Presidential Election 2020: a note to candidates

Three adults were discussing politics in a quaint holiday house in Kabalana, Koggala named ‘Octopus Reef’ a few days ago.  The son of one of these adults tapped his father’s knee.  The father handed over a mobile phone to his son saying ‘this is what you wanted, right?’ The son responded thus: ‘Yes. You were talking about ideology, whatever that means.’

The boy is just 11 years old. He didn’t know this, but the truth is that very few talk ‘ideology’ and fewer still know ‘whatever it means’. One might add, ‘and even fewer would really care.’ That’s what ideological hegemony has done — persuaded the abandonment of ideology even as the dominant ideology is affirmed in practice if not in word and more perniciously endorsed by those in contexts of subjugation. 

pic: www.hiveminer.com

In the classic Marxist model of understanding things and processes, the economic is the base and ideology refers to religious, legal and political systems determined by that base.  The dominant ideology would be the projection of the consciousness of the ruling class whether or not the majority of that particular class clearly understands the operational logic of the overall system or the interests of the collective .

Let’s keep it simple though. Ideology refers to a system of ideas and ideals, especially pertaining to things economic and political. It could include among other things beliefs, tenets, principles, doctrines, creeds and theories. 

Now even a cursory examination of Sri Lanka’s political landscape would show that ideology, in this ‘simplistic’ sense, is conspicuously absent or consistently bested by fixations with personality and political collective. There’s talk, especially when elections are at hand, and that’s about it. Perhaps Mangala Samaraweera for all his ideological posturing was the one who came closest to describing the state of affairs: ‘manifestos don’t count after elections are done (or words to that effect).’  

The ‘state of ideology’ can be ascertained by the fact that nothing has dominated elections and even politics in recent times than that sad and humiliating notion, ‘default option’.  We don’t need to elaborate. 

Today, the talk is about what or who comes next. The talk is about presidential hopefuls. There’s also talk about known devils and lesser evils. There’s also the cursory talk about programs, more from the Opposition than from the ruling coalition which has all but come undone.  

It’s nothing more than a recycling of old buzz-words and slogans. Check these out: democracy, reconciliation, rule of law, equal before the law, abuse of power, nepotism, cronyism, combating bribery and corruption, accountability, transparency, separation of powers, separating state and religion, independence of the judiciary, good governance. Now let’s ask some questions. Do we have true representation? Does the law actually rule? Is the judiciary independent and without blemish? Are we rid of nepotism and cronyism? Are we reconciled? Have to resolved the issues of power-separation? Have we unshackled state from the burden of religion as some would put it? And what about yahapalanaya? 

When will we get to the hard questions, when will we start looking seriously for answers? I do not know, but there are things that presidential hopefuls and parties considering pathways to political victories would do well to consider. In the coming weeks, in this column, these issues will be discussed in greater detail. For now, they shall be flagged. Fleshing out is in the final instance in the hands of those who operate within the political equation and hopefully in the hands of those they seek to or claim to represent, i.e. the people.

The State
When we talk of the state it is a discussion that seems sadly limited to one of two things: should it be secular or not, should it be unitary or not. The nature and the role of the state given both local and global realities is never discussed outside academic circles, if indeed they are discussed even in such rarified spaces.  What does the state do, really? What should it do and what is it made to do and whom? These are questions that are ignored. They are questions people like to pretend don’t exist. Indeed, even those discussions that focus on the placement or otherwise of religion and the pros and cons of unitary/federal arrangements are marked by sectarian interests.

The Cabinet 
The focus has been on size.  The pledges have been on limitation. The mechanism to limit has loopholes which make the rhetoric sound hollow and worse, manipulative, contemptuous of the people and deceiving. The issue should be about legislating not just for a limiting of size but the specification of subjects and rules over assigning institutions to the relevant ministries.  

Reconciliation
That’s been a buzz word for a long time since it replaced that other politically tainted term, ‘peace’. There’s talk of grievances and aspirations. There’s talk of historical injustices. There’s talk of traditional homelands. The relevant histories, grievances and aspirations are seldom fleshed out, are frequently inflated or deflated as per the interests of the particular articulator, and are less about substance than about sloganeering. 

Separation of Powers
That’s about the legislative, judicial and executive arms of the state.  All three are out of order.  Perhaps out of fear, the judiciary is left strictly alone when it comes to pointing out flaw, but the truth is that the judiciary is not independent and moreover is marked by institutionalized wrongdoing. The same goes for law-enforcement, with the Police Department severely compromised when it comes to expertise in regular police work, multiple avenues for the fattening of the corrupt, scandalous submission to political authority and even the underworld, and a system of appointments and promotion which has undermined the fundamental principles of policing.

Environment
It seems to be an after-thought, coming into play only when those affected by development or those who are concerned about environmental issues raise their voices. It does not frame national policy at every turn. As it should, if sustainability is as key as politicians, academics and experts here and abroad make it out to be. 

Foreign Policy
Ad hoc seems a good descriptive. Is it only about doing things that please those whose ‘friendship’ is limited to securing access to resources, better terms of trade and furthering strategic interests? Should not foreign policy be designed after considering larger global issues, in particular the play of nations and corporates in robbing the commons, as it were? Should it not be about making choices that make sense not just for the resolution of immediate concerns but the overall wellbeing of generations to come? That’s not the case, sadly.

Education
That’s a brag. The discussion has been reduced to a simplistic argument: ‘private or public?’ Where is the comprehensive occupational classification that is a prerequisite for scientific planning pertaining to the education system as a whole as well as its constituent parts? Why hasn’t new knowledge about the objectives of education, methodologies and overall streamlining become central to discussions?

Health
Another brag. A simple question would reveal a lot about current policy on the health sector: who makes the bucks?

There are of course other areas that need to be examined, and these we shall come to in the coming weeks. However, one important element has to be flagged in this initial enumeration. 

The people. They are kings and queens from the moment elections are announced and until the polls close. They are taken to be of little consequence in the relevant before and after. Politicians and parties claim to represent and to do things in the name of people, but people are not trusted. 

The people are an important part of the nation. There are, therefore, attendant questions. Who are we as a people and a nation? Are we simply multi-ethnic and multi-religious? Who made this nation? Who died in the making and defense of this nation? Is history important or irrelevant and why is it so (either way)?  

We can indulge in caricature. We can sweep things under the carpet. We can say ‘whatever that means…’ not in the honest manner of a child but in the irresponsible, frivolous and ultimately damaging way of an adult.  

Let us see how serious politicians and political organizations are.  

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer. malindasenevi@gmail.com. www.malindawords.blogspot.com

Read more

The specter of ‘The Outsider’ in a Presidential Election

A little over a year ago when I announced that I would be contesting the next Presidential Election, some people laughed, some took it seriously and many, including those who know me, were confused. 

‘Are you serious?’ was a common question. My response was simple: ‘when I think about all those who were serious about contesting, including the winners, when I think about their track records and what they actually did after the particular election, I am wary of using the word “serious”.’ 

A good friend, after speaking with me on the subject for about half an hour, said ‘I am not sure if you are serious or not!’ I responded, ‘neither am I’.  We both laughed. Let’s leave my presidential ambitions and their seriousness aside. It’s not important. Let’s talk instead of the outsider-phenomenon.  

‘Outsider’ can be understood in many ways. Maithripala was an outsider to the party machinery that backed his campaign in 2015. Sarath Fonseka was an outsider in that he was not a politician when he decided to take on Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2010. Mahinda Rajapaksa was treated like an outsider by the leader of his party in 2005. Chandrika Kumaratunga was an outsider to the SLFP not too long before that party decided to back her candidacy in 1994. Ranasinghe Premadasa was an outsider to the UNP’s inner circle despite the positions he held in that party; support was offered grudgingly. 

In other words being an outsider doesn’t necessarily mean that the odds are stacked against you.  However, what’s common about the above personalities is that they were all placed in the driving seat of a big vehicle, i.e. either the UNP or the SLFP or coalitions led by one of these two parties. Those who drove smaller vehicles were non-factors; they couldn’t prevent eventual winners from getting the 50%+1, an eventuality that would have required consideration of the second preference.  

There are names doing the rounds. From the major parties there is Ranil Wickremesinghe (UNP) and Maithripala Sirisena (SLFP). The latter’s chances hinge on a replay of 2015 and this under severely reduced circumstances. The Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) has not announced a candidate, but it seems likely that Gotabhaya Rajapaksa would be the choice of that party.  Gotabhaya is an outsider but less so than Fonseka was.  Patali Champika Ranawaka is spoken of as a possible UNP candidate in the event that Wickremesinghe declines on account of probable defeat.  

Then there are the ‘total outsiders’ (as of now). Nagananda Kodituwakku and Rohan Pallewatta have already announced that they would contest, the latter registering a party and hiring an advertising firm to do brand positioning (for now). Kodituwakku is a strident and relentless voice against corruption and has made the courts his battle ground, even taking the custodians to task.

Kumar Sangakkara’s name has come up but he hasn’t said ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (so far). Then there is Halpage Madhusanka Nuwan (Madhu Roxz) claims on his Facebook account that he is an actor, singer, lyricist, music producer and film maker. Madhu Roxz has also ‘announced’. 

This morning (August 1), a young man named Ravisha Thilakawardana posted a status update on Facebook that has generated a lot of comments. This is what he said: ‘If you want to take revenge on anyone, all you need to do is say that the person is going to take on Gotabhaya Rajapaksa at the next presidential election; immediately that person would be ridiculed before the entire country by bayyas (roughly, Rajapaksa supporters) who would sling mud beginning from the time the person defecated in the pants in the kindergarten.’ 

Someone made a post to the effect that the UNP’s Working Committee has decided to nominate Ravisha to represent the liberal camp headed by the UNP at the next presidential election. This prompted many posts supporting Ravisha. There were congratulatory messages, expression of support and some neat ‘campaign visuals’ of the man.  

As someone said, the success of Maithripala Sirisena has made any idiot think that he/she can become President. It also seems that the anti-Rajapaksa camp is stumped; they simply can’t find a candidate who has a reasonable chance of defeating Gotabhaya Rajapaksa — hence the Kumar Sangakkara ‘Option’. Whether Pallewatte’s campaign ends up with him being the choice, we do not know. As of now, he is indicating (like Kodituwakku insists) that he wants to steer clear of the two major political parties and/or the coalitions led by them.  Madhu Roxz echoes these sentiments. 

While part of all this is pure fun and part of it is clever media work to test waters as well as throwing off balance the perceived political ‘other’, some of it is dead serious. Just because those who didn’t get into a big vehicle failed, there’s nothing to say that this would always be the case. 

The rise of ‘outsiders’ in other parts of the world have made many believe that such a phenomenon is not impossible in Sri Lanka. Those who for whatever reason back the major parties have already started asking ‘well, can he win?’ which implies that the particular ‘he’ is not unsuitable. The counter question is also being asked: ‘shouldn’t we be thinking more about whether someone is suitable, rather than focusing on whether a person can win?’ After all the winnability-factor hasn’t exactly delivered a civilized, democratic country where the fundamentals of good governance (yahapalanaya) have been consecrated.  

What all this indicates to me is that people are now getting sick of ‘same old, same old’. Sure they’ll vote for the candidate put forward by the major parties if that’s all the choice they have. Many will no doubt let ‘winnability’ and ‘worse evils’ frame thinking when it comes to it. However, if anything was learned in the 2015 ‘decision,’ it is that there’s room for surprise. 

While on paper the SLPP seems poised to win, the very fact that the yahapalanists are in disarray means that an outsider can make a decent run. What’s crucial is for the outsider to remain outside. If there’s momentum created then such a momentum-creator could be wooed by the anti-Rajapaksa camp. Then it boils down to a battle between personal glory and genuine need to turn things around. If the former is chosen, then we are at ‘same old, same old,’ but if the particular person declines, there is that outside chance that his/her campaign will get an extra boost which could wreck the political equation. 

Once that happens, who knows? There is palpable disgust at the two major parties (and I could the SLPP as more blue than any other color, taking into consideration the recent political fortunes of the SLFP). So here’s to Rohan Pallewatta, Nagananda Kodituwakku, Ravisha Thilakawardana and Madhu Roxz: steer clear of the UNP and SLFP/SLPP so we can hope that a different future can be charted for our nation.

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer. malindasenevi@gmail.com. 

Read more