US Election; What happened?

America has decided. It is Donald Trump to rule the United States of America for the next 4 years. The presidential election has turned into something we have never seen before in US history. The result caught most of the people off-guard. Roots of a deeply divided and insecure society emerge beneath the tolerant and progressive ‘super-democracy’ which everyone expects the USA to be. Are people being delusional or have they forgotten to understand the underlying forces of human nature when they are at crossroads.   

The main factor

As there are many reasons why Donald Trump has won by a significant margin, in my opinion, the main factor should be that Trump being able to address the insecurities in the minds of the majority of American People, the white, middle and working-class ordinary Americans. The insecurities being threefold; national security being compromised, collapsing economy and employment related issues and finally the shattering of the so-called ‘American way of life’. The latter can be described as a shift in demography, cultural norms, and national values. Even though some of these issues are prevailing and pose an immediate threat, the others have little to no real effects. For example, issues such as demographic shifts and cultural norms being undervalued have no immediate effects to the USA as immigration has in Europe.

Trump has triumphantly exploited those insecurities of the majority. The analysis of the opinion polls has suggested that while the Asian, Hispanic and African Americans have loathed Trump, the majority of white Americans vouched for him. Trump appealed for the working class, to secure their employment. He also appealed for the general public to strengthen the national security and stopping the adverse effects of immigration. The means of doing that was outrageous and sometimes dangerous and hilarious and terrifying at the same time. The border wall to keep the Mexicans out of USA and banning immigration from certain countries categorized by him as ‘Muslim’ are few of his ‘brilliant’ solutions to the above problems. There are some progressive factors like tax reforms and infrastructure development and creating job opportunities. However, his election campaign is dominated by ISIS, Mexico, and Iran, the things which ordinary American fears and being insecure about.

American election has many similarities to the Brexit vote held in June this year. Both had the similar characteristic of the belligerents are the same. Both have similar issues such as national security, weakening the national economy and immigration and the outcome and winners have the similar qualities. Not to mention the ‘bromance’ between Trump and the alleged winner of the Brexit, Nigel Farage which made Farage openly supporting Trump; by even speaking at a Trump rally.

The outcomes of Brexit and US Election have made two realizations; one is that even a supposed liberal society has deep rooted traditionalist ‘non-progressive’ values and they will play a huge part in making decisions and the second and the most importance one is that it is always important to look at the growing fears and expectations of the silenced majority. In this case the, insecurities of the ordinary American psyche. It is not that Trump’s rival Hillary would do anything that undermines the national security and putting the economy in a downward spiral and Hillary being the president doesn’t make the life easier for Blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims in the USA but the outcome of this election is the result of Trump being successfully manipulating the insecurities while Hillary failing to address them properly and getting the confidence of the majority. It is not the fact that Trump is better but that Hillary is worse that made America opt for Trump.

Has Obama contributed to this?        

Some blame President Obama for making the republicans weak and making Hillary’s defeat at the election. But in my opinion, Obama is a better president than anyone who was nominated and ran for this year’s election. Given the history and politics of USA, it was a bold and progressive move that American people have endorsed a candidate like Obama. He came to power in a crisis period, the Debt crisis had weakened the USA and economy haven't seen a catastrophe of this magnitude since the Great Depression in the 1930s not to mention the international criticism for sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. It is the sheer desire for a change that made Americans choose Obama over John McCain.

Obama either succeeded delivering the change he promised or he was damn lucky for the passing of the adverse effects of the 2008 crisis. The crisis slowed, companies stayed afloat and the country survived if not thrived. Troops have pulled out from Iraq and Afghanistan. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (AKA the Obamacare) was another progressive step taken by Obama even though it was criticized heavily.  It was the fact that ‘The GM was alive and Osama Bin Laden was dead’ made Obama win his second term. That means the recovery of the economy, pulling troops out and killing Osama had generally elevated him to one of the best presidents the US ever had.

Events that unfolded in his second term made some effect in the power swing from Democrat to a Republican in this election.  The rise of ISIS which depicted the flows of US foreign policy, unemployment or under-employment in among Americans, racism and most importantly recent attacks by radicalized home-grown terrorists have made his leadership weak and questionable which in-turn become the Achilles heel of Hillary Clinton. In my opinion, the USA was in a better position economically than when Obama took over in 2008 and he reversed some, not all of the damage that George Bush had done. If Obama could and had run for the third term, I believe that he could and should have won as he is better than Hillary, Trump and certainly Bush.  

Shattering expectation of the USA being progressive?

Is the USA a progressive and liberal society? The answer would be a Yes and a No. It depends on how we define progressiveness. We are expecting too much from the USA, wanting it to become an example for all of us who strive for a liberal utopia. Sorry to have hurt your feelings fellas! But you have to realize that as every country is a depiction of its society and the American society is not as progressive and liberal as you want it to be. It has the deep-rooted conservatism (at least among the majority of the people) to be portrayed making political choices. We tend to look at the mainstream media and a few of the progressives and liberals and assume that the common American had the same values the minority is portraying but it is not the reality. Even though the USA is a multicultural society and has values of religious freedom, when it comes to national security, economy, and employment, nothing was allowed to compromise it.

Was democracy to blame in the first place?

Now some people also have speculations about the USA being a democratic society. It also depends on how we portray how democracy should be. The reality is so much different and unsettling. The foundation of democracy is the will of the majority. As long as that will of the people is accurately presented (in US election, there are speculation of that have really happened because of the Electoral College system begin criticized for not displaying the will of the people) their choice should be the valid choice regardless of how hard to swallow it and come to terms with it for the rest of the world.

The next lesson of democracy to learn is that the unpredictability of human nature and the fact that it can be changed. Both in Brexit vote and US election, the opinion polls predicted the opposite result in huge margins. Regardless of how strong the democratic institutions are we should realize that as a chain is as strong as its weakest link, the democracy is totally depending on the unpredictable and manipulative human consciousness. It is the political force which understands and makes most of it goes for the win.

What would to future be like for the USA and for the world?

When Barack Obama becomes the president in 2008, the world had expected miraculous utopia from him. Some even hope for a better future not only for African-Americans but for the whole society. He couldn’t deliver any of it except the relative economic stability. America is still hated by the millions of people; African-American youth are getting shot by the police by the dozens, American still live in fear of ISIS attacks.

We should not expect anything drastic from Trump also. It will not be surprising that Trump if struggles to stop the influx of migrants from Mexico, to crush ISIS to the ground or to make the American dream a reality again. The people who opted for Hillary especially minorities should not be worried of a prosecution as well as all the presidents did, Trump will not stick to his plans for sure. What we can expect is the political stability as Republicans have both the senate and House of Representatives. There may be minor house-keeping jobs such as infrastructure projects and job creations and a few legislations. Internationally, the status-quo will likely to remain even with someone as charismatic and hectic as Trump.

Conclusion

Now the election is over. Still, Obama Has Reins until 2017 January. It is still no time to make a complete prediction of what Trump will become. However, this election has given some important life lessons for everyone and helped to realize the human nature when faced with insecurities. For all the liberals and so-called progressives, there is some soul searching to left to do. They expect too much from the USA and try to justify their ideas through the process called democracy which is made to depict the ideas of the majority. They should realize when their world starts crumbling beneath their feet that they are the minority and to never under-estimate the human nature. 

(photo courtesy : http://www.mapsofworld.com/) 

Read More

Terrorism, France and Beyond

Paris Attacks

The Parisians awoke in 13^th of November in to a terror stricken world. Paris terror attacks have killed more than 130 people and left many injured, some are still in critical condition. The jihadist group ISIS has claimed responsibility. Now it is the 3^rd attack beyond ISIS controlled territory after Russian airliner bombing and Lebanon attacks. After the Second World War, it was the biggest attack in French Soil and most probably the deadliest terrorist attack since 9/11 in any western country except Spain.  The events unfolding in the middle-east and mainland Europe shake us with the deadly realism that we are not safe.

Now the whole world is in mourning, condolence messages and Facebook profile pictures changing it to French Tricolors. They want us to pray for Paris only to Pray for some other city later if we don’t understand the root-cause of the threat of international terrorism and dealt with it once in for all. We can look immediately to the Syrian civil war but it is important to look beyond that particular conflict to understand why, the so called Islamic State Militants have dared to commit suicide killing many unarmed civilians who were not connected to their cause at all.  

Terrorism 101

There were many terrorist groups in the world, most of them fighting to overthrow a government in order to establish their own state with an ideology of their own. Most of the groups belong to the minority of a country; ethnic, religious or political. They were either get wiped off or drawn in to agreements to stop their acts of terror. There is no clear word to define a terrorist because, a person may appear as a terrorist for someone or a freedom fighter to some other.  But for the record, we can identify terrorist as a person who inflict terror through violent method to achieve his goal. He has an ideology on which his acts are governed. They can be religious, ethnic or political such as Marxism. Now most of the international terrorist groups have a religious ideology.

The world is heavily globalized with increasing travel opportunities and communication methods. Thus a terror organization is not limited to one particular country but to the whole world if its followers are scattered globally. Before World War 2 There were rouge nations with sinister ideologies but they have the characteristics of a state and comes with it the responsibilities of a state even at warfare but terror organizations have no such constraints.

As we have previously mentioned, a terrorist organization has

• Operating region
• Ideology
• Specific goal
• An adversary
• Followers
• Support network and
• Sympathizers (sympathizers may turn into followers later)

How it Happen?

Majority of the terrorist organizations born out of the last couple of decades were from the middle-eastern region. Religion plays an utmost part of their ideology. The usual adversary is the western world and governments who are supportive to west. Their goal rages from gaining control of a specific territory to world domination. They have followers, supporters and sympathizers throughout the world. Since their religion is widespread and rapidly growing, they are in no shortage. Not every religious person is a follower of supporter but most of the people have a soft spot in their subconscious mind towards the people of their own religion trying to dispose the enemies of their religion and to propagate it no matter where they live either in a desert in Syria, in a slum in Pakistan or a suburb in England.  

Who to Blame?

It was happened in many Abrahamic religions, sometimes spreading in to the people of different sect of their own religious resulting Spanish inquisition, Catholic-Protestant problems in Europe and Problems among ultra-orthodox Jewish sects. The world has moved away from inquisitions, religious persecutions in Europe and Antisemitism (at least in the western world) but the crusades have never been ended yet.  Blood still spills furiously in the same crusade battlefields where Richard III and Saladin fought. Although battlefield is the same, tactics differ. In a standard warfare, the mightiest military power wins but in a guerrilla war, standard armies and states were pushed in the brink and rouge groups gain the upper hand.

Who Stormed the Hornets’ Nest?

It is not wrong to say that most of the international terrorist groups have born as a result of the interventions from their enemies itself. Colonization in the 17^th-19^th century, aftermath of the WW2 in the middle-east, Israel-Palatine problem, Soviet Intervention, Gulf War, Invasion of Afghanistan, Gulf War 2 and finally the Arab Spring aftermath gives ample evidence of who have driven the first blood. Once incident was linked to another and to another. The list goes on and on with attacks and retaliations only to spill more and more blood on those forsaken lands and beyond.

It is a viable question to ask that even though the so called colonials and socialists have done the exact same thing in Asia, Africa and Latin America, why global terrorism never immerged from those regions. Even if it did, it was in small scare and usually subdued. This is the million dollar question! What is so special with the middle-east? Religion plays a major role and tribalist sentiments dominate people’s ideology. Heavy unequal distribution of wealth, poverty and most important of all, the lack of education to train the mind to be logical are the main causes. It is of utmost importance to note that one cause alone won’t create the situation in middle-east. And blaming religion ONLY won’t solve the problem at all.

What Shall We Do?

There are short-term, medium-term and long-term remedies to battle the wave of international terrorism.

Short-term -  Security has to be tightened. An intelligence services have to run on full alert. Border security and surveillance need to be enhanced. Refugees are one of the biggest threats to Europe and to the rest of the world; unpopular but drastic measures have to be taken even if it is disappointing for the refugees. Balkan states and Eastern-European states have to regulate if not close their borders stopping the influx of refugees to the Western-Europe. ISIS has to be dealt with somehow. Shaking hands with Russia and if possible with Assad, is to be done no matter how unpopular it is. Any enemy is better than ISIS now.

Medium-term – The European dream need to be shattered. Open borders, Multiculturalism and immigration policies need to be changed. Dealing with the middle-eastern governments no matter how unappealing they are, is the way to go. If the west had dealt with Assad differently, ISIS would never have immerged this strong. Assad might get defeated but at least the replacement would never be ISIS.

  

Long-term – Addressing the root cause. Why the west need to be interested in the middle-east so much. One reason is the Israel-Palestine problem. It is a tricky problem. United States and west are always Israel’s allies. Neither Palestinians nor Israelis ready for negotiations. Next one is oil. Oil will run out eventually. Soft diplomacy and international umbrella combined with long term alternative energy plan shall be enough to keep the oil problem at bay. That’s why working with the middle-eastern governments is the key.

Conclusion

What the western world did for decades was make the middle-eastern problem their own. Deal with it politically rather than economically. China was doing the opposite thing and gained profits from it. It is up to the people in the middle-east to decide what they want, either to collapse or thrive as a civilization. West shall take live-and-let-live stance and grab the spoils from it rather than engaging in a regime change for like they did and failed every time. 

Read More

Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha Thero; In Remembrance.

A sad day indeed for Sri Lankans. The passing away of Venerable Maduluwawe Sobitha thero, the Chairman of the National Movement for a Just Society had shocked us. We grieve not as Buddhists or members of a certain political party but as Sri Lankans who expected a change and fought for it.

Although Sri Lankans knew Sobitha Thero as the key player in the resent regime change, his social activism dates back many years, leading several political campaigns for just society. Sobitha Thero, not having a rigid political afflictions had always been in the common man’s side in the struggle for democracy, equality and justice. Whenever a progressive political change has happened in this country, Sobitha Thero had always been in the forefront of it. Even as the chief incumbent of a Buddhist Temple, Kotte Sri Naga Viharaya, the Thero had leaded a modest life dedicating his life to social progression compared to some monks who went on to developing lavish temples and focusing on worldly goods which is contradictory to the essence of Buddhist teachings.

Sobitha Thero’s activism came to its pinnacle with his work in the Presidential Election in January 2015. Even before the election Sobitha Thero had raised his voice against the nepotism, corruption and undemocratic governance of the previous government. Sobitha Thero had always in the stance of changing the system rather than the people who were running the system. The Thero understood the fact that if we change the people who govern without changing the system they govern, the replacements will be ineffective. He had proposed several changes to the system even before the Presidential Election such as Independent Commissions, Corrupt-free governance and accountability mechanisms.

The opposition always criticized the previous government but never found a suitable candidate for changing the system let alone a better system itself. There were speculations about who shall be the common candidate as opposition had decided to put a common candidate to the presidential race. Sobitha Thero’s name also surfaced and some had doubted how a Buddhist monk is able to contest for the election.

Although most of the supporters of the previous government do not know it, it was Sobitha Thero who initially supported Mr. Rajapaksha BUT on several conditions to ensure democracy. As this author can remember in one occasion, the Thero has stated that Mr. Rajapaksha will be the ideal candidate if he scuttles the undemocratic 18^th Amendment, introduces Independent Commission and Eradicates corruption. But since there was no positive response from him, Sobitha thero had to look for someone else and Mr. Sirisena was an ideal candidate. The rest is history.

Although Sobitha Thero was in the forefront of the regime change, he was the first person to criticize it as well. The lack of progress in the ‘Yahapalana Government’ was appalling and it is no doubt that the Thero was highly dissatisfied with the aftermath. First, the three-month interim government period was extended, hundred Day program was just a broken promise, and the most important change promised, enacting the 19^th Amendment was intentionally delayed. 20^th Amendment and shifting to new electoral system was never done. It is ironical to see that the ‘Father of the recent political change’ has to go on protesting against the ‘Yahapalana child’ in April 2015 to enact the long awaited 19^th Amendment which was the keystone of a new political change.  

Sobitha Thero openly criticized the present government and its lack of progress. It is an open secret that the Thero was really disappointed with it and it must have affected him very much. Surely there shall be a sense of betrayal by the present government’s highest offices. It was not only Sobitha Thero who was betrayed but 6.2 million Sri Lankans who had voted for a change. Resent events suggests that the successive government is similar the previous one if not worse.

People lobby for political movements for many reasons. Most lobbying was done as an investment in the future earnings and favors from the successive governments. Among them, Sobitha Thero was a true patriot and person with high moral standards as he never expected any return or favor from the people who was raised to power by his activism.

It is so heartbreaking to see some people who were posting defamatory comments and celebrating Sobitha Thero’s passing away mostly in social media. Indeed they are the people who never knew the political history of Sri Lanka, how the struggle for ‘Good Governance’ was initially won in January 2015 and subsequently lost by the activism in the civil society and how the people currently in power had betrayed the activists who really helped them. Most of the ‘post-sharing internet radicals’ who use the internet behave as ‘monkeys handling straight razors’ showing their lack of character and how they were brainwashed.

There are lessons to be learnt from the altruistic life and disappointing passing away of Sobitha Thero. It brings us to the bitter realizations that no matter how you intend to change the world for better, the dark forces always win. No matter how good you are, if you are not in the winner’s side, everyone will eventually betray you. At the end of your life, bitterness, regret and disappointment will be your only companions. Last but not least, you will be disgraced even after you were dead and eventually be forgotten.

Ven. Maduluwawer Sobitha Thero, May you Attain Nibbana as it is the only retreat with the eternal peace. 

Read More

Once Upon a Time in Syria; Analysis on Syrian Conflict.

The human civilization was never free of problems and chaos in which war and destruction was common. In human history, there is no point in time which was free from conflicts and warfare. In the last century, the world was plagued with two world wars, struggles for independence, cold war which was fought as a set of proxy wars and countless other internal and external conflicts. In the turn of this century, a new form of war; international terrorism has emerged. The newest ongoing conflict is the conflict between the government of Syria and its opposition groups. Although it can be categorized as a civil war its effects are anything but confined to Syria. It is now evolved in to a regional conflict and who knows; it can be the spark for the World War 3. Most of the public got to know about the Syrian conflict because of the involvement of opposition group, ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) or commonly known as ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) and their actions such as kidnapping, beheading, burning and drowning but, there is far more to the Syrian conflict than ISIL thus it is important to go into the  root of this conflict to get a clear idea of why Syrians had turned against their ruler and why factions such as ISIL are so successful. As the ISIL had wowed to carry on their struggle to control much of the middle-east and a substantial portion of Europe and Asia, it is for everyone’s benefit to understand what had happened in Syria and the neighboring Arab world.

This all started with the Arab Spring, the popular uprisings against leaders in the Arab World. Started in Tunisia, it swept across a good portion of the middle-east. It starts with small protests in the name of democracy and usually escalates in to armed conflicts between the government forces and the opposition groups and eventually leads to the downfall of the government and leaders. The outcome of the subsequent power vacuum is different from country to country. Having overthrown so called oppressive dictator was no guarantee for democracy or stable government. Only a handful of countries had transformed in to the state that the protesters hoped for while the majority slid in to chaos and anarchy. Libya, Yemen and Egypt are examples.

Like the other Arab Spring affected countries, in Syria, the opposition backed by Syrian opposition started as a wave of protests against the President Bashar Al Assad. It soon escalated in to an armed conflict where countless rebel factions (both pro-Assad and anti-Assad) fighting each other only to further erupt in to a regional conflict where even the world’s superpowers involve.

Syria is now a melting pot of different rival factions fighting each other for achieving their respective goal broadly categorized in to pro-Assad, anti-Assad and Kurdish. The anti-Assad can further be categorized into secular/democratic and religious ideology.

Even though we tend to look for the starting point for the civil war in Arab spring, the root is not there but further back in time for more than a two millennia. This whole area of middle-east containing Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Israel/Palestine is unique. It was influenced by Islam (both Sunni and Shiite), Christianity and Judaism. Moreover due to its changing hands several times starting from Romans, Arabs, Ottomans, and Franco –British to Baathist, Secularist and Islamic forces.

Originally occupied by the nomadic Bedouin people, Islam had swept across the region and managed to unite majority under a one religious ideology, but this is not without problems. Ideological sectarian tensions between Sunni, Shiite and Alawite were common throughout the middle-east. It had multiplied in the second half of the 20^th century. There is a particular reason; almost all of the countries in this region were claimed from the Ottomans after World War 1 by either French or British. When those countries became Independent, the ruling elite of those countries were the minority in most of the cases. Absolute monarchies in some of those countries were abolished either by armed conflicts or leftist revolutions lead by the minority communities. This was apparent in Iraq where Saddam Husain who was a Sunni took control of the Shiite majority Iraq and where the President Bashar Al Assad who is an Alawite Muslim controls Sunni Majority in Syria. This had happened in Libya (tribalism took hold there, not sectarianism). In Lebanon, after the independence from the British, the rule went to Christians who were the minority in a Sunni and Shite majority state resulted in a bloody civil war in 70s and 80s costing thousands of lives and brought the country to an irrecoverable anarchy which still plagues the country. Not to mention Israel where the Jews who were the refugees consisting only about half a million where given the best portion of the land of Palestine from the partition plan of 1948 leading to the biggest crisis the middle-east.

The occupying Franco-British colonials had done an irreparable mistake of alienating the rule from the Majority and giving privileged positions to the minority communities. It seems that this had happened in most of the countries under French or British colonial occupation. If that occupied country couldn’t build a nation state after independence due to various reasons including the divergent ethno-religious factions, soon the majority discontent on the governing minority emerge. This has to do with economic factors also. The ruling minority groups will get wealthy while depriving the majority with economic opportunities. Above situation is no other than a ticking time bomb.

Since this region is once belong to the Ottoman Empire and was a melting pot of different ethnicities and religious groups. Those differences were highlighted when the French and British took control and more prominently after independence. Creation of modern nation states from the former Ottoman Empire was mostly under the British and French discretion making the European colonials, the architects of the middle-east. The problem was that the Europeans had hardly any idea of the Ethnic composition and culture of the people when creating new states. One of the best examples was creating Kuwait from the historical Iraqi territory. They might have done that considering its massive oil wealth and it was easier to manage and make post-independent relations with a small country with virtually homogeneous population. Iraq always claims Kuwait as their territory. This led to the first gulf war in 1991.

Let’s turn our attention to Syria once more. Minority Alawite faction is controlling the state and economy. Assad, like many other Arab nationalistic leaders tried infrastructure development and religious tolerance. It is the only secular state in Arab world. Christians in Syria felt relatively safe. Assad has a strong eastern bloc inclination like Gamal Abdul Nassar in Egypt. When the Arab Spring started, from the beginning Syria was a targeting point. People driven by economic and social inequality was to riot against the regime. Demonstrations were about to happen but, what wasn’t expected is this kind of full time armed insurgence but either a peaceful transition like in Tunisia, riots and violent civil uprising not amounting to armed conflict like in Egypt or a small scale insurgence only by the opposition within that country like in Libya. None of that happened in Syria but a civil war dragging sovereign countries, opposition groups, international terrorist organization and home-grown militias. USA and its allies want Assad to go while Russia wants Assad to prevail. Kurds in Iraq and specially Syria want to win autonomy from Syrian regime. Meanwhile the ISIL want everyone to lose and to establish an Islamic Caliphate spanning from Syria and Iraq into global domination. It is natural that in Arab Spring many rival factions clash to grab power but in Syria, the outside influence from USA and its allies in the name of ‘humanitarian aid to restore democracy’ has led to the escalation of this problem. Russian president Vladimir Putin accused USA directly for creating ISIL, it might not be so but a failed US foreign policy surely helped the ISIL to gain lot of support from neighboring countries. Even though USA didn’t directly supply ISIL any aid, the factions who got US support granted or sold provisions to ISIL. Since ISIL controls a considerable amount of oil production throughout their territory, those petro-dollars can surely be a steady income. USA had and still has an unsuccessful foreign policy in the middle-east. They fund a faction to grab power in a region then those who gained US support double-cross them every time. This had happened with the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan.

Whenever USA directly support a government in the middle-east regardless of how oppressive or how blackened its human rights record or how undemocratic it is, USA stays in the winning side. Best example is Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Qatar. Whenever they support the opposition, they tend to lose. It cannot be said that the USA didn’t anticipate the consequences for backing an opposition who surely turned in themselves in to oppressors and fanatics more fearsome than the previous regime in terms of religious tolerance and democracy.  They took a risk in supporting the Syrian opposition because, Assad is a close ally of Russia and Russia has assets in Syrian. Toppling Assad would surely weaken the Russian presence in the middle-east greatly. That would have been the US plan but now it had backfired. Russia is now determined to keep the opposition at bay from toppling Assad and with the recent air strikes possible ‘boots-on-the-ground’, they will surely succeed. The difference between Russian and US decision making is that the boldness in Russian decisions. USA has much to lose in taking rash and unpopular decisions than Russia. USA is a democracy after all!!!

However, what was done has been done. Syria was in turmoil. Half of the Syrian population is either internally or externally displaced. Mass immigration resulted in the worse refugee crisis in Europe after World War II; not to mention the incoming long-term demographic changes and cultural imbalance in the European Union. ISIL will continue to gain support unless they are defeated once in for all. Even Assad took control of Syria eventually, ISIL threat will not pass. They’ll operate as a global terror force much fearful than even the Al-Qaeda. They will gain supporters worldwide including countless followers in the western world.

Now it is too little too late! If USA stayed out of the trouble in Syria, none of this would have happened. The opposition might topple Assad eventually. ISIL would not have born even if they, they will be a mere shadow of the power they are now. The resulting government would be religious fundamentalist like the succeeded government after Egypt’s Mubarak but it would never have escalated in to the brink of World War III.

Now, it is not sure where the Syrian conflict is heading. USA will now stay out of the trouble after all they have done to ignite the kindle. ISIL should be prevented from pouring in to Lebanon or Jordan at all cost. With the incoming US Presidential Election, Syrian policy of major candidates both Republican and Democratic should be closely scrutinized. One of the possible candidates in US election, business magnet Donald Trump expressed Assad is a person with whom they can ‘do business with’.

                                

Middle-east was and always will be a violent and volatile place. With its oil, its influence is crucial in global politics. The best strategy for middle-east is dealing with the legitimate governments regardless of how oppressive, undemocratic and religious extremist they are. Let the people of middle-east handle their own problems. The only thing the rest of the world can do is to contain the spread of fanaticism is to keep a close watch and help the governments who keep the terrorists at bay and to resist all temptations for a regime change regardless of how profitable for western foreign policy is, given that helping the opposition will always be counter-productive for the west in the long run.

Read More

The Poor Little 19th Amendment !!!

The 19^th amendment to the constitution is now debated in the parliament of Sri Lanka. At time of preparing this article it has passed the reading for the second time and at the stage of the committee debates on the changes to it. Anyway, the final outcome is still not visible. One thing is for sure; 

never before an amendment to the constitution has received public attention than the 19^th amendment. while the pro and against parties engaged in bitter struggle to consolidate their views and they are willing to go to the extent of mass protests and ‘sathyagrahas’ it is better for a citizen of Sri Lanka to go into detail of the 19^th amendment and analyze what the underlying principles of this amendment.

The amendment was brought to fulfill an election promise on curbing the powers of executive presidency and bringing independent councils. Although initially the president Sirisena lobbied for complete abolition of executive presidency later his stance was changed to removing large powers from that post. Important Sections of the amendment are briefly listed below

Article number	What shall be delivered
2	Right to information as a fundamental right
3	Reduction of presidential term to 5 years
4	Limiting the number of times for election for presidency to 2
5	Presidential duties are listed. President is considered as a symbol of national unity
6	President’s responsibility towards parliament. but how to enforce if president has breached his responsibility is not listed here. It should be only through the impossible impeachment process
7	Changes to presidential immunity. Although he cannot be brought to court, his conduct can be questioned on suing attorney general. This can be used to build a public opinion against a president who is violating his duties
10	A new chapter is added on constitutional council who gives advices on how to appoint people for important positions and the president deemed to follow it. 41A(6) – the president is compelled to make appointments to the constitutional council. If he failed to do so the council members shall be deemed to be appointed. This removed the problem in the 17th amendment.
11	Changes to the executive. 42(3) – the PM is head of the cabinet 43(1) determination of ministerial positions by PM 44 – non cabinet ministers, 46 – limiting the cabinet to 30 and other ministerial positions to 40
12	Public service commission
16	Appointing AG and IGP shall be done on the recommendations of the constitutional council
17	Limiting the parliament to 5 years
20	Every bill shall be given 14 days for the public to protest. The word every bill shall include emergency bill is questionable
21	President is prevented from going to a referendum for bills that are rejected by parliament.
23	Minimum age for contesting for presidency is 35 years
25	Election commission
26	Election commissioner’s power to control media organizations both state and private

The Supreme Court has determined that some provisions need not only the 2/3 majority but also people’s consent by referendum. Those sections are

Section 11 – 42(3), 43(1), 43(3), 44(2), 44(3), 44(5) and

Section 26 – 104B and 104(5)c changes to articles.

On the basis of these changes are contrary to the executive power of the president which is defined in article 4 which is deemed to be read with article 3 which is and entrenched provision in article 83 requiring both the super majority and referendum consent. Prime minister Wicramasinghe wanted to somehow pass the 19^th amendment so he decided to pass it on by removing the above provisions.

When the bill is put up for debated again the political party members divided them up for battle. Some wanted more and more changes to this. Composition of the constitutional council is one of such. The government agreed to grant 7 parliamentarians with 3 non-MPs to be appointed to it. It seems that they have resolved all the disputes and came to an agreement to somehow pass this on. Only one vote opposing to it has been casted in its second time reading. After third reading is passed once it ratified by the speaker, the 19^th amendment shall be officially operational.

Overall the progress on the new regime is extremely commendable given that 4 months before none of these have a mere change of passing let alone conceiving in someone’s mind.  But in the drama following the inception of this amendment, the hypocrisy of the politicians and activists, the greed for power and the reluctance to give away their powers is compellingly clear in Sri Lankan politics.  Everyone needs their share in this new amendment. Some wanted this dead on it tracks. Politicians are never going to change. Our people shall always appoint those without remorse next time also.

On the 8^th of January, the people had not expected a mere change of a regime but a change of this present vicious system. They've even sacrificed the political stability (under which people have some sort of security) for a better future and a better, more civilized political system. They can shed tears of joy.

It is pretty sure that the joy of the 19^th amendment is temporary. There are serious questions about its affectivity on curbing the powers of the president. President’s powers are not limited, he still the head of the government. Only silver line is that independent commissions. Believe me, the pessimism will surely come. There is a strong possibility that the 19^th amendment being just a carbon copy of 17^th amendment and even its operation be neglected by the successive governments.   

We have a long way to go in making a civilized political society in Sri Lanka. This amendment is just a one small step for politicians which should become one giant leap for the politically civilized society. We need another amendment to change the electoral system and probably a brand new constitution as well. As I always say we can’t celebrate this because threats are looming everywhere. Brace yourself for impact; expect disappointments along the way. My friend, we have long long way to go…

Read More

Presidential Election 2015; The Tale of Two Horses and Other Stories

Only a handful of days left for the Presidential Election. Public engagement in the process is to the extent never before. In a previous blogpost, I’ve compared this election in to a poker game with the country at stake. It can also similar to a great horse-race where only two horses are participating and the twenty million people have bet all of theirs and their future generations’ lives on the outcome of it. At the heat of the preparations to the race, the people have polarized themselves into two camps helping either of the horses but nobody seem to care about the long-term impact on winning of either horse. It is well known fact that while horse-racing ruined many lives and the only winners are the jockeys, race-organizers and betting center owners. As a safety measure it is important not to bet all your savings on one horse. Nevertheless we should as the question from ourselves; ‘will the future be better?’

There are 14 million registered voters in the country. Although Sri Lanka is the Asia’s first democracy, the public conscience on democracy and politics are not influenced by rationality or policy. The factors that influenced their political opinion are discussed in the previous blogpost. But in the end of the day the problems facing the Sri Lankans except the chosen few are the same and still the improvement is at a snail pace. Economy remains the prominent worry among the majority. The government is unveiling its development achievement like never before. Cities, at least Colombo and suburbs are getting better. New roads are being constructed, train links to Northern parts have recommenced, and ambitious real estate projects are spreading like wildfire in lavish neighborhoods in Colombo city and not to mention the newly built Airport and Seaport in Hambanthota district. For an alien eyes looking in a birds-eye view, Sri Lanka appears as the next Dubai or the true ‘Wonder of Asia. Have the lives of the Sri Lankans been reborn have their living conditions seem sound or are they contented with their country?

Sri Lanka was a war-ravaged country for more than 30 years. The logical reason for dragging the war for so long was the lack of strong political leadership. The leadership given by the President Manhinda Rajapaksha and the Secretary of Defense was the main reason for quick and relatively just ending for the war. Half of the credit should go to the former Army Commander Sarath Fonseka who was stripped from his ranks for contesting against the president in the 2010 Presidential Election. Although Mr Rajapaksha was bombarding his post-war conduct and asserting that he has kept all the promises of his election manifesto, the only thing he has delivered was a country free from LTTE terrorist organization. Majority of Sri Lankans consider that is a legitimate reason for giving Mr. Rajapaksha another term. When a person is saved from the clutches of death, it is natural that he gets obliged to the savior forever. Most of the village communities in northern frontier are more than willing to vote for Mr. Rajapaksha regardless of his questionable post-war conduct.

Mr. Rajapaksha might have come with the legitimate objective in the first term to bring peace to the country either by waging a war or through peace talks. When the peace talks have failed, he boldly took the path of war (of course with the pressure from Sinhala nationalist parties like Jathika Hela Urumaya). After defeating the LTTE militarily, he had the golden opportunity none had before. He could have gone into the history books as the leader who not only waged a war and defeated a terrorist organization but as the person who brought a lasting peace and prosperity for the country but nothing has been done to address the root cause in the ethnic problem. There were two insurgencies in the past; in 1971 and 1988-89. The leaders back then at least partially try to address the causes for those uprisings but for the civil war, no progress whatsoever except for the LLRC report whose recommendations were not implemented at all although Mr Rajapaksha promised in his election manifesto. Hatred among communities is now at record high.

There are two main black marks for Mr. Rajapaksha’s government, long term economic decay and the erosion of democracy. Although it is good to have big development projects, a developing country like ours needs to prioritize its development goals. Lack of infrastructure still haunts rural communities. Irrigation, road network are underdeveloped. Tanks and canals are under-developed. Many small tanks in the North Central province are abandoned. It is not wrong to say that the irrigation system is in a poor state than which it was in 1500 years ago at the golden age Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa kingdoms. The main problem in the post-war development in Sri Lanka is the lack of prioritization of the development goals. Since a considerable amount of Sri Lankans still depend on the agriculture sector and primary industries, road network in the rural areas should have been developed. Decaying irrigation system should have been repaired to its full potential.

Concessions should have been given to the small industries sector but the government is at a spending frenzy on mega-development projects such as airports, seal-ports, high-rise towers which have little or no use apart from digital transmission and tourist attraction, expressways and performing arts theaters in which it takes a fortune to watch a show let alone to host one. Of course there is the contribution to the national economy from those projects but the positive impact on the livelihoods of the common man is nonexistent.  What is the use of development projects which doesn’t contribute to the benefit of the people? Fancy projects to show that a country is on a par with other developed countries are a common occurrence in oil-rich Middle Eastern countries. Can a country like Sri Lanka who barely lifting its head off from a civil war affords such petty things?

It is important to make the country attractive by building public spaces and extravagant waterfront properties. It is good to give foreign investors the chance to develop luxurious real estate projects. Indirectly it may create a positive impact on the booming tourism trade. But first things first; is it really important to fund the less important projects while neglecting infrastructural development in the key areas of the economy from which the majority of the people make their living from? Can they bask on the glory of Nelum Pokuna Mahinda Rajapaksha Rangahala, Maththara Mahinda Rajapaksha Airport, Magampura Mahinda Rajapaksha Port and Nelum Kuluna while struggling to get their food on the table? These projects can be done after ensuring the basic needs of the people are met. First there should be adequate number of industries or at least a long term plan to build heavy-industries for the building of a port in a remote part of Sri Lanka. Road network in the entire country should be brought to standard before building expressways crisscrossing the country. Most of these projects are funded by China. While giving the monetary support, Chinese companies undertake their construction by Chinese engineers and workers. They shrewdly pump the money back to China while making un indebted to China for the generations to come.

The problem not lies with these projects. We never think that these projects are not needed for a country but the time period of the projects is the problematic factor. The government always finishes last things first while the things needed to be done beforehand are either deliberately delayed or not done at all. That is the fundamental problem in the so called ‘development’ in this country. Unimportant but colossal projects fuel the President’s ego and carry on his legacy while extravagant commissions and frauds benefit the political goons behind him.

Today although there are petty concessions on fertilizers, lack of funding for the irrigation and long term agricultural development are creating a long term deterioration of agricultural sector. Today the agrarian community is facing a debt crisis like never before. Almost all of the small and medium sector agriculturalists are burdened with debt. People quitting the agricultural sector are a common occurrence. Still the government hasn’t a plan for agricultural exports even though there are plenty of opportunities in foreign market for staple crops and non-traditional exports. This is the bitter situation in a country ruled by a government which boasts about self-sufficiency in food while depending on foreign imports for the basic staple foods.

Situation in small industries is also bleak. Lack of demand in the local sector, high energy cost and inability to access foreign markets are the main problems in this sector. Electricity tariff for small industries sector is among the highest in the developing world. Only the multinational companies and mega-industries have the chance to survive in Sri Lanka making small industries an endangered species. The government is boasting about the emerging knowledge-based economy. That sector shows a marginal growth for now but with the brain-drain due to the unsatisfactory economic and social conditions in Sri Lanka will surely pose a major threat to this. Even now most of the upper-middle class educated people and students are not planning to stay in this country. Australia, New Zealand or Europe is their safe heaven. With the lack of funding for state sector education and higher education, other developing countries may soon take whatever small share secured by Sri Lankans in the new knowledge economy.

Erosion on democracy is the next problem. Mr. Rajapasha promised twice to abolish the executive presidency and failed. He had the chance but he deliberately retained from doing so. It is a truth that the power corrupts man. When someone has power above all, even above the law of the country, it is natural to feel greedy to secure the power forever and seek for more power. Mr. Rajapaksha did exactly that. He abolished the 17^th Amendment and brought the 18^th Amendment which removes the term limit of reappointment for the president and independent commissions implemented by the 17^th Amendment at the mercy of the President. We cannot blame solely the President. Two-third of the Parliament, even the people shouting against the President have voted in favor of it giving Rajapaksha a free reign to bring the democracy into the guillotine.

Are people willing to pledge allegiance to Mr. Rajapaksha? Of course there are. People may vote for Mr. Rajapaksha for mainly two reasons. One is on the gratitude for ending the war bringing peace. For the people in rural areas directly affected by the war and frontier communities in the North-Central and Eastern provinces, Mr. Rajapaksha is more of a God-like figure. It doesn’t matter even if he eradicates the democracy. People feel safe in his hands. There were no bomb-blasts in the country after the war. People can travel without any fear without the presence of military roadblocks and unpleasant security checks so it is natural that people tend to deeply fall in love with Mr. Rajapaksha as a strong personality with reassuring words is always the choice of the majority of people. For the supporters of Mr. Rajapaksha camp, jobs and business opportunities are not rare. It is just like ‘if you are with us, you’ll be alright, but if you go against us, that’s the end of you’. Since the politicization of the state sector people have to be on the winners’ side to survive. That may motivate many to vote for Mr. Rajapaksha.

On the other side, the join opposition is no good either. It is a common problem in Sri Lankan politics. There is no one whose hands are clean. People at the opposition will do the same if they got the power. This leaves the voters frustrated and may prevent a lot from either not voting for any main candidate or refusing to take part in the election process while leads to the death of the fundamental principal of democracy. Nevertheless, it is a progressive move by the opposition to pledge for a chance in the whole political system, a ‘new political culture’, they say. In theory it is appealing. Abolishing the executive presidency, reinstating the independent commission and making the executive responsible for the Parliament are progressive moves. They are also not impossible to achieve.

What Sri Lanka need is a change in the system, not a face change. What if the common opposition candidate be just like Mr. Rajapaksha. People may not be willing to take the risk of chasing one oppressor and electing another one same or even worse than the previous one. A system with properly implemented checks and balances is the only hope for Sri Lanka. It is not important who is going to give it. Mr Rajapaksha, the common candidate or anyone else but people should press on curbing of executive power, making the corruption and fraud minimized if not impossible and above all prioritizing the development goals serving everyone equally. We all are looking forward on 8^th of January with crossed finders and pounding hearts for a better election, a better system and a better country. 

Read More

Political Opinion, the Factors Contribute to it and How It Affects Us.

There are a handful of days to the Presidential Election 2015. Election heat was in the air never before. Even politically inactive people are fuelling the public opinion and actively participating in discussions about the election. Although Sri Lankans have some notion about the politics, most of them have not viewing politics in a balanced mind. Many factors have influenced their political inclination. The above mentioned situation is common in any country. Even the so-called developed democracies cannot escape from it but in Sri Lanka, party politics have gone to the extent that people have been blindly following what the media and politicians at political rallies have said. Even their family’s political inclination has affected to shape their opinion. The need for a politically sound population is needed to for a working democracy. After all democracy is all about people’s participation in their governance. Their independent and unbiased opinion should decide the fate of the government. Unfortunately, in Sri Lanka the question remains as to whether the elections represent the honest opinion of the people.

In this article, I have intended to analyze each of the factors which shape political inclination and the adverse effects of irrational political opinion.

Media

This is the most effective method shaping the political opinion. It is considered as the fourth organ of the government recognizing its impact on people. Nevertheless it is media is like a double edged sword. The principle task that the media is supposed to do is the deliver information for the public but not anyone’s opinion. The opinion has to be formed by media receivers. As expressed in the theme of one of the main news providers in Sri Lanka; ‘We report, you decide’. When looking at the behavior of Sri Lankan media today, serious doubts remain to their impartiality. There are mainly three kinds of media in Sri Lanka; government controlled state media, private media and social media. These three methods evolved with time.

From the independence, the government media has played the role of the government propaganda machine. Before the arrival of private media, the media monopoly lied with the government. It is not a secret that the even the governments which were relatively democratic to the present government has manipulated the media machinery to quash the opposition and sabotage trade union actions by spreading false information. Although, with the arrival of the private media companies, the state monopoly has lessened, but then the information flow vested in the hands of media tycoons who either has close links with the politicians or they themselves involve in politics. Manipulative work on the media previously done only by the government only has now taken over jointly by the private media tycoons and the government. The situation has worsen in the resent years polarizing the media field by rival factions of pro-government and anti-government media but now with almost all the private media are either owned by the people connected with the governing party or are supportive of the government, independent media has become virtually non-existent.

The pinnacle of the conduct of bias media can be seen in the days leading in to the presidential election 2015. Government media news items have become campaign advertisements for the incumbent president. The head of one of the government radio stations is in the vanguard of bashing the opposition candidate. His vocabulary cannot be justified under any civilized standard. In some rural parts of Sri Lanka, only the state media channels have the reach. Alternative media cannot contribute to the political opinion in those areas giving the government a free reign to bombard the rural community with anything regardless of the media ethics and standards of independent media. It is apparent in the so called government owned Independent Television Network which is all but ‘Independent’

Social media have been immensely popular among young and urban population and spreading like a wildfire to the other communities as well. Its relative independence and ease of access has led it to be the safe haven of many critics of the government. The digital divide (the polarization of the community by the access to information and communication technology) is limiting factor of this third front but it is not be underestimated as this is the main collaborator for many popular uprisings such as the Arab Spring. IT literacy among young people is growing fast. Mobile phone connections rose exponentially with the technology getting cheaper and cheaper social media is becoming a common factor in shaping the public opinion.

Family background

A child usually gets the perspective of his parents. Family and peers have profound effect on shaping how the child thinks. Even he is older enough to vote, the deep rooted political opinion of his family fuels his judgment. Sometimes it overpowers the rational thinking of a young voter. Children of ‘Die Hard’ party members have a higher tendency to follow their parent’s political opinion and become supporters of the same political party of their parents. Nowadays with the free access to social media and education, young people forming contradictory opinions from the age-old politics of their fathers and grandfathers are not an exception. This situation is a positive remark on the awareness and active involvement on rational politics by the young.

Education

Education, especially knowledge about politics and governance is important for a sound political opinion. Sadly, Sri Lankan education curriculum hasn’t offered a prominent place for political science and history. Only a part of the student population who choose Political Science for tertiary education will gain and insight to politics. Only a handful of youth know what is good governance, rule of law or separation of power. The majority of young minds may not get a sound political knowledge leading in to politically uneducated young population ready be exploited by politicians thus raising suspicions of a master plan by the politicians to create a politically unsound population by withholding the treasure trove of political knowledge from the youth.

 Rural and Urban

The aspirations of Sri Lanka’s rural and urban population are fundamentally different. Most of the rural community is either farmers or small industrialists. The farming community has its distinct needs such as better irrigation system, better prices for their crops etc. The lack of reach of alternative media leads to solid political opinion favorable for one party. It is not wrong to say that serious political issues and government corruption are not considered as factors in choosing candidates. A strong personality with an appealing looks and exaggerated ‘village roots’ will surely appeal to the rural community. When the youth in the villages go to cities for education and for work they might be changed but their peers and family members back in villages are always reluctant to be politically enlightened but there are positive changes with the lessening gap between urban and rural communities.

Urban community is politically active. They are the first to experience the economic policies of a government. Considerable amount of them have higher education standards than their rural counterparts. They tend to choose more liberal and capitalistic economic policies. That’s why the comparatively liberal United National Party has a sound political backing in urban centers while the nationalistic Sri Lanka Freedom Party has their strongholds in rural areas.

Religion, race and caste

Religion, race and caste have shaped politics unlike in any other country and it always will play a prominent part in the future. Minority communities such as Tamils, Muslims and Tamils living in up-country have their own political parties from which they’ve gain bargaining power with the governing party. Coalition governments with minority parties are a common occurrence. The questions remains whether these minority parties have done any progressive work for their community and whether the successive governments have done any favor for the minority communities although they have given ministerial posts for the leaders of those minority parties.

Caste is another issue which is becoming taboo but it plays a vital role in politics. It is an accepted reality that a low caste person cannot be the leader of Sri Lanka. Caste seems to be one of the issues that reduced votes for the common opposition candidate in the election in 2010. Sometimes caste has become the lottery for winning at elections for many provincial politicians because they can secure votes in villages of law caste people as they are always inclined to vote for the law caste candidate.

Most of the above discussed factors which shape the political opinion hinder the chance of taking a rational decision at elections. Some of the people who are blinded by their long established opinions are reluctant to make a change in the society. It is understandable that people become frustrated with the entire political system of Sri Lanka which circled around two political parties who are notorious for not keeping their election promises and not sticking in to their election manifestoes but this vicious system has to change now. Accountability has to be brought in to politics by somehow or other. It can only be done by the public choosing the candidates who are relatively honest, intelligent and capable candidates at elections.

Before we change the political system or politicians, our political opinion needs to be changed. We need to think differently about politics and set aside our pre-conceived notions fueled by media, our family or our race and religion. There are many promising young politicians emerging who really need to make a change. All of us need to rally before them and push them to implement a progressive change in Sri Lankan politics.  

Read More

Presidential Election 2015; The Political Gamble

Eighth of January will be one of the most important dates in Sri Lankan politics as Sri Lankans gather around polling stations to choose a candidate for the highest office. The stage is all set for the fiercest battle ever. In the midst of crossovers which are affectionately named as ‘jumping from one party to another’ surpassing the standards of Olympic level high jumpers, heated political talks and never ending violence and show of power, the whole Sri Lankan society has gone into some form of dizziness or a political ‘coma’ blinded by the exquisite campaigns of both the common opposition and the governing party. Just get rid of the heated popular political extravaganza for a minute! What is your true notion of the presidential election? What is your choice and what do you expect from the newly elected president?

Do Sri Lankans need an election at the first place? This election was plagued by controversy even at its inception. Former Chief Justice Sarath Nanda Silva had pointed out that the incumbent president can’t call for another election at this time and he can’t seek another term as he becomes unqualified for that with the swearing-in for his second term in January 2010 but with the backing of the full-bench of the Supreme Court the President has proved his legitimacy for calling an election. [This issue was discussed in a blog post of this writer]. Even though the President skillfully evaded the legal barriers a moral question is before him for the reason why he seeks another term just after 4 years. It is apparent that the progress of the previous election manifesto was non-existent. Even according to the Sri Lankan political standards by which the ability to stick to political promises was not looked as a priority in when choosing a candidate in the election, the incumbent President cannot be considered as a person who has done what he promises except the defeat of the LTTE militarily. With his marginal win (ironically it was the LTTE who has helped him to win the election in 2005 by ordering the people in north and east to boycott the election) in 2005, he kept his most important promise. Although, the incumbent President and his defense secretary was not the sole duo to be hailed as heroes, their contribution and the political leadership was outstanding. The history should give them the credit in leading the vanguard against terrorism and getting Sri Lanka rid of her gravest problem partially. The fame it had brought the President was reflected in 2010 election in which the President had sought another term with the promise of developing the war-ravaged nation.

There were allegations of misuse of the ability to call for an early election just after 4 years in to the Presidential term. Since it was introduced in the 3^rd amendment for the Constitution, it acted as an insurance policy for further holding into power for a ruler with a degrading popularity. For example, a newly appointed president can work progressively for 4 years enacting popular reforms while gaining support of the majority of the people and run for re-election after that and secure another 6 years at the office. Combined with removal of the limitation to be appointed as the President, this deadly cocktail acts as a recipe for an authoritarian leader to forever hold in to power. Change of the governments is an essence of democracy. With the ever powerful Executive Presidency and the President of the country being the party leader of the winning party, the Parliament comes under the indirect control of the President. It will hinder the balance of power and lead to de–facto dictatorship. Although, frequent change of powers may cause problems regarding long-term policies, it will be good for a democratic country. The exact opposite happens in Sri Lanka right now.

There are two main candidates; the incumbent President Mahinda Rajapaksha from the UPFA and Maithreepala Sirisena, the former Minister of health, the former general secretary of the SLFP from the common opposition. Mr Rajapaksha standing strong as ever, winning every election with an overwhelming majority. His main political slogan was ‘A Secured Nation’. Development is the priority in his election manifesto. He surely has a bunch of aces up in his sleeve. Big development projects funded by Chinese loans are the talk of the town. With new harbors, air-port, and expressways, infrastructural development at least reached to major cities. Foreign investment in the real-estate sector has increased. Did the common man have any good effects of this massive development? There is no point in boasting the economic growth solely based on the GDP Per Capita. Inequality of the distribution of wealth has to be considered. If the nation’s wealth is gathered in the hands of few, it is not a good economic model. Of course, it is impossible to equally distribute the wealth in this capitalist market economy but at least adequate wages and concessions for necessities should be implemented. The incumbent government seems to fail in those two areas. They not only lack a method of justified distribution of wealth but also they use the prices of common amenities as a bargaining chip for votes. Major entities of a social welfare model such as health services, education and essential good’s distribution seem to be in disarray. The reason is ether inefficiency in managing those services or the lack of funding for it. The opposition accused the incumbent President of controlling nearly half of the nation’s wealth and neglecting essential but non-lucrative areas such as social welfare, education etc. Rajapaksha neglected two key issues; reforms for the executive presidency and solution for the communal disharmony which resulted in bloody civil war. The minorities have virtually left off from the main political sphere. With all the broken promises, unhealthy development projects and corruption, Rajapaksha’s strategy is to dazzle the public in a sense of security under the arms of Rajapaksha. In return, the people should let Rajapaksha to be powerful as ever. Is that a working strategy in the long run?

The main opposing candidate is Maithreepala Sirisena. It is true that he was battered by the Rajapaksha turned politicians from the UNP during the ‘great-crossover’ which made the UPFA government to secure 2/3^rd majority. It is surprising that none of the Rajapaksha regime knew about his decisive political move. When there was a vacancy for a common candidate, Sarath Nanda Siva, Shirani Bandaranayke and Chandrika Bandaranayke came up as suitors but not Mr Sirisena. He who seems to be with clean hands (at least comparatively clean) is the best bargain for the common opposition ever. His election manifesto has pointed out two key things one is the abolition of the post of Executive Presidency and make the executive responsible for the parliament. The second is addressing corruption. Although there are other petty-promises regarding the right of information, education and social welfare, the sheer idea of curbing the ever powerful executive presidency makes the ‘Sirisena’ package appealing to the majority of educated middle-class Sri Lankans while the working common man might be attracted to the elimination of corruption and re-directing nation’s wealth back to social services.

The public opinion is still fluctuating around the two candidates. The main question for the public who vote for Maithreepala is can he keeps the main two promises he has given. Of course, he can’t do it alone. It all rested in the hands of the main opposition parties to summon up the support in the legislation to implement in changes to the presidential system and reenact the 17^th amendment and other progressive legislations. Maithreepala is to be acted only as the game changer not the person who delivers promises he made. Luckily the joint opposition has a plan; a national government comprising of main opposition parties. If Maithreepala wins the election, a power transformation towards opposition in the parliament is inevitable thus it is not impossible for the opposition with the help of the UPFA members who support Maithreepala’s cause to inflict the desired changes.

Finally, it all comes to the people as in any democratic country. The stakes are very high this time. The people have to make their biggest political gamble in recent times, a gamble which would pay off a great deal and which would ruin their expectations for the generations to come if failed. Public distrust towards the opposition can be understandable when looking at the composition of the Maithreepala supporters. With so much diverse ideologies ranging from Sinhala Buddhist chauvinism to multiculturalism, neo-socialism to capitalism can this loosely-coupled coalition survive in the legislature? In political moves, Sri Lankans always try to stay in their comfort zones preferring relative safely to new and untested ideologies. “Known devil is better than the unknown saint” is the notion of many.

It is really difficult to predict the outcome of this election but when our nation is at crossroads, the people has to make a choice; whether to continue living under the wings of Rajapaksha or to sail to uncharted territory with Maithreepala.

Read More