Middlesex University Research Repository An open access repository of Middlesex University research http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk Samarasinghe, Nimesh (2017) Drug policy-making in Sri Lanka 1984-2008: people, politics and power. PhD thesis, Middlesex University. [Thesis] Final accepted version (with author’s formatting) This version is available at: https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/21500/ Copyright: Middlesex University Research Repository makes the University’s research available electronically. Copyright and moral rights to this work are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners unless otherwise stated. The work is supplied on the understanding that any use for commercial gain is strictly forbidden. A copy may be downloaded for personal, non-commercial, research or study without prior permission and without charge. Works, including theses and research projects, may not be reproduced in any format or medium, or extensive quotations taken from them, or their content changed in any way, without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). They may not be sold or exploited commercially in any format or medium without the prior written permission of the copyright holder(s). Full bibliographic details must be given when referring to, or quoting from full items including the author’s name, the title of the work, publication details where relevant (place, publisher, date), pag- ination, and for theses or dissertations the awarding institution, the degree type awarded, and the date of the award. If you believe that any material held in the repository infringes copyright law, please contact the Repository Team at Middlesex University via the following email address: [email protected] The item will be removed from the repository while any claim is being investigated. See also repository copyright: re-use policy: http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/policies.html#copy Drug policy-making in Sri Lanka 1984-2008: people, politics and power A Thesis submitted to Middlesex University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Nimesh Samarasinghe School of Health and Education Middlesex University March 2017 Author’s declaration I hereby declare that this thesis entitled ‘Drug policy-making in Sri Lanka: people, politics and power’ represents the results of my own work except where specified in the thesis. ………………………….. Nimesh Samarasinghe March 2017 ii Abstract. Policy analysis has not been a part of mainstream Sri Lankan research or academic tradition, and hence there exists a lack of research on policy studies in Sri Lanka. Given also a paucity of research on illicit drug use and contemporary drug policy, this research study generated and analysed a body of evidence about the response to drug misuse and its related policies in Sri Lanka between 1984 and 2008. As the subject of drug policy can be viewed through a variety of perspectives, this thesis adopted a multi-disciplinary approach. It drew on ideas, theories, concepts and research from a variety of social science disciplines such as sociology, political science, international relations, public administration and social policy and included an historical approach to understanding policy development. The study provides an informed narrative describing the rationale for the development of Sri Lanka’s drug policies, their course and outcome and the roles of the various actors, institutions, organisations and interest groups already established, or which came into existence to respond to drug misuse. This shows how, and why, particular policies are shaped and influenced by the actors, institutions and organisations, and by particular discourses. The conceptual foundations for this study were epistemic community theory, stakeholder analysis and policy transfer theory; and the thesis will seek to explain policy in changing contexts. Semi-structured key informant interviews and documentary analysis were the main research methods employed. The analysis revealed that external influences, stakeholder dynamics, consensus in policy approaches, and moral frameworks have combined to sustain a criminal justice model to the management of drug problems and to ward off attempts to introduce a system with a stronger focus on treatment and public health. This study demonstrates that the interests of stakeholders and their relative power significantly influenced the legitimisation of consensual knowledge diffused by epistemic communities which underpinned policy outcomes. iii Acknowledgements. There are many people whom I would like to thank for their support and encouragement in completing this study. First, I would like to thank Dr. Christine Franey at Imperial College London for mooting the idea and stimulating my interest in embarking on a journey towards starting a Ph.D and in helping me find the most appropriate supervisors for this project. I am grateful to my supervisors: Prof. Betsy Thom, Prof. Karen Duke and Dr. Jenni Ward for their support and guidance throughout this project. This thesis would have not been completed without their support. I must thank Prof. Betsy Thom in particular who has a lovely way of empowering and at times nudging me to complete this project, especially during a difficult transition when I moved away from the UK for work, in the middle of the Ph.D write-up stage. I would also like to thank my friend Bridget Kilpatrick, who in her retirement took the time to help me from Scotland with proof reading this thesis. The various library staff at Middlesex University, the National Dangerous Drug Control Board and the Parliament of Sri Lanka have also been extremely helpful in finding the resources and for that, I thank all of them. I am also thankful to all the anonymous interviewees who took the time to sit down with me and provide valuable insights on the drug problem and helped in the identification and access to documents and further interviewees. Undoubtedly, they form the crux of the empirical data of this thesis. There are many friends from near and far who encouraged me to finish this project, thank you. Last but not least, if not for the care, unwavering support and encouragement of my wife, Shirini, and my daughter, Miheli, and of course my parents Lal and Hirmalie, and my uncle, Hashendra, this and many other undertakings could have not been possible. iv List of abbreviations. ADIC: Alcohol and Dug Information Centre AG: Attorney General AIDS: Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome CMO: Comprehensive Multidisciplinary Outline CND: Commission on Narcotic Drugs CPDAP: Colombo Plan Drug Advisory Programme EMCDDA: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction EU: European Union FONGOADA: Federation of Non-Government Organisations Against Drug Abuse GSP: Generalised Scheme of Preferences HIV: Human Immunodeficiency Virus INCB: International Narcotics Control Board IOGT: International Organisation of Good Templers JHU: Jathika Hela Urumaya LTTE: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam NATA: National Authority on Tobacco and Alcohol NDDCB: National Dangerous Drug Control Board NGO: Non-Governmental Organisation NNAC: National Narcotic Advisory Committee PNB: Police Narcotics Bureau SAARC: South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation SLAS: Sri Lanka Administrative Service SLFP: Sri Lanka Freedom Party v TB: Tuberculosis UK: United Kingdom UN: United Nations UNCND: United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs UNDCP: United Nations Drug Control Programme UNODC: United Nations Office for Drug Control UNP: United National Party UPFA: United People’s Freedom Alliance USA: United States of America WHO: World Health Organisation vi Contents Contents ......................................................................................................... vii Chapter One ..................................................................................................... 1 Introduction. ................................................................................................... 1 Aim of the Thesis. .......................................................................................... 2 The Development of Drug Policies During the Period 1984-2008. ................. 3 The Policy Background. ................................................................................. 5 Summary of Initiatives. ................................................................................... 7 Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of Drug Policy. .............................. 10 Research Methodology. ............................................................................... 12 The Structure of the Thesis. ......................................................................... 15 Chapter Two: Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of Drug Policy. ... 19 Introduction. ................................................................................................. 19 Epistemic Communities and the Role of Knowledge Experts. ...................... 19 Epistemic Communities- a critical appraisal. ............................................. 21 Conducting an Epistemic Analysis. ........................................................... 23 Stakeholder Analysis. ................................................................................... 25 Stakeholders and Power Relations. .......................................................... 27 Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis. ......................................................... 29 Policy Transfer- a critical appraisal. ............................................................