|
 re you
girding up your loins to go and vote? I’m not surprised. That seems to be
the occupation of the vast majority of the 13,000,000 eligible voters in
our island nation. Exercising one’s civic rights, it’s called. Doing one’s
duty. In the forlorn hope that the individual we elect will do his. Well, for once, we’re not optimistic. A
respected business leader recently said on BENCHMARK – the business
programme presented by LMD – that the choice before the electorate
was one between “the lesser of the two evils”. While many wouldn’t go as
far as Rienzie Wijetilleke, one must agree that there is more than a
smidgen of truth to that statement. And we happen to agree with the
veteran banker that there’s nothing to hide about the bland assertion that
the candidates concerned leave much to be desired.
So is it reasonable that voters should be
all gung-go about that trek to the polling booth? (One might add, that
increasingly frequent trek… we’ve trudged to cast our vote for the
representatives we have no choice but to elect no less than three times in
the last five years!) What do we really have to look forward to when this
round of casting our ballot for the executive is done? What can we expect
after the presidential poll, but another parliamentary poll? That die is
cast! For winning the presidential stakes is only the first bout in the
battle for political supremacy…
Past
experience has shown that even powerful presidents can be (or feel that
they are being) crippled by a democratically elected prime minister… who
has the backing of a legislature packed with his loosely allied
supporters… who have the support of the people… who unfortunately have a
habit of backing out of supporting the candidates they were oh-so in
favour of only so recently. And when powerful presidents feel threatened,
they can act arbitrarily and unilaterally, throwing an ill-placed spanner
in the workings of the democracy we so cherish without quite knowing why,
and wrecking a peace process that is proceeding as well as can be
expected. That’s republican regress, and the electorate lives to regret
the choices it made.
 The future probability is not too
dissimilar. Any president-elect worth his salt (even if he is not from
Hambantota!) will rush to consolidate his executive power by flushing out
this parliament of fowls and seeking the mandate of the people to refresh
it with birds of his own feather. Which is not a bad thing if presidents
and prime ministers, and elected representatives, are responsible with
their newfound power. And accountable to the people, polls among
which have shown that they still desire peace.
So it is a matter of some concern that
the victory of a presidential aspirant answerable to ultra-nationalist
elements may drive the country back to the brink of war, if he emerges
ahead in what has been called a referendum on Sri Lanka’s erstwhile civil
conflict (if Mahinda Rajapakse wins and his chauvinistic cabal returns to
the house). Of equal concern is a conservative in executive office who has
to contend with a gaggle of jingoists in parliament (if Ranil
Wickremesinghe is victorious and yet loses a future parliamentary
election).
But is there a viable alternative? And is
the nation desirous of it? In the present political climate, this does not
appear to be the case. The focus of most enfranchised citizens is voting
someone in – and may the better man win. It’s all about polls,
parties, promises and personalities – and precious little about vision,
vitality (as in a long life in power, to be able to actually implement
policies in such as way as to truly benefit the people) and viability. The
most one can hope for in the present milieu is that the winner will take
the nation along a pragmatic way forward… despite the shortcomings of our
electoral system.
Ay, there’s the rub, as Hamlet would no
doubt have sighed over the rottenness in our state. Bad enough the head of
state will be from one party (face it, if that term can be used to
describe the loose – we use the word advisedly – alliance that
characterises each grouping) there is every likelihood that the head of
government could be from another. And even in the event that one candidate
does indeed bag the presidential trophy and win the parliamentary cup as
well, by virtue of his party’s present popularity, there is no
assurance that his government will last even a year. As everyone knows –
but seems to have conveniently forgotten in the mad scramble to sit in
that hallowed chair – getting a parliamentary majority by running with a
coalition is easier than keeping it. Especially when your strange
bedfellows suddenly think, after a year or so of uneasy ministering, and
cabinet shuffling and reshuffling, that the grass is greener (or some
other colour) over there. As for the reds under the bed, the less
said about them the better.
food for thought
So here we are in a pretty pickle and
enjoying every minute of the mania and mayhem that presidential campaigns
cause. No one seems to realise that we’ve been in this jam before and that
we’re likely to be in it until kingdom come – until and unless we all
wisely opt for that measure of constitutional reform that no
self-respecting, self-serving, politician is likely to push for without
some egging on by the people, civil society (not the same as ‘the
people’), academia, the professional community, the private sector, the
donor agencies, a certain rebel movement… yes, we have a fruit salad of
entities that could militate for a whole new deal; but like a cocktail
that’s too heady to refuse another of, we all appear content to be drunk –
shaken and stirred – with the immediacy of being able to vote somebody
into power. No wonder we get our ‘just desserts’ soon enough!
Now that we’ve come this far, is there no
way out? Not on your life! For the candidates – and the citizens who vote
them in – have tasted the potent stuff that king-making is made of. Any
move towards an alternative model may well be considered a step back –
though in reality, it may be the only way forward if Sri Lanka is
to truly progress.
We may have to forgo even trying to
become the next Singapore. We may have to forget our dreams of aspiring to
model-nation status, save if another tsunami hits us (And given the way
the world is slowly but surely turning into one vast natural-disaster
zone, that eventuality is more than likely…). We may have to shelve our
demand for a candidate with vision, and settle for an executive hopeful
with the more practical way forward in the very short term.
 No matter how attractive the proposition
may be in theory, we dare not plump for a presidential runner taking the
middle path (and running the risk of being run over by extremists). In
reality, that means a ‘liberal democrat’ who is suddenly trying to please
everybody – although his cronies are not in the least pleasing; or a
‘conservative republican’, who seems to be finally ready to serve anybody
– despite his cohorts being more ready to serve themselves.
Yes, that outspoken business leader may
have been regretfully accurate after all: it really is a case of opting
for the lesser of two evils…
new type of
leader
The demand of the
hour, then, is for a leader who will stand up for a vision, a cause, a
need – rather than an expedient stance until he can sink into the
executive chair. Is either candidate man enough to, at the eleventh hour,
stand up for a vision that will unite Sri Lanka – even if that means he
will have to stand down from his principles and platforms? Or is winning
the election – or rather, winning the auction
of promises – his only aim? And is losing the nation a price that he – and
we – are willing to pay?
|
