Can these politicians make us say ‘thank you for small mercies’?

Major (Rtd) Ajith Niranjan Perera has seen war. He was in the first batch of the Special Forces, set up in 1985 led by Major General (Rtd) G Hettiarachchi, numbering 38 men and two officers. He has fought to ensure the security of the citizenry, safeguard the territorial integrity and continued sovereignty. Naturally, he is not pleased 

We were neighbors growing up and so he is ‘Ajith Ayya’ to me, then and now. I remember Ajith Ayya as a man of action. He didn’t talk much then, and we haven’t talked much in the years that have passed. He called me yesterday (January 22).

Like most people in this country, he doesn’t harbor illusions about politicians. He knows that rhetoric is easy and that delivery mostly non-existent. Again, like most people, he hasn’t retired hope. 

‘If we can get these fellows to agree to four things, I would be happy,’ he said. The nature of his ‘hope’ tells a story about the kind of confidence the people have in their representatives and leaders. In many ways, it was a minimalistic wish, although if implemented we could hope for a better calibre of politician in the future simply because they would eliminate incentives for the crooked to enter politics. 

The ‘four things’: 1) No vehicle permits for parliamentarians, 2) No crossing party line, 3) No pensions, and 4) Each member of Parliament will be answerable to a single electorate. 

The last is about electoral reform. It is about making representation meaningful. It is about giving some credence to the notion of participatory democracy. For almost three decades we have had MPs being forced to think of district and not electorate, for ‘electioneering’ begins the day they are elected. Politicians are about elections, need we labor the point? 

This Government vowed to abolish the pernicious electoral system. That was a huge election promise. That’s what the original 20th Amendment was to be about, namely, correcting the flaws of proportional representation (PR). Now, after selling reform that was in fact a further entrenchment of PR and suffering a humiliating drubbing at the local government elections, the Yahapalanists have all but abandoned the idea. ‘Let’s hold elections under the old system,’ they say, even as they keep postponing provincial council elections. ‘Sure thing,’ the opposition says, knowing (like the ruling party) that if victory is not possible then defeat would not be comprehensive. 

So No 4 is a tough ask at this point. On the other hand, so are the others. Tough asks. And that’s what will test the government and indeed the entire parliament.

Why should politicians receive vehicle permits? They claim they want our votes to serve us. It’s almost as though they are doing it out of the largeness of their hearts. In any case, they are elected for 5 years only. In any case, wherever they go, they have backup vehicles. Wait, they also have official vehicles. Why then can’t they be allocated a decent vehicle for the period they hold office? 

Why should anyone be given a pension for life after doing five years of work (if they work, that is — let’s not forget that they do more harm than good!)? That’s plain silly. If politicians are deemed deserving of a pension after being in office for five years, shouldn’t the principle be applied to everyone else as well? We can have teachers, doctors, clerks, peons, SLAS and SLES officers, diplomats, police officers, military personnel etc., ‘retiring’ after five years and enjoying a pension until they die. 

It’s stupid, plain and simple. Pensions for politicians should be done away with immediately. We could have a referendum on the matter and I grant that the marginal benefit would outweigh the marginal cost in the long run. This side of a referendum, perhaps the Census and Statistics Department could be commission to conduct a survey on public sentiment on this issue. It is quite likely that the vast majority would want the pension scheme for parliamentarians scrapped.

Crossing over has become a remunerative option for politicians, especially given the PR system. No less a personality than President Maithripala Sirisena claimed that the going rate for MPs to cross (or remain!) was Rs 500 million! All this was facilitated by a verdict delivered by Sarath N Silva in the 1990s, preventing political parties from sacking (and thereby unseating) renegades. He determined that the President can, in his or her wisdom, determine that any MP should be given a cabinet portfolio and that in such a situation, the particular party’s power to sack/unseat is rendered ineffective. 

In the best parliamentary traditions, there have been many instances where individual members have taken positions at odds with the party leadership. That’s a conscience-vote. In most cases, the matter is pretty obvious. MPs can vote as they believe fit, regardless of the party’s position. However, in a system where the people first vote for party and then for candidate, the argument can be made that it would be a violation of trust if the particular member went against the party line. That very argument holds against crossing over ‘to the other side’. 

Once again, the Government could (in the interest of salvaging some pride after four years affirming good governance in its breach) commission a survey. The vast majority of respondents would probably say ‘no way.’

At the tail end of its term, this parliament which has disgraced itself unlike any other parliament, can give us a few morsels. Small mercies, if you will.  Something for which we can say ‘thank you, we appreciate!’ Major (Rtd) Ajith Niranjan Perera is, I believe, speaking for the entire population of voters. Let his voice be heard!

malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more

Good Governance VII: Eschewing of Enmity

Akkodha: the need to eschew enmity

The seventh virtue that a good ruler is advised to cultivate is akkodha or absence of enmity.  The word choice is extremely pertinent. There is nothing in this about not having political opponents or not being competitive.  The focus is on the approach to engagement, I believe. In other words, the Samma Sambuddha, Siddhartha Gauthama the Enlightened One, in his incomparable discourse on Good Governance advises rulers and would-be rulers to desist from enmity, from ill-feeling in their political engagement, as always in thought, word and deed.

Rulers are not like this in general.  Politics of power is an unforgiving exercise, with no quarters asked and none given. It is a pound-of-flesh kind of engagement or even worse, a pound of flesh extracted in lieu of an ounce that had been taken before.  Politics and revenge have become such close companions that they are not just inseparable but are hard to distinguish from one another. 

Our Budun Wahanse was of the view that this kind of behaviour and culture would obstruct the ability to govern well. The ideal ruler or a ruler striving for the ideal would eschew revenge and all acts of ill-will and hatred, even if it were permissible within a given regime of legality.  In other words, such a leader would not do something even if it were legal if he/she felt that it would amount to pandering to desires of revenge, punishment and ill will. 

Ruling is not easy.  Getting to the point of ruling is hard.  In unforgiving political circumstances one makes many friends. One makes enemies too, even without intending to and even if one’s intentions in all engagements are wholesome, innocent and absolutely lacking in ill will.  Politics is a game where arrows are shot, poisons administered; there is cut and gash, blood-letting and raucous laughter, insult and humiliation, needling and litigation.  It is made of proxy-attacks; one is liable to be left alone and instead attacks are focused on near and dear as in loved ones or ideas, ideologies or religious faiths. The smart and vindictive have a million ways of hurting, of getting under someone’s skin and rest assured politics is a game where every trick in the book is tried out if one is aware of it. 

In politics there are therefore a million reasons to bear a grudge.  There are a hundred and one grievances that ache heart and mind.  One comes into contact with despicable people and one is required not to react with aggression.  Many politicians grin and bear because this is the politically expedient way of handling insult.  They do this for the sake of keeping certain appearances current.  

Most politicians, however, rarely forget a grudge, a wrong done; they may appear unperturbed but would be seeking other ways of punishing perceived wrongs, ways in which they are not implicated in any way. Some politicians, of course, are cruder than others, let us not forget.

Budun Wahanse does not assume or expect us to assume that politics is a flat-land engagement; there are ups and downs in terms of fortune (ref the ata lo damaha) in life and therefore in politics too.  Politics is a game played by pruthagjanas, i.e. the unenlightened or those who yet to set metaphorical foot on a path of no-return to Enlightenment.  Budun Wahanse knew this and expected people to be people, to do what those who have a long way to go in the slaying of ill-humours accumulated over lifetimes of unreflective living and consequent generation of sansara-prolonging karmic ‘credit’.  This is why the politician was advised to act with forbearance and love without harbouring grievance or ill feeling. 

One can be aggrieved. The trick is not to bite dog when dog bites; no not even to propose and administer mercy-death or kick-in-the-butt or slap or chide.  The trick would be to treat all with equanimity the vicissitudes that life throws at you, including insult, humiliation or violent harm such as assault or acts of arson that destroys all.

If this cardinal principle of good governance is spurned, then more hatred and ill will is naturally engendered. Where forgiving and embrace would have healed and consolidated, there is revenge and violence, insult and counter-insult, the seeking out of despicable allies, the employment of passion over reason, the feeding of ego and a footnoting of the common good. 

The principle of Akkoda is by definition a condition in which there is no room for jealousy, fear or resentment. Instead it calls upon rulers and ruler-aspirants to develop the four divine abidings, namely, kindness, compassion joy at other’s well being, equanimity and non-harm.   

There are leaders who cling to things with such passion and devotion long after their shelf-lives have aspired.  That kind of upadan or clinging/greed inhibits eye and mind, stops you from seeing and imagining. A ruler cannot let him/herself be distracted by the pursuance of personal agendas and the settling of debts.  One cannot totally ignore those who want to harm oneself and the regime one heads or is a part of, but there are ways of dealing with the opposition without compromising the edifice of the law to extents that render it ineffective or set precedence that could cause long term harm.   

There are leaders who know how to embrace and who to embrace.  There are leaders who cannot embrace. They cannot rule.  They should not rule, in fact. 

There are no perfect rulers. There are those who try and fail and those who never try.  Let us not be harsh. Let us not rush to judgment. Let us see with equanimity and distance, divorced from political preferences and differences, let us consider the minimum of what’s possible. Let us consider the maximum and strive to get there.   Together.

We have lots of bags to unpack.  Unnecessary grudges and tools set aside for rainy days of power slippage.  The ruler has to rule.  Let us hope that he/she does so with full fidelity to the sathara brahma viharana, which, I am convinced, are virtues whose cultivation would in no way compromise one’s faith or one’s  journey towards the ultimate residency in one’s chosen ethical and religious cosmology. 

[First published in the Daily Mirror, November 2010]

The following is the complete set of articles on the Dasa Raja Dharma

Good Governance I: Liberality, Generosity and Charity

Dana: the virtue of giving

Good Governance II: the primacy of virtue

Sila: the moral component of the Dasa Raja Dharma]

Good Governance III: Self Sacrifice

Pariccaga: the third element of the Dasa Raja Dharma

Good Governance IV: honesty and integrity

Ajjava: the discourse on honesty and integrity in governance 

Good Governance V: Gentleness and Kindness

Majjava: the kinder, gentler elements of governance

Good Governance VI: Austerity and Restriant

Tapa: the virtues of austerity and restraint 

Good Governance VII: Eschewing of Enmity

Akkodha: the need to eschew enmity

Good Governance VIII: Non-violence

Avihimsa: incorporating non-violence into good governance

Good Governance IX: Forbearance

Khanti: the virtue of patience and tolerance

Good Governance X: non-opposition and non-enmity

Avirodha: a must-cultivate for the effective and benevolent ruler

Read more

Good Governance V: Gentleness and Kindness

Majjava: the kinder, gentler elements of governance

‘Liberty, equality and fraternity,’ was the preferred scream during the French Revolution. The Bolsheviks went for ‘Land, peace and bread’.  In the eighties we had another great line from a not so great individual, George Bush (Snr): ‘A kinder, gentler nation’.  Given his trigger-happy, guns-in-booty-out thinking, I doubt if Bush was inspired by anything other than profit-making (for his friends) and securing territory in the global political economy for the United States of America, even at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. 

Kindness and gentleness, Bush’s rhetoric and politics clearly indicates, are easy words.  They roll off mind and tongue smoothly, and in these days of heaven-and-earth promising appear to have been divested of meaning.  This does not mean however they the concepts are irrelevant as far as individual and collective are concerned or, indeed, as far as specific individuals and collectives such as rulers and governments respectively are concerned. 

In his incomparable treatise on good governance, the Dasa Raja Dharma, the Buddha Gauthama makes special mention of these two qualities, which, for him, were non-negotiable.  A ruler or a government, then, needed to be endowed or endow themselves with the quality of Majjava or Maddava, i.e. kindness and gentleness.

Rulers certainly don’t have it easy, but on the other hand, these ‘difficulties’ are outweighed by enormous and very tangible benefits that most citizens do not enjoy nor have access to.  It is not easy to be firm, to make and uphold laws that control, regulate and punish, and at the same time maintain a genial temperament.  Rulers have to make tough decisions, they cannot please everyone, and yet they are required, in terms of the tenets of the Buddha’s principal treatise on good governance, to be kind and gentle. 

How does a ruler exercise kindness and gentleness when protecting a citizenry from a terrorist?  It requires a certain amount of resolve, an acceptance that blood would probably have to be shed, that non-combatants would have to suffer displacement, dislocation and other unhappy realities of violent military intercourse and that personal and even political freedoms will have to be compromised in the short-term (which, as Sri Lanka’s struggle to rid itself of terrorism showed, can last for more than 3 decades).  There is a balance that has to be sought and this is never easy for the ruler for he/she is, in the final instance, humanly frail, a prthagjana, prone to error and handicapped by the unwholesome roots, lobha (greed, desire, craving, attachment), dosa (anger, hatred, ill-will, aversion) and moha (ignorance).

Still, these are not uncultivable qualities, not for rulers, not for corporate heads and not for citizens.  The key is to treat things with equanimity. A ruler has to declare war at times. A leader has to defend the citizenry and protect resources.  In engaging the enemy, the employment of reason and a determination to footnote if not totally eliminate emotion would naturally enhance the chances of success.  A leader cannot allow him/herself to be influenced by hatred and should not rejoice at the vanquishing of detractor. The process has to be seen as necessary and dispassionately executed. 

In a sense, the ‘humanitarian operation’ to ‘liberate’ the people in the North and East (and of course the rest of the country) from the clutches of terrorism can be read as ‘rhetoric.  On the other hand, there is no denying the fact that there was kindness and gentleness in the treatment of non-combatants during and after the battle that is by all standards exemplary when considering how others have executed similar operations across time and space.  We are in the early post-war days, yes, even after a full year after the defeat of the LTTE and much remains to be done, but there is enough reason to conclude that the above qualities are not absent in political leadership.

Kindness and gentleness are not about being able to smile, hug a villager, kiss a baby etc.  That’s ok, of course, but I believe what the Buddha envisaged was the cultivation of empathy for the most marginalized, most dispossessed sections of the population and especially those who are more likely to get left behind in the implementation of policies that are seen to be in the interest of the majority and the country as a whole.

A leader needs to be considerate when contemplating actions that benefit some and hurt others.  He/she needs to compensate and more importantly be transparent and honest about intention. The trust and understanding of those who stand to lose must be obtained. Kindness and gentleness are prerequisite in this.  They are not sufficient of course, for some cannot be asked to pay so others benefit without adequate compensation.  The easy example would be ‘mega development’.  Who benefits, who stands to lose?  These are questions that need to be factored in at the point of plan-design.  That is kindness.

If a ruler commits himself to the congealing of kindness and gentleness in all policies, from planning to implementation, subsequent assessment and correction of flaw, then the overall collective necessarily benefits.

Finally, there is kindness and gentleness required in the treatment of political opponent.  A good ruler would not employ all means at his/her disposal to best a detractor. Instead, he/she would ensure that equal space is provided for articulation of dissent, ensure that logic and not strength (political or otherwise) is the determiner of victor and always, always, always, be cordial and respectful in all engagements. This too is kindness. This too is gentleness.  It cannot be legislated, but this does not mean that Majjava is a non-starter or a useless value/principle in the matter of statesmanship. 

Cruelty and vindictiveness, both of which can be articulated in violent ways and even legitimated thanks to the particular configuration of power, are antithetical to the principle of Majjava.  Good governance, in such situations, is rendered impossible.

May our leaders and governments, now and always, be mindful, be kind and gentle, to their enemies, to the most vulnerable, to those who might be left-behind by well-intentioned development strategies, the environment, the fauna and flora, the natural resources and the generations yet unborn who will inherit this piece of earth, its history, heritage, its serendipity and its scars. 

May all beings be happy!
 

The following is the complete set of articles on the Dasa Raja Dharma

Good Governance I: Liberality, Generosity and Charity

Dana: the virtue of giving

Good Governance II: the primacy of virtue

Sila: the moral component of the Dasa Raja Dharma]

Good Governance III: Self Sacrifice

Pariccaga: the third element of the Dasa Raja Dharma

Good Governance IV: honesty and integrity

Ajjava: the discourse on honesty and integrity in governance 

Good Governance V: Gentleness and Kindness

Majjava: the kinder, gentler elements of governance

Good Governance VI: Austerity and Restriant

Tapa: the virtues of austerity and restraint 

Good Governance VII: Eschewing of Enmity

Akkodha: the need to eschew enmity

Good Governance VIII: Non-violence

Avihimsa: incorporating non-violence into good governance

Good Governance IX: Forbearance

Khanti: the virtue of patience and tolerance

Good Governance X: non-opposition and non-enmity

Avirodha: a must-cultivate for the effective and benevolent ruler

Read more

Good Governance II: the primacy of virtue

The ‘Sila’ component of the Dasa Raja Dharma

In the Anguththara Nikaya, i.e the numerical discourses of the Buddha, the section containing ‘fives’ includes an elaboration on ‘the five great gifts’ which are ‘not open to suspicion and are un-faulted by knowledgeable contemplatives and priests.  They are the abstinence from taking life, from taking what is not given, from illicit sex, from uttering falsehood and the use of intoxicants. This is what is referred to as the ‘Panca Sila’ (the five virtues), where practicing Buddhists voluntarily determine to locate themselves within the disciplinary boundaries pertaining to the relevant abstinences.

 This is basic ‘sila’, there being of course more challenging or stringent (if you will) determinations of self-discipline (e.g. ata sil or the Eight Precepts, dasa sil or Ten Precepts and the 227 rules of the Bikkhu Patimokkha that a fully ordained bikkhu is required to abide by).  Sila is the cornerstone upon which the entire Noble Eightfold Path is built and its practice is defined by the middle three factors, Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood. 

Sila is clearly a Buddhist concept that makes for much discussion, elaboration and application.  In this instance, my task is to explore connections between sila and governance, with reference of course to the Dasa Raja Dharma or the ten pillars of good governance. 

For the smooth functioning of society and the enthronement of justice, prosperity and peace, the ruler or the government is required (among other things) to embody in the minimum a discipline with respect to the five precepts.  When a person or persons holding high public office conducts himself/themselves in private and public life in such a manner then it becomes easier to combat bribery and corruption, violence and indiscipline, inefficiencies and wastage.

The good king would not only be a seelavantha or an adherent to the disciplines associated with sila but set up and/or strengthen institution and norm/value that help foster these virtues.  Let’s take the five precepts and explore.

Let’s begin with the act of taking life, of facilitating life-taking and in the embedded ‘negative’ of causing injury.  The Buddha does not distinguish between the life of a human being and that of any other creature.  In our society meat-consumption as well as animal-slaughter is not prohibited either by law or by religious edict.  Buddhists are not ‘ordered’ not to eat meat, for example.  It is left as a ‘choice’.  The norms associated with religious freedoms can include sanction of meat-eating and even animal-sacrifice (for religious purposes).  It is an issue that needs to be debated but which people are scared to in view of treading on rights-toes.  Should not be this way in a democratic society where the principle of debate and discussion and the triumph of the rational over emotion should be what is respectively underlined and sought.  At the core however is the matter of deliberate choice, a decision to abstain at the most important ‘personal’ level.  This amounts to affirming the principle of example-power. 

‘Pranaghathaya’ (destroying life) is not about animals only.  It is about killing people and in the case of governance structures that contain relevant preventive mechanisms including the instrument called ‘pain of punishment’.  Outside of the ‘inevitabilities’ pertaining to war situations (covered by other ‘rules’ that override the general contained in the Dasa Raja Dharma), capital punishment would be classed as a violation by the Buddha.  In the case of the ruler(s), we have to include political assassinations, the unwarranted use of force that could result in deaths and stringent measure to ensure that those who contravene relevant laws are pursued and brought to book.  Punishment of offender is required.  Looking the other way is not sanctioned.  Political conveniences are required to be abhorred in the matter of dispensing justice.  We are lacking, I conclude.

‘Adinnaadaana’, my friend and benefactor of sorts, Nalin Swaris says, is about a commitment not to extract by force or otherwise properties which ought to be used instead on the premise of sharing; daana referring to justice and sharing rather than charity. If the ruler sets aside for personal use that which is common property or abuses power prerogatives to secure for him/herself exclusive or privileged use of properties, he/she compromises the edicts of good governance. 

We are talking, however, not about tweaking regulations but outright theft, of passing laws or abusing existing laws courtesy loophole and interpretive prerogative to secure lands and other assets on terms (lease for examples) that the general public cannot obtain.  We are talking of proper laws and their equal application. We are talking of power-abuse; of ‘cuts’, commissions, graft etc.  We are talking of audits that rulers do not subject themselves to or dodge using position and arm-twisting ability.  Included here is white collar crime.  Bribery. Corruption.  Money laundering. The quiet ‘approval’ of certain drugs and the design and implementation of policies that favour the favoured and not the general public.  We are lacking, I believe.

Illicit sex.  That’s a tough one when it comes to issues of governance, but I believe that metaphorical application is possible.  It is about who one chooses to bed with and why.  It is about unholy pacts and partnerships, agreements stamped behind closed doors that have nothing to do with pursuing the public good.  It is about choosing one’s friends, the ‘who’ and the ‘why’ of it all.  The ruler is judged by the company he/she keeps and the manner of and choices pertaining to appointments to positions of power.  The ruler must at all times ensure that the processes of selection are above board and designed to ensure that the right person gets the right job.  The ruler has to ensure that systems prevail over whim in the matter of appointment.  The ruler must ensure that the system corrects for human error.  I look at the 17^th Amendment and say ‘flawed’.  I look at the 18^th and say ‘flaw eliminated’ but original flaw (that which the 17^th was supposed to correct) remains.  We are lacking.

Lying.  This is about promise. About manifesto and mandate.  About adhering to the dictum yatha vadi thatha chari (do what you say/recommend, say what you do, i.e. be transparent).  It is about transparency and practicing what one preaches.  It is about accountability.  It is moreover a deliberate decision not to engage in word-play and twisting, in re-interpreting mandate to justify choice or in using power given for one purpose to do that which has not been sanctioned.  It is about being beholden to the general citizenry and deferring to their preferences and indeed obtaining in one way or another what their preferences might be at different times given different contexts.  It is about dialogue and discussion, debate and disagreement. It is about being humble enough to acknowledge error.  It is about not doing the convenient thing but the correct thing.  I like to think that all these things are included in the sila pertaining to the commitment to abstaining from lying. We are lacking, sadly.

Then there is intoxication.  Again the metaphorical application is of greater use.  ‘Mathata thitha’ or a full stop to intoxications/intoxicants is laudable for reasons that could run into several articles.  Alcohol consumption and smoking are not illegal. There are restrictions to there where, when and who of drinking and smoking of course, but there are innumerable ways to bypass the relevant bylaws.  Subtle encouragement is sanctioned.  The relevant industries have powerful lobbies. Rulers need to decide not to pander to such lobbies however advantageous it could be to their respective careers.  There is absolutely no point in abstinence if the violation in different forms is encouraged by sloth in the matter of enacting relevant legislation, applying the same and launching a nation-wide campaign at all levels and in all sectors to educate the public about the dangers of substance abuse. 

Intoxication is not just about consumption of alcohol and other substances.  It is about losing one’s mind, about deliberately acting in ways that impair the employment of reason and deference to good sense and most of all the neglect of common good in the process.  Where rulers get intoxicated with power, the public gets short-changed. Where ambition and ego end up footnoting reason and suppressing the primary purposes of power (to rule justly and wisely), good governance flies out of the window.

We have constitutional articles that are made for power-intoxication.  In this context it is all the more imperative for rulers and rule-makers to be more circumspect and vigilant about the abuses they themselves might perpetrate and the tragedies that they might unleash on account of being endowed with powers that are not congruent to ability to manage given ego, ignorance and ambition.  If sobriety is the relevant medicine, the political pharmacies seem to have run out of stock. Sadly.

I believe that sila is a key foundation stone for moving towards better governance.  There is a lot of reference these days to the panca sila, the five precepts.  It is a concept that is alluded to frequently by those in high positions of power, the President included.  There is much pleading for sila on the part of the public.  There is the white clothes and pirith nool.  There are alms-givings and seela vyapara (programmes focusing on observing the precepts).  There is a clasping of hands, and the regular ‘deferencing’ to the Maha Sangha.  There is ‘appearance’ and ‘spectacle’.  There is little substance.  Not in the governing and not in the governed and, let us not forget, not in those aspiring to replace those in power.  That too is telling. 

Where sila is practiced there is always restraint, always circumspection, self-criticism and humility.  These are qualities that are of great value when it comes to governance.  We are lacking, but need not be, I conclude.

[Originally published in the Daily Mirror, September 2010]

The following is the complete set of articles on the Dasa Raja Dharma

Good Governance I: Liberality, Generosity and Charity

Dana: the virtue of giving

Good Governance II: the primacy of virtue

Sila: the moral component of the Dasa Raja Dharma]

Good Governance III: Self Sacrifice

Pariccaga: the third element of the Dasa Raja Dharma

Good Governance IV: honesty and integrity

Ajjava: the discourse on honesty and integrity in governance 

Good Governance V: Gentleness and Kindness

Majjava: the kinder, gentler elements of governance

Good Governance VI: Austerity and Restriant

Tapa: the virtues of austerity and restraint 

Good Governance VII: Eschewing of Enmity

Akkodha: the need to eschew enmity

Good Governance VIII: Non-violence

Avihimsa: incorporating non-violence into good governance

Good Governance IX: Forbearance

Khanti: the virtue of patience and tolerance

Good Governance X: non-opposition and non-enmity

Avirodha: a must-cultivate for the effective and benevolent ruler

Read more

Good Governance I: Liberality, Generosity and Charity

The definitive text book on Good Governance was written, so to speak, over 2500 years ago by Siddhartha Gauthama: The Dasa Raja Dharma, the ten-point framework for rulers. Each tenet is a book, if one wants to expand on the basic principle, a doctoral dissertation in fact and a single article running into 1000 words or less cannot do justice to this amazing handbook for the ruler.’

The nutshell-version would thus be the 10 tenets: Dana (liberality, generosity, charity), Sila (a high and moral character), Pariccaga (sacrificing everything for the good of the people), Ajjava (honesty and integrity), Maddava (kindness and gentleness), Tapa (austerity of habits), Akkodha (freedom from envy, ill-will, enmity), Avihimsa (non-violence), Khanti (patience, forbearance, tolerance, understanding), Avirodha (non-opposition, non-obstruction).

These are that fall into the easy to say but hard to do order of things, obviously. Or, if one wants to be cynical, one could say they are not impossible to do but are nevertheless not done because it is convenient to ignore all this. And profitable. I believe we lose nothing by exploring these concepts and assessing things as they are in terms of the ideals envisaged by this 10-point plan. Beginning with this I shall explore each of these 10 ideas in terms of where we are as a nation, the crucial challenges we face and the futures that we can reasonably imagine (subject of course to the editor’s generosity and permission).

Let’s talk ‘dana’today. The first thing that comes to mind would be ‘alms-giving’. There is the ritualistic offering to the Maha Sangha, the ‘giving’ associated with dan-sela come Vesak or Poson, the tossing of a coin to a beggar. All ‘givings’ come under ‘dana’. What is the ‘dana’ associated with governance, though?

Some might say that Mahinda Rajapaksa ‘gave’ us a terrorist-free country. Some would say he gave us back our dignity, sense of pride, our national identity. Some might say that he recovered our sovereignty and territorial integrity and thereby granted us and our children an expanded sense of freedom and extended the dimensions of our real-estate endowment. We are today living in a country where we don’t have to worry whether or not our children or loved ones would fall victim to a bomb explosion or suicide attack. We have a sense of security we didn’t have before. We can say ‘Mahinda Rajapaksa gave us all this’. Dana? No. All of the above come under‘responsibility’. It is part of a political agreement, a contract that is made of manifesto distributed before election and mandate given by electing. All this is what Mahinda Rajapaksa, as Executive President, elected, was required to do. That’s part of his job description. The fact that his predecessors could not deliver makes the fact that he did worthy of appreciation of course, but still, this is not ‘dana’. It is ‘vagakeema’. Responsibility.

And here, we need to insert parenthesis: there is still a big gap between manifesto and mandate and until such time it is bridged, even the ‘I have delivered’ claim cannot be made. There are errors too. There’s been a lot of ‘taking’, i.e. things not promised nor mandate obtained for. That’s a negative that needs to be balanced off by correction and compensation. Every time, for example, that the law is applied indiscriminately, where friends are treated softly and detractors harshly. That’s ‘taking’. Each time there’s ‘looking the other way’when one’s pals are engaged in wrong-doing and pursuing relentlessly a political opponent for crimes forgiven in the case of a friend, each time one wrong-doer is treated lightly while another is rapped on the knuckles hard, there’s unsanctioned ‘taking’. These should be balanced off too.

‘Dana’ speaks of a different order of things. It refers to a ‘giving’ or ‘givings’ that fall out of mandate, things not promised or pledged and are not expected either. It is about employing resources available to deliver things that were not promised. ‘Resource’ here is not necessarily limited to money, cement and personnel, but ideas, innovation and the ability to decide. It is about going beyond maintaining status quo. It is about resolving problems not in the sticking-plaster manner, but in ways that prevent recurrence. It is about designing systems instead of looking to find the right person for the right job; i.e. setting up mechanisms so that the right person does get the right job.

'Dana’ is not about dishing out Presidential Pardon. It is about recognizing that the law can be deliberately applied selectively and making sure that it is not. It is about recognizing that a constitution has been enacted that is absolutely draconian in that it all but gags the citizen and make it possible for consistent and horrendous short-changing. It is about doing something about it. 

Mahinda Rajapaksa did not get into specifics when he spoke about changing the constitution. He was given a mandate to change it. He has the numbers to change it. He can easily slip to do-as-I-please mode. That would not be illegal. This is exactly why there is a ‘dana’ opportunity here. He can do what few have had the courage or indeed the compulsion to do: defer in favour of citizen. He can recognize that he has been accorded dictatorial powers by this constitution. He can choose not to use all powers at his disposal and that would be good. The true ‘giving’ would be to go further: enact amendment to deny himself such power and by doing so to ensure that a tyrant will not be able to abuse these powers at a later date. That’s giving, in my book.

The Dasa Raja Dharma ‘giving’ is not about being giving kisses, pats on the back, hugs, throwing parties, distributing school books and so on. It is about recognizing errors that have caused unnecessary power to accumulate in the office one occupies and doing something to rectify the same. It is about recognizing that ‘do-as-I-please’ IS possible but deciding not to make use of the option.

There are alms that the needy require, yes. These are not necessarily limited to food, clothing and shelter. The President has to look after the welfare of needy citizens and he has to understand that some of these ‘needs’ are not of the material kind; that they include enhanced ability to participate in decision making processes, security from being shoved around by arrogant politicians, the pleasure of living in a society where the law is applied equally to all citizens etc. It also includes a decision not to give into craving and attachment to anything including political office.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa is not known to be ungenerous. He’s not seen as a stingy person. However, he needs to distinguish between dana and vagakeema, between giving and being honourable about delivering on promise.

There’s dana then and there’s dana. President Mahinda Rajapaksa hasn’t given much by way of dana, not in terms of the Dasa Raja Dharma anyway. He won’t be faulted for this of course, for people tend to compare and contrast. That’s not enough to be remembered as a great ruler, though.

Let’s see some real dana Mr. President.

[an earlier version was published in the Daily Mirror, in August 2010 under the title 'The Dana Clause of the Dasa Raja Dharma']

The following is the complete set of articles on the Dasa Raja Dharma

Good Governance I: Liberality, Generosity and Charity

Dana: the virtue of giving

Good Governance II: the primacy of virtue

Sila: the moral component of the Dasa Raja Dharma]

Good Governance III: Self Sacrifice

Pariccaga: the third element of the Dasa Raja Dharma

Good Governance IV: honesty and integrity

Ajjava: the discourse on honesty and integrity in governance 

Good Governance V: Gentleness and Kindness

Majjava: the kinder, gentler elements of governance

Good Governance VI: Austerity and Restriant

Tapa: the virtues of austerity and restraint 

Good Governance VII: Eschewing of Enmity

Akkodha: the need to eschew enmity

Good Governance VIII: Non-violence

Avihimsa: incorporating non-violence into good governance

Good Governance IX: Forbearance

Khanti: the virtue of patience and tolerance

Good Governance X: non-opposition and non-enmity

Avirodha: a must-cultivate for the effective and benevolent ruler

Read more