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

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

The Lost Opportunity to Tame the Tyrant; 17th Amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka

The most controversial political office in the history of Sri Lankan politics is unarguably the post of Executive Presidency. It was established by the Second Republican Constitution in 1978. The mastermind in implementing that, President J.R.Jayawardena wanted a stable government with a firm executive free from the clutches of the legislature to rapidly develop the country. At least that was his initial plan. Now more than four decades later almost all the political experts agree to the fact that the Executive Presidency has lost its initial purpose. It has drifted from the role of an efficient ruler into a tyrant.

Failed promises and election manifestos to abolish the executive presidency has been in the political arena for a long time. Many presidential candidates promised to abolish it but later stick it to the office they promised to abolish. Recently, the common candidate of the opposition promised to abolish this office within 100 days. Even before the declaration of the presidential election, the opposition parties, even parities from the ruling coalition government and civil societies were lobbying for an abolition of the Executive Presidency If not for a Constitutional Amendment to limit its power. Prominent Buddhist monk, Ven Maduluwawe Sobitha Thero had taken an early lead in shaping the public opinion regarding this issue. Initially, Sobitha Thero was not convinced of abolishing that post entirely. He wanted the incumbent president not to go for an election but to amend the constitution, to at least limit the tyrannical powers of the executive.

Even long before the election of the incumbent president on whose term the powers of the executive was abused to the eternity, according to some political experts, Sri Lanka had a mechanism to somewhat limit the power of the executive in appointing members to independent commissions. It was the 17^th Amendment to the Constitution. With that amendment, presidential control on the public service, judicial service, elections and Finance was drastically limited. Although the amendment was introduced in October 2001, it was never fully implemented or exercised effectively. Finally it was all but repealed by the 18^th Amendment in 2010.

This article will analyze the 17^th Amendment and how it controls the executive.    

The main purpose in enacting the 17^th Amendment was to limit the presidential powers in appointing the members of the independent commissions. It is obvious that if they are to be appointed solely on the discretion of the president, the independence of those commissions would be compromised.

Constitutional Council

Composition

The Constitutional Council was the epicenter of this amendment. It consisted of (a) the Prime Minister (PM) (b) the Speaker (c) the Opposition Leader (d) a person appointed by the President (e) five members appointed by the President on the nomination of both the PM and the Opposition Leader (f) one person nominated by the other political parties. Out from the five members appointed by the President, three should be from the minority communities. Those members in d, e and f category should not belong to any political party. It was a good chance that those members are from the intellectual faction of the society. When removing those, the PM and the Opposition Leader both has give consent. This prevented arbitrary removals by the President.

Even if we assume that the President’s party controls the majority and the government and the PM is from that party, the President can’t appoint the people he likes. The factions of the Constitutional Council don’t sit in the favor of the President. The appointed members by the PM and the Opposition Leader (minority communities have 3 seats) will be independent and may stand up to the appointment which are unfavorable to them.

In a hypothetical situation; typical constituent of the Council

President’s Side	Others
PM	Opposition Leader
Speaker	Minority party nominee
One nominated member by the President	5 X member nominated by both PM and Opposition leader
3	7

Working of the Council

Council makes appointments according to two methods

41B: Council recommends personnel for certain independent commissions. It’s only upon the Council’s recommendations that the President can appoint them.  Arbitrary removal is prevented by requiring the consent of both the PM and the Opposition Leader. Recommendations should be approved by more than 4 members of the Council.

The independent commissions;

• ·         The election commission
• ·         The public service commission
• ·         The national police commission
• ·         The human rights commission
• ·         Bribery commission
• ·         Finance commission
• ·         Delimitation commission

41C: President can appoint them by only after the Council has approved the appointments. These appointments included key persons in administration

• ·         Chief Justice and the Judges of the Supreme Court
• ·         The President and the Judges of the Court of Appeal
• ·         Members of the Judicial Service Commission except for the chairman
• ·         The Attorney General
• ·         The Auditor General
• ·         The Inspector General of Police
• ·         Ombudsman
• ·         The Secretary General of Parliament

The Constitutional Council was made immune to judicial proceedings other than proceedings on the article 126. It is clear to say that the Constitutional Council is the stepping stone for the appointment for all the key administrative and judicial personnel. Since the Constitutional Council can’t be handled by the President according to his discretion, the appointments for the commissions will also be independent. This is much needed one because all the key governmental positions are now handled by the people appointed by the President according to his will without referring to any advice from anyone whatsoever. Public service and Judicial service was hit severely. The prominent example was the appointment of the Former Attorney General who was the head of a government department  to the position of Chief Justice(CJ) which needed to be as independent as independent can be!!! Government’s chief law officer who represented the government in litigation can be assumed to have an inclination towards favoring the person who appointed him. This position clearly illustrated by the Supreme Court decision on the validity of removing the former CJ.  

54: Public service commission was appointed by the Council. It takes the power of the president to appoint, remove, transfer, promote and take disciplinary actions. Heads of the departments and policy making was still vested in the cabinet. Military commanders are appointed by the President upon his power of the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. Even with the above limitations, the Public Service was controlled by an independent commission appointed by independent Council. That was a progressive move for an uncorrupt public service. Interference with the Public Service Commission was also deemed to be a punishable offence making political interference impossible at least theoretically.

103(1): Election commission was appointed by the Constitutional Council with the aim to enforce free and fair elections and referenda. It can prohibit the use of public property for election purposes. It can appoint a management for government media corporations such as Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation and Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation if they failed to comply with the election commissioner’s guidelines thus preventing the use of government media inappropriately. The wide powers of this commission extend even to the deployment of Police and Armed Forces personnel. All of the above to ensure the right of free and fair elections. Since the commission was to be appointed by an independent Council, the members of the commission were also deemed to be independent.

National Police Commission and Judicial Service commission were also appointed by the Council with the aim of independently controlling the police and judicial service respectively. Specially, for the enhancement of the rule of law of a country, the need of an independent judicial service is eminent. The body that controls the judges should also be independent. It all comes to an Independent Constitutional Council free from the control of the President to appoint the Judicial Service Commission.

The 17^th Amendment was enacted in 2001 it was operational for almost 9 years until it was repealed by the 18^th Amendment. We should have the question of whether the independent Constitutional Council was effective in those 9 years. Unfortunately it had become the victim of the partisan politics that plagued our country since the independence. There is a fundamental flaw in the Constitutional Council. In appointing members for the Council, agreement between the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader needed to be made. What if they couldn’t reach for an agreement? That halted the whole process. Also nothing could be done for the non-inclination of the President to accept the recommendations of the Council. Since the President is immune to judicial inquiry, no proceedings could be initiated against the President. The only remedy was bringing an impeachment against the President according to the Article 38(2) of the Constitution alleging intentional violation of the Constitution but it is apparent that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the legislature to impeach the President with the existing constitutional provisions.

Until it is repealed by the 18^th Amendment, although the 17^th Amendment was a part of our constitution, the Constitutional Council was poorly performed due to the tug of war between the government and the opposition parties. The inherent flaws of appointment procedure and the lack of provisions to tackle the insubordination by the President for the recommendations by the Council rendered the 17^th Amendment useless.

Now the political arena was full of promises to clip the wings of the tyrant executive and even to restore a prime minister who is responsible for the parliament. i believe that, right now there is no hurry to completely reverse the Executive Presidential system or make a complete constitutional reversal but some amendments like 17^th needed to be implemented. It will be important not to repeat the same mistakes of the 17^th Amendment. Controls to the Executive Presidency and remedies if the President did not comply to the recommendations made by the constitutional amendment can be incorporated. Impeachment procedure of the President will also need to be changed.

It is far easier and less risky to tame the fiery dragon than to kill it and recruit another. It is not wrong to say that there are some advantages of having an Executive President as well. It will be a great political victory if all of us can find a way to keep the benefits of the Presidency while removing the tyrannical aspects of it.

Read More

Presidential Election 2015: The Question of Being Elected for the Third Term

Today, election fever has taken over the whole country. It is hard to find anyone not interested in upcoming presidential election. This presidential election is one of the most critical presidential elections in Sri Lanka only second to the 2005 election. This election was controversial even before it began. There were doubts about the authenticity of the election and the ability for the incumbent president to call and participate in it based on the interpretation of an amendment of the constitution.  Now, although that problem is solved, it is important to know the fundamental question relating to that anomaly so as a politically inclined citizen you may be able to grasp the main flaw of the executive system in Sri Lanka.

Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksha called a presidential election after just four years in to his second term. The general public who had anticipated this as a political move to win another election by Mr Rajapaksha, before his popularity fades away. No one tried to question the legality of this until suddenly former Chief Justice Sarath Nanda Silva came with a controversial point suggesting due to the date of the introduction of the 18^th amendment to the constitution, Mr Rajapaksha, who was elected by  the people for the post of the Executive president twice, can’t contest for this election.

President Rajapaksha has amended the constitution with 2/3^rd majority on 9^th September 2010. Apart from enhancing the presidential powers and shredding independent commissions, it amended the limit on number of times a person can be elected to the post of president by the people.

The argument from the opposition including former CJ and the president of the Bar association was that since Mr Rajapaksha was elected for the second term by the people before the enactment of this amendment , the freedom to be elected for the next term will not be available to him. The opposition also pointed out that since this amendment was hastily prepared, the framers of that forgot to make the article 2 removing the limitation retrospective. If that is a non-retrospective one, how can that be valid to situations that already occurred before the enactment of this amendment.

President Mahinda Rajapaksha was elected for the second term on 27^th January 2010. This was way before the enactment of the 18^th Amendment. Technically, according to the 31(2) which was still valid when Mr Rajapaksha got elected for the 2^nd term, he was unqualified for the candidacy for further term. Eighteenth amendment being a non-retrospective legislation, prevents the new conditions taken in that amendment to be applied in to the unqualified Rajapaksha. This was the main point brought by Sarath Nanda Silva and the opposition.

They immediately went into lobbying for Rajapaksha’s inability to enter into another election. Since, he is also disqualified from calling an election after 4 years; they argued that this election was invalid. When Mr Siva was preparing to bring this matter to the court, Rajapaksha himself asked the opinion of the Supreme Court with the power granted to him by the article 129 of the constitution. Constitution has given its opinion backed by a full-bench affirming Rajapaksha’s right to call up the presidential election and they also affirmed his right to get elected for the 3^rd term.

Now that episode was over. Mr Rajapasha and his rivals are preparing for a fierce battle for power. Presidential media campaigns are in the full swing. Although the opposition, former CJ who first raised the legal point and the Bar association went silent after getting the opinion of the Supreme Court against their favor, as political citizens we have a right to know truth behind this allegations and the constitutional interpretation regarding this issue.

Section 31(2) of the 1978 imposes the limitation of number of times.

31. (2) No person who has been twice elected to the office of President by the People shall be qualified thereafter to be elected to such office by the People.

By the section 2(1) of the 18^th amendment, it was repealed.

Sri Lanka (hereinafter referred to as the “Constitution”) is hereby amended in Article 31 thereof, as follows:—

(1) by the repeal of paragraph (2) of that Article; and

(2) in paragraph (3A) (a)(i) of that Article—

(a) by the substitution for the words “at any time after the expiration of four years from the commencement of his first term of office” of the words “at any time after the expiration of four years from the commencement of his current term of”; and

(b) by the substitution for the words “by election, for a further term.” of the following:— “by election, for a further term: Provided that, where the President is electedin terms of this Article for a further term of office, the provisions of this Article shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of any subsequent term of office to which he may be so elected.”

When we analyze the above timeline, the main divisor of that is the enactment date of the 18^th Amendment, 9^th September 2010. Before that the existing law disqualify anyone who was elected twice form contesting again. Until the 8^th of September 2010, Mahinda Rajapaksha who was elected for the second term in January 2010 was disqualified from entering into an election. The controversial question was what will happen to the law after 9^th of September 2010?

Article 2(2) of the Amendment is clear. With the substitution of the words, the incumbent president Rajapaksha can call for election after 4 years in to his second term. Regarding the 2(1), a different story immerges. Rajapaksha was disqualified from being elected after his second term commenced in January.  Will that position be changed with the enactment of the 18^th Amendment without retrospective legislation? This is the critical question to which we need to answer

The answer can be found not in the date of the enactment but in the declaration date of the 2015 presidential election. Rajapaksha declared the election on 20^th November 2014. Till that date, president was not decided to be elected by the people. We need to look for the disqualification on based on that date not the date of his second term in January 2010. It is obvious that the law existing in November 2014 doesn’t have the limiting factor of Article 31(2) because it was repealed by 18^th Amendment.

According to the opposition, the president will be automatically disqualified when the was elected for the 2^nd term but the question of whether he can or can’t be elected (declaration of next election) should be at least 4 years from the date of the second term. Until that the question of 31(2) was not to be arisen. When that finally comes in 2014, the limiting factor was already gone for more than 3 years giving Rajapaksha the legal authority to call an election and to contend for the presidency.

The Supreme Court, on full bench affirmed Mr Rajapaksha’s right to call for an early election and to be elected by the people. Although, the legal matter is settled, there is the question of morality of this move. It is clear that Rajapaksha was trying to hold on to power as long as possible. The decision to remove the limitation on a third term was seen as an enhancement of democracy even by the former CJ Mrs Bandaranayake, it is ironical that she who was supportive of Rajapaksha’s plan becoming a victim of his wrath.

Now it seems to be a waste of time to go through the validity of 18^th Amendment’s article since the issue raised above will never be raised again but it is important to see how the leaders go through the holes of the law and manipulate the supreme law of the country to forever hold on to power.

With the presidential election coming, the nation is at crossroads. We have to choose either political stability with clandestine democracy or a frail promise from a ragtag bunch of party outcasts to change the executive presidential system. The choice is at the hands of ordinary people who don’t know much about the political stigma attached to this election. Will the common man make the correct choice? What are the repercussions of their choice?

“The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind, The answer is blowin' in the wind"

Read More

Western and Southern Provincial Council Election Aftermath

Western and Southern provincial council election has ended. The interest for elections among Sri Lankan have faded away considerably during the last five years. Specially provincial and local government elections were done in rations so it is not wrong to say that every year citizens experience an election. The result of this election was predictable from the beginning but we have witnessed significant development in the political arena so an analysis of the outcome of this election will not be a waste of time and effort.

Provincial council election of Western and Southern provinces was held in a situation where we have experienced an array of elections back to back. People were fed up with them. It is apparent that the ruling party’s objective of this election is evaluating its popularity among the people.  This election was held in the midst of a United Nations resolution against Sri Lanka. UPFA government has urged people to vote in this election to give a message to the international community saying that no matter how tough international reaction is, the people are in with the government. Sri Lankan president being the leader of the government tested the possibility of winning in an early presidential election which was suspected to be held in the end of 2014. Sri Lankan government and the ruling party were heavily criticized by both the opposition parties and civil society for being undemocratic and authoritarian. There were allegations of corruption, violation of media freedom and fundamental rights as well. The ruling party wanted to give a clear message to the opposition that they still have the popular support and it is impossible to topple the government.

It is useless to even talk about the election violence, use of public property for election campaigns and violation of election law because those actions have become an essential part of the election culture in Sri Lanka. It is more interesting to look at the candidates of this election. Only a handful of candidates from both provinces have the necessary qualifications and capabilities to serve people genuinely. What we can see it the emergence of small “family trees”. Majority of the candidates are sons, daughters and siblings of politicians. It seems to be the younger generation is eagerly coming forward to pick up the political baton. Models, actresses, actors and business tycoons have also contested. Most of the candidates were aware of the fact that the general public prefers people with good educational background so most of them have put their educational qualifications in the election posters. One candidate in Colombo district has gone to such extreme that a large photo of him getting his degree from one the most prestigious universities in North America was distributed alone with his placards. It is a good move that more and more educated people are getting in to politics nowadays but will they be sensible for the people’s needs? Will they ensure good governance and rule of law? Models turned actresses were also contested for the election. There were a lot of them but only a handful got nominations.

Janatha Wimukthi Peramuna (JVP) with the leadership of Anura Kumara Dissanayake was ready to contest with a new approach. JVP voter base was severely affected with the breaking up of the party in to three factions. Sarath Fonseka’s Democratic Party came to the election with confidence. They have secured and thrived as the 3^rd power suppressing the JVP. Populist politics played a huge part. If a candidate can build a personality cult, he or she can win this election with ease. Candidates such as Hirunika Premachandra who presented herself to be the adopted daughter of the first family, Udaya Gammanpila who had gained popularity by turning up to the general public to find money for election campaigns, Malsha Kumaranathunga, popular media personalities who got unprecedented media coverage and backing from a media organization were all part of this new breed of political candidates who tried to make themselves larger than life personalities.

The result of the election was highly predictable. UPFA, the ruling party won the election but their voter base was affected in some polling divisions. The United National Party was further spiraling in to submission. Sarath Fonseka’s Democratic Party seemed to have broken up considerable amount of votes from the two main parties and they have got the majority of the swing votes. The JVP’s revival was short lived. They’ve failed to make a mark on the people’s minds. Candidates who had made personality cults out of them were really successful. Almost all of them got huge number of preferential votes no matter what their political party was. Only sensible thing in this election was done by the Matara district voters. They had the courage to chase away the two actresses who contested.

Voter turnaround was very low suggesting that the people were no longer interested in elections, especially provincial council polls. They are fed up with the cheap partisan politics. It is a well known fact that Provincial Counsels are white elephants. The general public hardly noticed any significance of provincial politics. Many young and educated politicians were elected. It is a good trend to make room for the next generation, a new breed of politicians.

Political parties got overwhelmed by their victories that they’ve forgot to look at the bigger picture. People are anticipating a change of the political system. It should not be interpreted as a complete regime change but faith in good governance should be ensured. More democratic, less authoritarian and most importantly less corrupt rule is needed. Infrastructure development alone can’t satisfy the people. If the present politics failed to make the change that people requested it to deliver, they may choose some other group that willing to do so.

When we look at this election merely as a provincial council election, it has no significance at all but this is one of the political game-changing moments for the ruling party and the opposition. He, who understands the message given by the people and alter his course, will have a future so this provincial council election can be considered as a significant landmark of Sri Lankan politics. 

Read More

Election Special : Sri Lankan Politics and the Guide to Choose Candidates

Sri Lanka is a country with a democratic political system, “Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka” as the name implies. We can drop the socialist part because socialist elements are diminished if not completely gone from the political system. According to Abraham Lincoln “Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people”. Most important characteristic of democracy is citizens' participation of the governance of their country so as citizens of a democratic country, it is vital to have an idea of what our part in democracy.

Since Sri Lanka has representative democracy, citizens are eligible to vote and choose their representatives by elections. There are elections for both Executive and Legislative parts of a state. Judiciary is also in control of the executive branch. As citizens we may be complemented with the feeling of having total control of the state in our hands like democracy wanted us to; but in reality this is not happening.

Sri Lanka is the oldest democracy in South East Asia having being introduced to the universal suffrage in 1930. Even before 1930 part of the people have experienced to some form of limited democracy. It is heart-breaking for a democracy-loving Sri Lankan citizen to witness his country ranking low in Democracy index. Although it ranked as 3^rd in South Asia, that is no complement when most of the South Asian countries are in political turmoil or in the midst of political crises and unstable military-influenced governments.

We are having elections; a lot of them but when the representatives we choose to rule the government institutions are not doing their job properly, our country can’t be call as a good democracy. This situation is far worse in provincial and local government politics. We should understand that correct functioning of democracy does not only lie on the holding elections but also on the conduct of people who are being elected. 

Although people of Sri Lanka have more than 70 years experience of active political engagement, most of the early politicians were aristocrats. They were gradually getting hold of the plantation and commercial industries. Educated in Britain, they embraced western culture and ideology. Those, who we call the “Elite”, choose politics just to enhance their social status. Most of them welcomed British presence and displeased with giving universal suffrage and greater autonomy to the Ceylonese.

After getting independence from British, the elite had to rule the country but contrary to their conduct before independence, they were somewhat progressive. When British left in 1948, Ceylon had a functioning democracy, fast developing economy, and political stability. Leaders back then had plans for future development thus giving agriculture and plantation the utmost importance. Education was also placed in high priority. Above all past leaders respected democracy. Majority of politicians were not corrupt, politics was not the way to get rich but to serve people. Although educated middle class was present in political arena, they've contributed to the betterment of the state and upholding the democracy in Ceylon. With that new wave of different political ideologies were introduced.

As we all know, the turning point in Sri Lankan politics came with the 1978 constitution. President Junius Richard Jayawardene's intention of the new constitution was having a stronger state through strong central executive thus making president both the chief of state and the head of the government. Two main changes happened to the political system. First is creating the Executive presidency which has executive powers and can directly influence the legislative and judicial sections in the state. Second is the district basis election system in which several representatives are selected according to preferential voting system. There are several flows in the system. One is the tendency of the executive to turn in to more like authoritarian leader. Although Sri Lankan executive presidency is somewhat similar to United States of America, the checks and balances theory which was vital to the survival of democracy was not correctly administered here. Next major flow is the need of power and money to run for the election and secure a seat in ever fierce election battleground.  A candidate needs to secure vote in a large area. With preferential votes, internal conflicts within a political party may occur. Gradually politics become not a service to the public but a quick way to earn money. This newly found gold-rush attracted corrupt politicians whose intend is only to make money and expand their da-facto mafia. An uncorrupted, honest person cannot survive in this political underworld, only a thug or a fat cat can afford. This gradually alienates politics from educated politicians who are willing to serve people.

After three and half decades, political desertification is eminent in Sri Lankan political landscape. Sri Lankan politics is controlled by a bunch of thugs, goons, drug lords and fraudsters. Even the higher leadership doesn’t do anything to stop those contaminating politics even if they wanted to because senior politicians and party leaders need goons to be in power. Sad thing is educated and sensible people are in politics also succumbing to this evil political system.

As concerned citizens, there is nothing to be gain by blaming politicians or senior leaders; instead we should change the political system. At least, send sensible people who are willing to change the system. As voters, our options are limited. Although prevailing system limits alternative political ideologies or people willing to challenge the system, there may be still handful of determined individuals worth voting for. They may lack political experience, but have guts not to follow the present political bandwagon. Citizens should help to bring new breed of politicians who are young, vibrant and uncorrupted.

Criteria to select candidates in elections.

.  1. Education; 

    Unlike the other developed democracies, Sri Lankan politics is plagued with uneducated politicians. There should be minimum education qualifications to enter politics. Since knowledge without wisdom is useless, a politician should be sensible, competent and above all practical.  This is clearly visible in Sri Lankan politics. We have many university graduates in parliament but they are not doing anything to change this infected political system. Most of the candidates of the upcoming western and southern provincial elections have realized that the people are now urging for more and more educated people to come to politics. That is why you can see many election posters displaying candidates’ educational qualifications (most apparently their university degrees). It is good a political trend but we should not forget that in Sri Lanka if you are wealthy, you can get honorary degree; even a PhD. Who can assure the authenticity of their educational qualifications? Moreover getting formal education doesn’t guarantee a positive change of a person’s attitudes.

2. Family background; 

Society and especially family plays a vital road in person's character. Early Ceylonese politicians were sensible because they come from respectable families. Now anyone can climb the social ladder when he possesses lot of money. Money can't buy everything, certainly not humility.

3. Political ideology;

Political ideology is looked down upon most of the times. As a matter of fact although individual political parties or governments had their political plans ranging from leftist to far right, those didn’t comply with the national development goals. Even our country hasn’t got a clear national development plan. It is vital to give your vote to people who have a clear vision and a practical one. It is natural for politicians to come up with political manifestoes at election times but educated public should have knowledge to evaluate all the promises in it and come to a conclusion whether that politician’s promises are real and he/she has the ability to deliver them. As long as the public keeps ignoring the validity of political promises, cunning politicians will always fool us.

4. Criminal history.

There is a law in Sri Lanka preventing a person from holding a public office for some time, if that person is convicted by a court for certain offences. Political parties are discouraged from giving nominations to people with criminal history but enforcing law on politicians are very rare and most of them escapes conviction. It is a well known fact that majority of members of our parliament have some sort of criminal past and some even continues to rely on thuggery.

We can’t find Mr. Cleans in the politics. It has always been a dirty game but within the black and white, we may find certain gray area. That should be the place we look for. Sri Lankans had enough of it. We suffered in the hands of corrupt, incompetent and greedy politicians. Now it is time for us to think wisely and decide who our leaders will be.  

Read More