown from June onwards, and the opening of schools, colleges and workplaces to facilitate the profitmaking of big business, that produced this disastrous situation.

A member of the public passes the Nightingale Hospital North West in Manchester, England, Thursday Oct. 22, 2020, as strict coronavirus restrictions on England's second-largest urban area, Greater Manchester, will start at midnight. The temporary facility set up in a conference centre in the city to treat patients in the north west of England recovering from coronavirus is to reopen from next week, it has been confirmed. (AP Photo/Jon Super)

The “firebreak” lockdown announced by the Welsh government this week came into operation last night at 6 p.m., covering its population of 3.1 million. People in Wales are to stay indoors unless they need to travel for an essential reason. Non-essential retail is closed, and those shops that are open can only sell essential goods. Workers are to work from home wherever possible, with exceptions for essential workers. Pubs and restaurants will close, as will places of worship.

Yet these restrictions will only be in place for 17 days. Children from years 9-13 cannot attend school but pupils in years 7 and 8 are allowed to return after the half-term break. Those who are taking exams can also attend, as can children who attend special schools or pupil referral units.

Scottish National Party First Minister Nicola Sturgeon announced a five-level system for restricting movements and limiting physical contact. The highest level of the five entails more restrictions than the highest of England’s three tiers already in place.

Greater Manchester, in the north of England, was moved from Tier 2 “high” restrictions to Tier 3 “very high” by central government. The move, covering a population of nearly 3 million people, was imposed after local Labour Party mayor Andy Burnham was unable to reach a deal with Prime Minister Boris Johnson over the financial support available to local business.

The county of South Yorkshire in England, with a population of over 1.4 million and including the cities of Sheffield, Rotherham, Barnsley and Doncaster, was also placed in Tier 3. The cities of Coventry and Stoke and the town of Slough enter Tier 2 today. These moves are an indication of catastrophe that is being allowed to unfold.

Hospitals are already being overwhelmed, with ICU units full in several areas. The government announced that 997 COVID-19 patients were admitted to hospitals in England on Wednesday, well above the 706 a week earlier. A total of 6,518 COVID-19 patients were in hospital in England yesterday, up from 4,647 a week ago. The number of people requiring ventilation is surging, with 601 in ventilation beds, up from 482 a week ago.

Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust said Friday that the increase in COVID-19 hospitalisations is "similar to April". More than 200 of their patients have tested positive for coronavirus, and 16 are in a critical condition. The Guardian reported that the trust said "a full ward of people" were being admitted daily with coronavirus infections and that an average of seven people were on mechanical ventilation a day. The Trust has been forced to postpone some non-urgent operations.

In Liverpool, in northwest England, it was reported Thursday that the city’s three main hospitals—Royal, Aintree and Broadgreen—were treating 398 COVID-19 patients, compared with 390 during the height of the pandemic in April.

The scale of cases in the northwest mean the first of the government’s emergency Nightingale field hospitals, on standby for months, will reopen next week in Manchester.

Two MPs contracted COVID-19 this week. On Friday, Bolton Labour Party MP Yasmin Qureshi was discharged from hospital where she was treated for pneumonia after testing positive for COVID-19. At the same time, it was announced that Conservative MP for Rushcliffe, Ruth Edwards, was infected.

Such is the dysfunctionality of the UK’s test, track and trace system that the real number of cases is likely to be much higher than the total officially recorded each day.

Just over a month ago, Chief Scientific Officer Sir Patrick Vallance announced at a Downing Street press conference that without further action and at the then current rate of infection, “you would end up with something like 50,000 cases in the middle of October per day”. He warned, “Fifty-thousand cases per day would be expected to lead a month later, so the middle of November say, to 200-plus deaths per day.”

As this week’s fatalities reveal, the 200 deaths a day is already a reality weeks ahead of Vallance’s grim prediction. And Vallance revealed yesterday that the prediction of 50,000 cases a day could have already also been massively eclipsed.

Vallance showed a slide dated two days previous from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) sub-group, the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling (SPI-M). He said: "The modelling consensus suggests that between 53,000 and 90,000 new infections per day may be occurring… The number of infections overall across the country continues to increase.”

He warned “It’s worth remembering the number of infections leads to hospitalisations a week or two later and that in turn has the effect of increasing intensive care unit numbers and of course, unfortunately, the number of people who die as a result of that.”

The explosion of COVID-19 infections and deaths exposes as a total failure the government’s ineffectual “rule of six” restriction on socialising and policy of localised lockdowns, which have done nothing to arrest the spread of the disease.

This week, after coming under relentless pressure from business figures, Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced a new £3 billion-a-month business bailout scheme for companies in local lockdown areas. This amounts to offering businesses in Tier Two areas a paltry maximum of £2,100 per month—which in many cases will only pay the salary of one or two workers.

Speaking alongside Vallance at Thursday’s press conference, Johnson declared, “I want to thank Rishi for measures that will protect people’s livelihoods and protect jobs and which will help us to deliver our overwhelming objective of getting the virus under control while keeping pupils in education and keeping the UK economy moving forward. I know that there are some people who will say that this economic objective is so important that we should stop all measures to control the virus and stop restrictions of any kind on our social lives or on the way we run our businesses.

“We can’t do that because alas the maths is inescapable. We would face many thousands more deaths … So that’s why we reject that extreme laissez-faire approach.”

This is a pack of lies. Johnson’s government is responsible for well over 60,000 deaths, after declaring it was pursuing a herd immunity policy at the outset of the pandemic, before a public backlash forced it to impose March’s lockdown. Despite Johnson’s claims to the contrary, his “keeping pupils in education and keeping the UK economy moving forward” will result in thousands more deaths.

Among the main vectors for spreading coronavirus are schools and universities. The infection rate in secondary schools is now 17 times higher than on September 1, when they reopened. According to the Tory Fibs Twitter account, which is collating the figures, the total number of schools where an infection or multiple infections have occurred now stands at more than 6,000.

Almost all universities have reported infections, with the UniCovid website reporting cases at 116 higher education institutions. It reported, “As at 6pm 22 October 2020, our data puts the number of confirmed cases for students at 25,530, for staff 523, in total 26,053.”

Spain’s “left populist” Podemos separates migrant children from their parents

Alejandro López

Spain’s Socialist Party (PSOE)-Podemos government is implementing the barbaric policy of separating migrant mothers from their children.

Earlier this week, Cadena Ser radio and Eldiario.es reported that a dozen children in the Canary Islands had been separated from their mothers or relatives for months while DNA testing was carried out to verify they were related. The decision was made by the prosecutor of Las Palmas.

Yaiza Martín, a worker at Misión Cristiana Moderna, an evangelical church in Fuerteventura that has acted as an improvised reception centre of migrants to the Canary Islands, explained to the news agency EFE that she has heard cries and pleas from mothers for over two months. The mothers were separated from their children, some two and three years old.

Pablo Iglesias (right), Secretary-General of Podemos. (Image Credit: PODEMOS/Youtube)

Martín explained: “When they arrive at the port, the children are sent to juvenile centres, and the adults are sent to a warehouse on the dock (where they do the PCR and filiation tests); then to another ship to pass the COVID-19 quarantine and then to the shelter, but the children are not returned until the DNA tests are completed, which usually takes between three and four months.” For the mothers, she added, “this as a terrible thing, because they don’t know who to turn to.”

The PSOE-Podemos government-appointed State Attorney General’s Office has defended Las Palmas Prosecutor’s Office instructions to separate the minors, claiming that it aims to stop human trafficking. According to the attorney general’s statement, since 2019 they have found “alarming number of cases” of minors disappearing together with those who claimed to be their mothers.

These disappearances occurred before receiving the results of the DNA tests. In an inhumane and bizarre argument, the state attorney general asserts that this is proof, not of the brutality of the detention centres where migrants are locked up, but that there was no biological link between them. The statement claims the criterion is of “temporary nature,” although it recognizes that the notification of test results suffers “long delays.”

This policy, however, has nothing to do with stopping human trafficking. The tests, which recall the medical measures employed by fascist regimes against Jews and other “undesirables,” aim to terrorize migrants to stop them from undertaking the dangerous journey to Spain via boat. According to the Interior Ministry, more than 8,000 migrants have reached the Canary Islands from Africa by sea so far this year, compared with just 1,000 in the same period of 2019.

Data shows that there are very few cases in which tests reveal that the adult does not have the relationship that they claim to have with the minor. According to provisional data from 2019, provided by the General Immigration and Borders Commission to the Ombudsman, 416 minors were located who, accompanied by adults, tried to reach Spain irregularly by boat. That year, 651 DNA tests were carried out to prove the parentage link, of which 39 were negative and 38 were pending.

Even the negative test results must, however, be interpreted carefully. As many NGOs have pointed out, bonds between migrant adults and children aren’t always biological.

DNA tests on minors began in 2013 after a recommendation from the Ombudsman warning of risks such as trafficking, illegal adoptions or even trafficking of organs. It should be noted that if such risks exist, this is due to the brutality of the European Union’s anti-migrant policy. Based on police repression, it consigns refugees to a vast network of concentration camps spreading from Turkey, the Greek Islands, Northern Africa and Spain’s African enclaves in Ceuta and Melilla, and the Canary Islands.

However, even the recommendation of the ombudsman did not include separating children from parents. Instead, it called for authorities to closely monitor the adult’s bond with the minor while they waited together in these detention centres.

It was the PSOE-Podemos government which adopted this brutal policy, notoriously implemented by America’s fascistic president, Donald Trump.

In 2018, the US government started separating parents from minors, and it currently holds thousands of children behind bars. The assault on migrants in the United States enjoys bipartisan support. Indeed, during last Thursday’s presidential debate, Trump asked Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, “who put the kids in cages, Joe?” This was a reference to the record deportation of 2.7 million immigrants and the hundreds of thousands of parents torn from their children under the Obama administration.

While in the US it has been the Democratic Party that has laid the basis for Trump’s anti-migrant policy, in Spain it has been traditionally the social democratic PSOE, supported by the Stalinists and Left Populists, which have led the way in implementing brutal anti-migrant policies.

In the 1990s, in the aftermath of the Stalinist regime’s dissolution of the Soviet Union, the PSOE launched drastic attacks on migrants. These measures included fortified frontiers, increasing police repression, militarised borders and razor-wire fences. Spain was the first attempt to externalize border control—in Spain’s case, to Morocco. This was later expanded to Turkey and Libya.

This policy has continued to this day. The PSOE-Podemos government has lobbied the EU to continue to fund Morocco to the tune of billions of euros in exchange for terrorising migrants in the country before they try to enter Europe through Spain’s North African enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla and by boat across the Mediterranean. This has led to the deaths of thousands at sea, while in Spain migrants have been attacked and even died due to police brutality.

The PSOE-Podemos government also continued the notorious summary expulsions, or “hot returns,” by directly deporting individuals who do manage to cross without conducting any credible trial, trampling on the right to asylum. Earlier this year, the government also sent 111 police officers to support Greece’s conservative New Democracy government in its savage crackdown on migrants.

Spanish police are well versed in these practices. In 2014, Civil Guards tried to repel migrants trying to cross the border at Ceuta, by swimming around the Tarajal seawall, by shooting the swimming migrants with rubber bullets and tear gas. Fifteen died. The PSOE-Podemos-nominated state attorney defended the Civil Guards, stating that they were facing a “violent avalanche.”

The ruthlessness with which the social democrats and Left Populists are violating elementary fundamental rights and the lives of refugees and migrants must be taken as a warning. They are demonstrating the same ruthlessness towards human life in the coronavirus pandemic, where they deliberately accept the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people by reopening schools and forcing workers back to nonessential activities.

Faced with the deepest crisis of capitalism since the 1930s, the ruling class everywhere is turning to violent police-state measures. The immigration policies of the “left populists”—whether Greece’s Syriza and its concentration camps for migrants in the Greek islands, or Podemos-backed separation of children and parents—could have easily been written by fascistic parties like Vox.

The working class must unconditionally defend all refugees and migrants and their fundamental right to asylum, and to live and work wherever they want, as an essential element of the defence of the social and democratic rights of the entire working class.

Thai protesters demand the resignation of the prime minister

Ben McGrath

Students and youth in Thailand continue to press for the government to meet their demands amid a highly volatile situation. After attempting to use police force last week to shut down large-scale demonstrations, the administration of Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha is now working to shut down the protest movement via parliament. The danger of a violent crackdown remains.

Protesters occupy a main road as they gather at a junction in Bangkok, Thailand, October 15, 2020 [Credit: AP Photo/Sakchai Lalit]

During another mass demonstration and march to Government House on Wednesday, Prayuth delivered a television address, stating, “I will make the first move to deescalate this situation. I am currently preparing to lift the state of severe emergency in Bangkok and will do so promptly if there are no violent incidents.” He called on the protesters to resolve the political issues through parliament—in other words for students and youth to place their faith in opposition parties.

The government lifted the state of emergency yesterday. It had banned public gatherings of five people or more and enabled the government to carry out broad censorship of anything deemed to “affect national security” or “spread fear.” Under the decree, Bangkok targeted four media outlets: VoiceTV, Prachatai.com, “The Reporters,” and the Standard .

VoiceTV was ordered to close on Tuesday, but a court reversed the decision the next day. It is partly owned by the family of former Prime Ministers Thaksin Shinawatra and his sister Yingluck. Both were ousted in military coups, with the latter removed in 2014 and replaced by a military junta led by Prayuth.

Protest leaders, however, are continuing to demand the resignation of Prayuth and his government and the release of protesters who have been arrested over the past two weeks. “He’s still seeking to stay in power while ignoring all the people’s demands. The emergency decree shouldn’t have been issued in the first place,” said protest leader Sirawith Seritiwat. Thursday was the first day since October 14 without major demonstrations but protest organisers warned that the rallies will continue on Sunday if their demands are not met.

In July, the protest movement put forward three core demands: Prayuth’s resignation, the writing of a new constitution, and the end to persecution of government critics. In August, protesters also put forward ten demands to reform the monarchy, which include the abolition of the draconian lèse-majesté law, transparency regarding the king’s finances, and an end to government propaganda involving the king.

Prayuth recalled parliament on Monday from a recess and will discuss the protests during sessions next week. The prime minister clearly hopes that the main opposition parties—Pheu Thai and the Move Forward Party (MFP), which has some support among students and youth—will be able to use their influence to put an end to the demonstrations.

Students, youth, and workers genuinely motivated by democratic rights should place no faith in these parties. The Pheu Thai Party is connected to former Prime Minister Thaksin and is the successor of his Thai Rak Thai Party. Thaksin, a billionaire, was ousted in a 2006 coup after his policies cut across the business interests of the Bangkok elite including by opening the economy to increased foreign investment.

Pheu Thai has attempted to divert the protests behind the courts—another wing of the government—by filing a lawsuit in the Bangkok Civil Court against the state of emergency. Pheu Thai legislator Cholanan Srikaew criticized Prayuth for lifting the state of emergency at this point: “He’s really doing it to protect himself. Why? Because if he didn’t lift the emergency decree today, and the court ordered the temporary protection of the protesters, it would mean all his orders and announcement relating to this were illegal.”

The smaller Move Forward (MFP) is oriented to middle class layers in Thailand dissatisfied with the role of the military and the monarchy in business. While issuing mild, left-sounding criticisms of the current system, the MFP and its de facto predecessor the Future Forward Party (FFP) are pro-capitalist. The MFP was founded in 2014, undergoing a number of name changes since then. When the FFP was dissolved in February, the majority of its members of parliament moved to the MFP.

The leader of the defunct FFP, Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, has criticized monopoly capitalism in Thailand from the standpoint that only a small layer of the ruling elite controls the economy. He stated at the FFP’s launch in 2018 that he wanted to open the economy to other layers of business. He has added vague promises about making the economy work for the benefit of the majority. He is not an opponent of capitalism but represents a segment of the ruling class demanding greater access to wealth.

Before being disqualified as a member of parliament earlier this year, Thanathorn was the wealthiest person in the legislature, reporting assets last year worth 5.6 billion baht ($US180 million). From 2002 to 2018, he served in a leading role in the Thai Summit Group, which was founded by his father and is the largest auto parts manufacturer in the country.

Thanathorn has remained an influential figure despite being barred from politics after the government accused him of violating election laws. He has appealed to Washington for support and offered his party as a more reliable ally against China than the current Prayuth government.

Current MFP leader and wealthy businessman, Pita Limjaroenrat, has also criticized Prayuth’s government. While with the FFP in February, he stated, “Only one percent has enjoyed stability, prosperity and sustainability. This is the economy of the capitalists, by the capitalists, for the capitalists.” While the latter statement is true, Pita’s reference to the “one percent” is in fact a call for a greater dispersal of wealth within the bourgeoisie. His uncle served as a close aide to former Prime Minister Thaksin.

The attacks on democratic rights in Thailand are not solely the result of the Prayuth government or the monarchy. They ultimately stem from capitalism, which Pheu Thai and the MFP support. While in power, Thaksin sought to intimidate and silence critics and waged a ruthless “war on drugs” involving thousands of extra-judicial murders of alleged drug runners.

The fight for democratic rights is completely bound up with the struggle against capitalism and all factions of the ruling class. Students and youth should turn to the working class in Thailand and throughout the region by raising demands for improvements to social and economic conditions as part of the fight for socialism internationally.