Features
More about President Premadasa – his caring nature & lack of trust in people
President Premadasa was extremely hard working, meticulous in his approach to anything and displayed a tremendous capacity as well as desire to learn. This was evident to anyone who worked with him. There are many things one could relate regarding these aspects of his character. I would however, confine myself to just one. One day he called some of us to Sucharitha at about 7 p.m. in order to discuss some issues relating to education. That day, he appeared to be freer, more relaxed and ready to reminisce. He spoke of his school days, his teachers and other things.
When in this mood he was an excellent raconteur, and most interesting to listen to. There was a striking portrait of Mahatma Gandhi of India on the wall of his office room, where we were seated with him. It was a calm and serene portrait of the great leader, and in the course of his conversation that evening, the President related to us the story of how he happened to acquire it. He told us that once on a visit to Rashtrapathi Bhawan in India, he spotted this portrait on a wall, and he so admired it that the Indians gave him a copy of the painting, which was what we were discussing now.
In it, the painter had brought out in Mahatma Gandhi a particularly distinctive look. The President was now gazing at it, and he was keen to capture this look in words. We were also looking at it and trying to figure out the overwhelming impact of the portrait. What could the painter have represented? Many words were suggested, such as “Peace” “Tranquility” “Calm” and so on. But it was clear that these words did not capture the subtlety or the overall impact of the portrait. There was a certain spirituality in the face, which was quite riveting. The President was not satisfied. I too was gazing at it intently, muttering various words to myself and at one point, the word “Renunciation,” escaped from my lips.
The President, half heard it and immediately asked “What was that word Dharmasiri?” I said, “Renunciation.” “That’s the word!” he said. “That’s what it is.” Virtually on that note we parted. I had just reached home at about 9.30 p.m. when the telephone rang. It was the President. “What was that word you said?” he asked, and as I began to say “Renunciation,” he too remembered, and we both said it at the same time. This episode illustrated one of the many facets of an extremely complex personality, an outstanding characteristic of which was a desire to learn, and a constant alertness to its possibilities.
The issue of trust is also an important component of governance. To the extent that there could be an environment where such trust prevails, activities would proceed smoother and faster. If there prevails a mutual acceptance of the bona fides of the principal actors in government, both at the political and official levels, it would affect positively the quality and the working of the whole machinery of government. President Premadasa did not appear to be in that happy position. He was wary of people. Many told me that he trusted nobody. This of course did not bother me.
I went on the basis, that one stood or fell on the basis of one’s own record, and one’s own credibility, and that what others thought of you really did not matter. In situations and circumstances where you deal with hundreds, even thousands of people, at various levels, holding so many different, and in the case of some, even eccentric views, it would have been foolish in the extreme to have permitted oneself to be affected by all these.
My approach was to quickly decide whether a view was fair or valid. If it was not, and if it was important enough, you tried to convince the other party. If that didn’t work, you just moved on. You had so much to do, that it was impractical to permit yourself to be held hostage to any particular matter or thing. You indeed kept on working on the more important matters which were not prone to an immediate solution. But I was careful to see that preoccupation with time and distance did not detract from putting in the effort needed to achieve the here and now. The fact that there was an environment of mutual respect and trust between me and my senior colleagues in the public service smoothened the way considerably.
Apparently, the President did not seem to have been in the same happy position that I was. One day, in the course of a conversation when only both of us were there, he said “Dharmasiri, I don’t trust anybody.” We were discussing the reliability of some people for appointments. Then he went on to state why he doesn’t trust people. It had been based on considerable personal experience, and as an illustration he related the story of how he was trying for many months to rectify an erroneous decision of the Department of Inland Revenue about his income tax, at the time when he was just a Member of Parliament.
He had pursued it with the officials concerned and failing, had even gone to the Minister, because he felt deeply aggrieved. Nobody did anything. One day during the course of a casual conversation with a businessman, when this matter came up, the businessman had told him, “This is a small matter, Sir. I will get this attended to within two weeks.” Mr. Premadasa had not believed this, but had said nothing. A week thereafter, he happened to pass this businessman’s residence one evening, and thought that he would just drop in.
As he walked in unexpectedly, there was a flurry and a scurry, and he was just able to see the Assessor handling his case in the Inland Revenue Department darting into a room. He had pretended not to have seen it. As promised, the businessman had attended to his matter within two weeks. “What Ministers can’t do these people can” he said. The President said that he had had many such experiences and that is why he found it extremely difficult to trust any person. This was indeed a revealing story, which illustrated the strong impact of experience on people.
At the same time what would be important would be the degree of generality that each one elicits from one’s specific personal experiences. The whole issue of trust is not an abstraction. It concretely affects working relationships and even efficiency. My own view is that one has to take reasonable and calculated risks. You cannot perpetually go on the basis that you trusted nobody.
Back trouble
The year 1993 also started with a flurry of activities. There was the free school books and free school uniform distribution ceremony at Mirissa, followed on January 29 by the Presidential Mobile Service in Trincomalee. Early February demonstrated a very caring side of the President who was on the whole a very complex personality. This caring side would only have been known to a few people, if at all. I didn’t know it myself, until one morning, when getting ready to go to office, I bent down to put on my shoes. Something gave way in my back, and I was in severe pain unable even to straighten up.
With great difficulty and with the assistance of my wife I managed in due course to hobble into bed. The pain in the lower back was so severe that 1 could not even lift up my feet to stretch out in bed, without considerable assistance from my wife. I thought, I would be in hospital for weeks and had visions of lying in a hospital bed with the discomfort of one leg raised high in traction. We telephoned Dr. P.R. Anthonis, the eminent surgeon as well as a man of so many talents, who was my wife’s uncle and apart from any relationship, a good friend of mine, as well as my parents, even before the time of my marriage.
He said he would come immediately. In the meantime, I used the bedside telephone to speak to my Secretaries in office and to make arrangements for appropriate officials to handle my appointments for the day, including discussions with foreign visitors. On a matter of principle, I disliked postponing anything, unless the situation was totally impossible. Finally, I telephoned Mr. Wijayadasa, the President’s Secretary. He was concerned, because he himself had gone through this problem sometime earlier. He advised me to be very careful and strictly follow doctor’s advice, and added that he would put up a note to the President and keep him informed.
Dr. Anthonis arrived soon thereafter, checked me out, prescribed Voltaren which he in fact brought along with him, advised warm fomentation, etc., and wanted me to rest in bed. He promised to keep in touch with me. That evening, I got down several boxes of papers from office and propping myself up on pillows, and with the assistance of my Secretary and Personal Assistant attended to them. In my case this was a psychological necessity. If I didn’t attend to the papers I would not have been at ease.
Towards dinner time, which in our case is late, around 9.30 p.m. I was feeling more comfortable, although the pain was still very much there, and quite evident whenever I moved. I was still at my dinner when the telephone rang. It was close upon 10 p.m. We wondered who it could be, ringing up at this time. It was the President. “Aiyyo Dharmasiri, what happened?” Were his first words. I told him the problem and ended up by saying lightly, “Must be creeping old age, Sir.”
The President must have thought that I was treating the matter too casually. He proceeded to give me a lecture on the necessity of being very careful. He said that a similar thing happened to him sometime back, when he bent to wipe himself after taking a shower. He advised me to tell my wife to plug on the hair dryer and let the warm air play on my back, and to do this a few times a day. I was feeling slightly better, and made the mistake of telling him this, and saying that by morning if I felt still better, I intended going to office.
His affable manner changed immediately and in an icy tone, he said, “your coming to office is a secondary matter. What is important is to get completely well.” Then he asked me who was treating me. When I mentioned Dr. Anthonis’s name, he said “Dr. Anthonis is an excellent doctor. But he is a surgeon no? You must see a physician.” Then he inquired whether I knew his own physician. – Dr. H.H.R. Samarasinghe, the eminent consultant physician at Sri Jayewardenepura Hospital. I said that he was a good friend of mine. “Then telephone him now and ask him to come and see you tomorrow morning,” were the President’s parting words.
I thanked him sincerely for his kindness and concern. His interest was not pro-forma. His tone and manner as well as the time he spent talking to me indicated genuine concern. I got back to my dinner. I thought I would give Dr. Samarasinghe a call next day, mostly because, the President wanted me to, and he would have been very angry if he checked back and found that I had not done so. Five minutes later, the telephone rang again. My wife said, “Looks like you are not going to finish your dinner tonight.”
On the line was Dr. Samarasinghe. “Dharmasiri, what happened?” Were his opening words. “How do you know?” I inquired, just for the record although I knew what must have happened. “The President phoned me a short while ago,” he said. HHR would have come home and seen me as a friend. In fact, he came several times during my mother’s illness. But now the matter was official. He had a mandate from the President to see me next morning, examine me, and report to him, what my condition was! By 6.15 next morning, he was at home. He checked me out, asked me to continue with the same treatment as prescribed by Dr. Anthonis and insisted I remain three days in bed, with permission only to carefully walk to the bathroom and back.
He said, he was reporting this to the President. In three days, I was much better. He came and checked me out again, but advised another three days in bed. He was not going to encourage me to take any chances whatsoever. This was the second occasion that the President had demonstrated something special, in his approach towards me. The first was when he blindly signed a number of Cabinet Papers and Supplementary Estimates, put up by me, the first day he came to the Ministry after assuming office as Minister of Education and Higher Education. On that occasion, he flatly refused to read them or to be briefed about their contents. None of us knew, at the time of the episode I have related, that he had less than three months to live.
(Excerpted from In Pursuit of Governance, autobiography of MDD Pieris)
Features
Buddhist Approach to Human Challenges
Life, by its very nature, invariably presents a myriad of challenges that are fundamental to the human experience. The various social ills that afflict humanity cannot be understood without recognizing the profound human dynamics at play. Navigating these challenges according to Buddhism involves shifting from attempting to control external circumstances to mastering one’s internal responses. Central to these challenges are certain detrimental drives stemming from pernicious distortions in the functioning of the human mind.
According to Buddhism, human suffering—both on a personal and societal level—arises from three unwholesome roots: greed, hatred, and ignorance or delusion. These roots manifest primarily as the unbridled proliferation of these negative states, serving as the foundation for our conduct. The Buddhist perspective offers profound insights for confronting these difficulties by emphasizing the nature of suffering, known as dukkha. Buddhism teaches that suffering (dukkha) is an inevitable part of life and is fueled by greed, hatred, and ignorance or delusion. This approach promotes mental transformation through mindfulness, ethical living, and the cultivation of wisdom, empowering individuals to confront their struggles with clarity and resilience.
Furthermore, accepting that suffering and difficulty are inherent parts of the human experience—while expecting life to be free of challenges—is, in itself, a cause of suffering. It is also important to recognize that all situations, whether good or bad, are temporary. This understanding helps reduce anxiety when facing difficult times, as these will eventually pass, and it prevents possessiveness during happy moments. Cultivating mindfulness (sati) and living in the present moment without dwelling on the past or worrying about the future is essential.
Understanding that all things—emotions, situations, relationships, and physical bodies—are constantly changing and in a state of flux helps reduce the fear of loss and provides comfort during difficult times, ensuring that we know pain will pass. Moreover, recognizing that the self, or ego, is not a fixed entity minimizes selfish grasping, arrogance, and the tendency to perceive challenges as personal attacks.
At the core of many human challenges lie the three unwholesome mental qualities identified by Buddhism: greed (raga), hatred (dovesa), and ignorance or delusion (avijja or moha). These states of mind serve as obstacles to spiritual progress and underlie a spectrum of harmful thoughts and actions. The Buddha employed powerful metaphors to illustrate these forces, referring to them as the three poisons or fires that ignite suffering and trap beings in the cycle of samsara.
Greed leads to insatiable desires that obscure our awareness of others’ needs, creating a cycle of frustration. Greed encompasses all forms of appetite, such as desire, lust, craving, and longing, manifesting in both physical and mental forms. It embodies the concept of grasping, leading to clinging and an inability to let go. As an unwholesome mental state, greed can become insatiable and inexhaustible. People are often drawn to pleasant things, and no amount of forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, or mental objects can satisfy their desires. In their intense thirst for possession or gratification of desire, individuals may become trapped in the wheel of samsara, overlooking the needs of marginalized groups based on religion and ethnicity (as noted by Piyadassi Thera). Those who overcome greed realize that all mundane pleasures are fleeting and transient. In a society driven by consumerism, people may find themselves endlessly chasing after things of little value, becoming enslaved by them.
Hatred is another unwholesome mental state that fosters division and conflict, distancing us from genuine relationships. It encompasses unwholesome mental states such as ill will, enmity, hostility, and prejudice. Hatred can be subtle, lying dormant in a person’s mind until it finds expression in unexpected moments. This destructive emotion can degenerate into mass-scale violence and bloodshed within society. Today, hatred and hostility against minorities based on religion and ethnicity are prevalent in many countries. People are often targeted by bigotry and hate, leading to a rise in antagonistic and derogatory behavior toward certain religious and ethnic groups. Hatred, enmity, and retaliation do not foster spiritual well-being; rather, they vitiate our own minds. Buddhists are encouraged to cultivate metta (loving-kindness). Greed and hatred, coupled with ignorance, are the chief causes of the evils that pervade this deluded world. As noted by Narada, “The enemy of the whole world is lust (greed), through which all evils come to living beings. This lust, when obstructed by some cause, transforms into wrath.”
The most profound of these afflictions, ignorance (avijja) or delusion (moha), clouds our judgment and obscures our capacity for understanding, causing us to harm ourselves and others through misguided actions. Addressing bhikkhus, the Buddha declared, ” I do not perceive any single hindrance other than the hindrance of ignorance by which mankind is obstructed, and for so long as in samsara, it is indeed through the hindrance of ignorance that humankind is obstructed and for a long time runs on, wanders in samsara. No other single thing exists like the hindrance of ignorance or delusion, which obstructs humankind and make wander forever. This unwholesome mindset generates negative speech, actions, and thoughts, perpetuating our own suffering. As stated in the Dhammapada, “All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; if one speaks or acts with an evil mind, suffering follows.”
Buddhism urges us to go beyond merely addressing the symptoms of our problems. Instead, it invites us to explore the roots of our suffering and examine how greed, hatred, and ignorance manifest in our lives. By uncovering these sources of distress, we can cultivate essential qualities such as compassion, loving-kindness (metta), and acceptance. These virtues are crucial for ethical engagement with significant societal issues, including environmental challenges and social inequality.
In a world marked by material prosperity and emotional chaos, many individuals may feel lost or overwhelmed. The teachings of the Buddha remain relevant today, reminding us that the origins of our struggles often reside within our own minds. By practising ethical self-discipline and steering clear of destructive emotions like jealousy, anger, and arrogance, we can transform our experiences and relationships.
Buddhism teaches that cultivating wholesome mental qualities is essential for spiritual advancement. The positive counterparts to the three unwholesome states are non-greed (alobha), non-hatred (adosa), and non-delusion (amoha). These virtues represent not merely the absence of negativity but also the active presence of beneficial qualities such as generosity (dana), loving kindness (metta), and wisdom (panna). Each of these six mental states serves as a foundation for both personal growth and societal harmony.
Human beings are often tempted by moral transgressions rooted in unwholesome qualities. Actions driven by greed, hatred and ignorance require wisdom and mindful awareness to overcome them, allowing us to see the interconnectedness of all beings and act accordingly.
As we strive to abandon these unwholesome states of mind and cultivate awareness, we contribute positively to our lives and the broader world. By embracing Buddhist teachings, we learn that transforming our minds can significantly impact our experiences and the lives of those around us. Through this mindful practice, we can aspire to create a more compassionate, harmonious existence, transcending the limitations of unwholesome mental states and fostering a deeper connection with ourselves and others.
by Dr. Chandradasa Nanayakkara
Features
How does the Buddha differ?
Buddhism, perhaps, is not a religion if the definition of religion is strictly applied. However, by an extension of that definition, as well as by consensus, Buddhism is considered a religion and is the fourth largest religion with about half a billion followers worldwide. Of the four great religions in the world, Christianity is still way ahead with 2.6 billion adherents, followed by Islam with 1.9 billion and Hinduism with 1.2 billion followers. In most Western Christian countries church attendances are on the decline whilst the numbers following Islam are increasing with Islamic youth displaying signs of increasing religious ardour. There are recent reports that Buddhism has also joined the ranks of shrinking religions. Is this cause for concern? Is this happening by the very nature of Buddhism?
Hinduism, the world’s oldest living religion rooted in the Indus Valley Civilization and dating back at least four millennia, is considered to have evolved from ancient cultural and religious practices than being founded by a single individual, unlike the other three religions. The Buddha differs from Jesus Christ and Prophet Mohammed in many ways, the most important being that there is no higher power involved in what the Buddha discovered.
Jesus Christ is considered the ‘Son of God’ and Christianity is built on the life, resurrection and teachings of Christ with emphasis on the belief in one God expressed through the Trinity: God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, there is no room for questioning the words of the Almighty passed through the Son.
Islam, with its Five Pillars of faith, frequent daily prayers, charity, fasting during Ramadan and pilgrimage to Mecca, is founded on revelations made by Almighty God, Allah, to Mohammed, the last of his Prophets, which are recorded in verse in the Holy Book, Quran. Muslims consider the Quran to be verbatim words of God and the unaltered, final revelation. This leaves even less room for questioning.
In contrast, the Buddha achieved everything by himself with no help from any higher source. Rebelling against some of the practices in the religion to which he was born and seeking a solution to the ever-pervading sense of dissatisfaction, Prince Siddhartha embarked on a journey of discovery that culminated in Enlightenment, under the Bodhi tree on the full moon day of the month of Vesak.
Hinduism, or Sanatana Dharma as traditionally referred to by followers, encompasses the concepts of Karma, Samsara, Moksha and Dharma with a creator Brahma, preserver Vishnu and destroyer Shiva. In addition, there are multitudes of gods serving various functions and there are ritual practices of Puja (worship), Bhakti (devotion), Yajna (sacrificial rites) in addition to meditation and Yoga. The one thing that has blighted Hinduism, on top of sacrifices, is the caste system. The uncompromising attitude of Brahmins led to the formation Sikhism as well, long after the establishment of Buddhism.
Prince Siddhartha studied under eminent teachers of the day, of which there were many, but realised the limitations of their knowledge. Having already given up the extreme of luxury, he went to the other extreme of self-deprivation which after a search for six years, he realised also was not the solution to the problem. Exploring through his mind he realised the truth and came up with the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. He shunned extremes and proposed the Middle Path which seems to hold sway in many spheres of life, even today.
Buddha’s greatest achievement was the analysis of the mind and scientists are only now establishing the accuracy of the concepts the Buddha elucidated, not with the help of supernatural powers or sophisticated machinery at the disposal of modern-day scientists but by the exploration of the mind by turning the searchlight inwards.
Having discovered the cause of universal dissatisfaction and the path to overcome it, the Buddha walked across vast swathes of India, most likely barefoot, preaching to many, in terms they could understand, as evidenced by the different suttas illustrating the same fact in different ways; to the intelligent it was a short explanation but for others it was a more detailed discussion.
In sharp contrast to all other religious leaders, the Buddha encouraged discussion and challenge before acceptance. What the Buddha stated in the Kalama Sutta, acceptance only after conviction, laid the foundation for scientific thinking.
The Buddha, being a human not supernatural, never claimed infallibility as evidenced by his agreement with his father King Suddhodana that ordaining his son Rahula without permission was a mistake and took steps to ensure that this did not happen again. In fact, the entire Vinaya Pitaka is not an arbitrary rule book laid down by the Buddha, but are the rules the Buddha laid down for the Sangha, based on errant actions by Bhikkhus. Long before the legal concept of retroactive justice was established, the Buddha implemented it in the Vinaya Pitaka.
In an interesting video on YouTube titled “Nature of Buddhism”, Bhante Dhammika of Australia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY8WfGJq2FI) discusses some unique aspects of Buddhism. Some religions are ‘high demand’ religions where the followers are required to strictly adhere to certain rules which is not the case in Buddhism and he opines that this has led to the gentleness of Buddhists, at times leading to even being lackadaisical! Interestingly, as a widely travelled person, he describes his personal experience of the change of people’s attitudes on going from places with Buddhist influence to others. Speaking of Sri Lanka, where he spent many years, he commends the traditional hospitality as well as lack of cruelty to animals. He refers to “Law based religions” where some things are compulsory whereas in Buddhism there is no compulsion. Buddha was not a lawgiver but recommended good behaviour, giving reasons why and encouraged thinking. Some religions are exclusivist, claiming that there is nothing in other religions. Buddhism is not and Bhante Dhammika refers to an incident where the Buddha encouraged a disciple who converted from Jainism to continue to give alms to his former Jain colleagues.
Have all these strengths of Buddhism become its weakness and the reason for the shrinking number of followers? Had Buddhism demanded more from followers would it have flourished better? Is the numbers game that important? These are interesting questions to ponder over and I am sure, in time, researchers would write theses on these.
Whilst total numbers may diminish in traditional Buddhist areas, more people in the West are recognising the value of the philosophy of Buddhism. Mindfulness, a concept the Buddha introduced is gaining wide acceptance and is increasingly applied in many spheres of modern life. Perhaps, what is important is not the numbers that practise Buddhism as a religion but the lasting influence of the Buddha’s concepts and foundations he laid for modern scientific thinking and analysis of the mind!
By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana
Features
Political violence stalking Trump administration
It would not be particularly revelatory to say that the US is plagued by ‘gun violence’. It is a deeply entrenched and widespread malaise that has come in tandem with the relative ease with which firearms could be acquired and owned by sections of the US public, besides other causes.
However, a third apparent attempt on the life of US President Donald Trump in around two and a half years is both thought-provoking and unsettling for the defenders of democracy. After all, whatever its short comings the US remains the world’s most vibrant democracy and in fact the ‘mightiest’ one. And the US must remain a foremost democracy for the purpose of balancing and offsetting the growing power of authoritarian states in the global power system, who are no friends of genuine representational governance.
Therefore, the recent breaching of the security cordon surrounding the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington at which President Trump and his inner Cabinet were present, by an apparently ‘Lone Wolf’ gunman, besides raising issues relating to the reliability of the security measures deployed for the President, indicates a notable spike in anti-VVIP political violence in particular in the US. It is a pointer to a strong and widespread emergence of anti-democratic forces which seem to be gaining in virulence and destructiveness.
The issues raised by the attack are in the main for the US’ political Right and its supporters. They have smugly and complacently stood by while the extremists in their midst have taken centre stage and begun to dictate the course of Right wing politics. It is the political culture bred by them that leads to ‘Lone Wolf’ gunmen, for instance, who see themselves as being repressed or victimized, taking the law into their own hands, so to speak, and perpetrating ‘revenge attacks’ on the state and society.
A disproportionate degree of attention has been paid particularly internationally to Donald Trump’s personality and his eccentricities but such political persons cannot be divorced from the political culture in which they originate and have their being. That is, “structural” questions matter. Put simply, Donald Trump is a ‘true son’ of the Far Right, his principal support base. The issues raised are therefore for the President as well as his supporters of the Right.
We are obliged to respect the choices of the voting public but in the case of Trump’s election to the highest public position in the US, this columnist is inclined to see in those sections that voted for Trump blind followers of the latter who cared not for their candidate’s suitability, in every relevant respect, and therefore acted irrationally. It would seem that the Right in the US wanted their candidate to win by ‘hook or by crook’ and exercise power on their behalf.
By making the above observations this columnist does not intend to imply that voting publics everywhere in the world of democracy cast their vote sensibly. In the case of Sri Lanka, for example, the question could be raised whether the voters of the country used their vote sensibly when voting into office the majority of Executive Presidents and other persons holding high public office. The obvious answer is ‘no’ and this should lead to a wider public discussion on the dire need for thoroughgoing voter education. The issue is a ‘huge’ one that needs to be addressed in the appropriate forums and is beyond the scope of this column.
Looking back it could be said that the actions of Trump and his die-hard support base led to the Rule of Law in the US being undermined as perhaps never before in modern times. A shaming moment in this connection was the protest march, virtually motivated by Trump, of his supporters to the US Capitol on January 6th, 2021, with the aim of scuttling the presidential poll result of that year. Much violence and unruly behaviour, as known, was let loose. This amounted to denigrating the democratic process and encouraging the violent take over of the state.
In a public address, prior to the unruly conduct of his supporters, Trump is on record as blaring forth the following: ‘We won this election and we won by a landslide’, ‘We will stop the steal’, ‘We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen’, ‘If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.’
It is plain to see that such inflammatory utterances could lead impressionable minds in particular to revolt violently. Besides, they should have led the more rationally inclined to wonder whether their candidate was the most suitable person to hold the office of President.
Unfortunately, the latter process was not to be and the question could be raised whether the US is in the ‘safest pair of hands’. Needless to say, as events have revealed, Donald Trump is proving to be one of the most erratic heads of state the US has ever had.
However, the latest attempt on the life of President Trump suggests that considerable damage has been done to the democratic integrity of the US and none other than the President himself has to take on himself a considerable proportion of the blame for such degeneration, besides the US’ Far Right. They could be said to be ‘reaping the whirlwind.’
It is a time for soul-searching by the US Right. The political Right has the right to exist, so the speak, in a functional democracy but it needs to take cognizance of how its political culture is affecting the democratic integrity or health of the US. Ironically, the repressive and chauvinistic politics advocated by it is having the effect of activating counter-violence of the most murderous kind, as was witnessed at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Continued repressive politics could only produce more such incidents that could be self-defeating for the US.
Some past US Presidents were assassinated but the present political violence in the country brings into focus as perhaps never before the role that an anti-democratic political culture could play in unraveling the gains that the US has made over the decades. A duty is cast on pro-democracy forces to work collectively towards protecting the democratic integrity and strength of the US.
-
News3 days agoTreasury chief’s citizenship details sought from Australia
-
News5 days agoBIA drug bust: 25 monks including three masterminds arrested
-
Business6 days agoNestlé Lanka Announces Change in Leadership
-
News6 days agoHackers steal $3.2 Mn from Finance Ministry
-
News5 days agoBanks alert customers to phishing attacks
-
News2 days agoRooftop Solar at Crossroads as Sri Lanka Shifts to Distributed Energy Future
-
News4 days agoGovt. assures UN of readiness to introduce ‘vetting process’ for troops on overseas missions
-
Business4 days agoADB-backed grid upgrade tender signals next phase of Sri Lanka’s energy transition
