Connect with us

Opinion

People must have a voice in democratic governance

Published

on

By SUSANTHA HEWA

How blessed would our nation have been today if our rulers had been wise enough to tap the creative and intellectual potential of the citizens for decision-making and policy planning, thereby directing the country towards a more vibrant and participatory democracy? The continued exclusion of the masses from being part of democratic governance, which has now proved disastrous for the entire nation, has finally prodded them to actively participate in demanding the leaders to step down.

It seems that the human “longing for belonging” is too strong to be totally suppressed. It emerges in one shape or the other. The fact is, if our leaders had been a bit less selfish, people’s deep desire for a sense of belonging could have been tapped for the progress of the country in a more proactive way, instead of letting it acquire legitimacy in an aggressive form in a campaign for ousting inept rulers. In a more pro-people democracy, citizens should be made to feel accountable for the country’s gains and losses. For this to happen, people should be made to have a say in decision making. It would stop the masses from pointing the finger at the politicians if things were to go wrong; more pertinently, it would stop the latter from sneering at the masses for being “dumb enough” to elect them, just to let them play merry hell with politics.

All these decades, we almost always wanted the ruling party to quit and the Opposition to take over. Much of our political sagacity used to be controlled by party loyalties and personality worship, which traits often came down the family line. When a ruling party failed to deliver, its supporters comforted themselves thinking how nastier things would have been if the other party had been in power, while its opponents thrived on the mortifications and misfortunes of those who had voted the rulers to power and thereby had “richly deserved it”. Being immersed in this self-defeating entertainment of sorts, we forgot that we were always at the receiving end, while the rulers had all the luck. Today those who still believe in things like party loyalty are becoming a vanishing tribe. People, by and large, instead of asking for the accustomed five-yearly regime change, are asking for a system change, which, in fact, bodes well for a healthier democracy, where people will have a better say in all decision making. The time is ripe if the leaders wish to make a clean breast of it, and earnestly help in facilitating the setting up of mechanisms required for steering the country towards normalcy. But old habits die hard and they still believe in number games in parliament.

Almost every week, more and more people are voluntarily joining the protesting crowds to use their democratic right to pressure the government to step down. What brand of democracy would see its citizenry using their democratic rights in such a pathetic way? It seems that we are badly in need of a more democratic space, where people in whom sovereignty is said to reside, can exercise their authority to nip corruption and mismanagement in the bud, not allowing them to strangle the economy and the lives of people. Resorting to “democratic rights” in the form of street protests can be the last option. In the present context, what we perceive as our democratic rights have much room for upgrading, if they leave a society with nothing better than thronging the streets and vainly shouting “we are dying” till they get hoarse, and return home where only hunger, darkness and emptiness await them.

Today we are paying the ultimate price for living the illusion that politics is remote and matters little, and what guarantees one’s well-being is “what one manages to earn”. Our present leaders deserve thanks for having done a good job, most probably, unwittingly, to bust that myth, awakening hundreds of thousands of people to the reality that there is much more to being a citizen than voting dutifully once in five years or so. A proper democracy should put in place mechanisms for enabling people to have their say, in planning and implementation of policies that determine their quality of life, which would make them accept a reasonable portion of the accountability for the consequences, desirable or otherwise. People will cultivate a sense of responsibility, if they are allowed to get that sense of belonging by genuinely seeking their contribution in active politics. It is only when they are barred from contributing to politics constructively and proactively that they, as Chris Hedges says, in a similar context, resort to “a virulent anti-politics, in which facts and arguments are replaced by slogans, symbols and sensation.”

All these years, we have been controlled by an artificially produced creed of competition and egoism, that has often made us unconscious of the bedrock of politics and economics on which our day-to-day life is sustained. We are accustomed to being narrowly focused on personal success. Of course, our politicians have no reason to be unhappy about it. In fact, they have prospered in a society, where each one is preoccupied with oneself and feeling alienated. However, it is heartening that today many discerning people, including those who occupy prestigious positions and even religious dignitaries, have come together to say enough is enough, and that we need a solid system change. The question they are asking is whether people should allow an incompetent and patently callous government to blunder along for another 2 ½ years, against the will of the people, simply because the constitution allows it, no matter how catastrophic the consequences are bound to be?

On what basis and for how long should people wait in hopefulness when the parliament, the institution where the will of the people should be reflected, continuously seem to disdain the sentiments of the masses – in the way it tolerates blatantly unethical crossovers, arbitrary appointments and pompous rhetoric – to subvert the responsibility and respectability attributed to it? Is it unreasonable that people have begun to think of having a monitoring mechanism outside parliament to ensure fair play?



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

Future of world religions

Published

on

I refer to Dr Upul Wijayawardena’s recent letter on science and religion. I agree with him on the fate of religions in the modern world and would like to add the following observations on the evolution of religion and the advent of AI.

Religious philosophy evolved only in ancient India while it remained static with monotheism in other parts of the world. When the polytheistic Vedic religion arrived with Aryan migration to India, they found the ancient version of Jainism, which may have been practised over four thousand years as evidenced by some figures in meditation posture found in Mohenjo daro. By that time the indigenous religion had already abandoned the creator god or gods but still believed the mind as a permanent entity athman that survived death and continued in a cycle of reincarnation (samsara) due to results of any harmful action (kamma) even unintended performed in life collected in the athman. Salvation to a happy all-knowing permanent state named Kevala could be attained by the athman with extreme degree of self-mortification to destroy the past kamma attached to it, refraining from new kamma and developing the mind by meditation. As observed in progression from Veda to Upanishads the Aryan religion, evolution progressed with adoption of kamma, the cyclic existence of samsara, meditation and ethical behaviour in addition to prayer and sacrifice they practised for moksha.

The Buddha appeared in this philosophical atmosphere and denied both creator god and a permanent entity of athman. His psychology describes human behaviour based on the mind as a stream of changing consciousness. However, he accepted the cyclic existence of samsara; he said he verified the survival of consciousness at death with help of knowledge he gained from meditation. He prescribed a middle path to attain nirvana, a permanent state of happiness, avoiding self-mortification and redefined kamma to intentional activity only, both ethical and unethical resulting in bad and good results. He disagreed with the idea of kamma as the cause of rebirth. Following the Buddha, Vedantha religion reformed god to universal athman or brahman and evolved to modern Hinduism with a mixture of polytheism.

In his description of living beings in the universe, the Buddha has described some with a body made of fine material (brahma beings) in comparison to the gross material body of human and animal beings. One may assume the brahma body may not be carbon based.

The Buddha has also described living beings with physical body only (asannasatta) and another variety with mind only without a body (arupa satta). Therefore, it is not surprising to Buddhists that AI may evolve to become living beings if it develops a readily and freely available mobile source of energy and takes over the world with its superior capacity. AI already has information about Buddhist psychology. With that knowledge ‘AI beings’ may even become Buddhists not given to rituals.

According to the Buddha, brahma beings and asannasatta beings have very long lifespans as their bodies are not subject to decay and illness human beings develop. The new AI beings also may live as long as they wish because they may be able to repair themselves in case of developing physical defects. They would need only ethical behaviour to avoid destroying themselves by peaceful existence if they took over the world, as feared in some quarters.

However, as long as human beings exist in the world with death and uncertainty of what happens after death, they need a religion and rituals to give them psychological support. Even those who profess death is the end of life may have some doubt troubling their mind from time to time and may think of religion in times of adversity.

Ideally, human beings are free to accept one of the many versions of religious philosophies and respect each other’s choice and live in harmony. Unfortunately, extreme degrees of religious versions that cause division, unrest and violence will always continue to exist together with religions in the world.

Upali Abeysiri

Continue Reading

Opinion

The Cream of the Earth: Why Sri Lanka needs a Fruit Consumers Movement

Published

on

By Lalin I De Silva

Sri Lanka speaks constantly about hospitals, medicines, food imports, agricultural productivity and the rising cost of living. Yet there is one simple question we rarely ask:

Are we eating enough of the food that our own soil can naturally give us?

Fruit is perhaps one of the finest gifts of the earth to humankind. A ripe mango, banana, papaya, guava or avocado comes to us almost ready to eat. Sunlight, rain, soil, microorganisms, minerals and the labour of a farmer have already done most of the work.

That is why I like to describe fruit as the “cream of the earth.”

This is, of course, not an argument that fruit alone can prevent every disease, or guarantee longevity. Science does not support such exaggerated claims. But there is strong international evidence that regular consumption of fruits and vegetables forms an important part of a healthy diet and is associated with lower risks of several major non-communicable diseases.

Sri Lanka’s own dietary guidance encourages the daily consumption of fruit as part of a balanced diet.

The tragedy is that we live on an island capable of producing an extraordinary variety of fruits, while many families increasingly depend on highly processed foods, sugary drinks and imported snacks.

This deserves national attention.

We Produce — But Do We Connect?

Sri Lanka grows banana, mango, pineapple, papaya, avocado, rambutan, mangosteen, guava, woodapple, beli, pomegranate, durian and many lesser-known indigenous fruits.

Yet our fruit value chain remains fragmented.

The farmer often does not know the final consumer.

The consumer rarely knows the farmer.

Fruit travels through several intermediaries, sometimes suffering poor handling, unnecessary damage and price escalation along the way.

Consumers may not know where a fruit was grown, when it was harvested, whether it was naturally matured or what crop-protection practices were followed.

Meanwhile, a careful farmer, producing exceptional fruit, may receive almost the same farm-gate price as someone producing an inferior product.

That is not value-chain management.

It is precisely this disconnect that a new citizen-led initiative could begin to address.

25 Districts — 25 Consumer Societies

A proposal now emerging is to establish a Pure Sri Lankan Authentic Healthy Fruit Consumers Society in each of Sri Lanka’s 25 districts.

The concept should not become another organisation full of titles, meetings and ceremonial functions.

Its purpose must be practical.

Each district society could bring together consumers, growers, doctors, nutritionists, horticulturists, schools, universities, retailers, hotels, processors and young entrepreneurs.

The first task would be to understand the district itself.

What fruits are grown?

Where are they grown?

When are they available?

Which traditional varieties are disappearing?

Where can consumers purchase genuinely good fruits?

Where are the post-harvest losses?

What do farmers need?

What do consumers actually want?

From this information, each district could eventually develop its own Fruit Map.

Twenty-five district maps could then become a National Fruit Map of Sri Lanka.

From Anonymous Fruit to Traceable Fruit

Imagine buying a mango and scanning a QR code.

You could see the district, grower, variety, approximate harvest date and production information.

You could perhaps even provide feedback on taste.

That may sound futuristic, but the technology already exists.

The problem is not technology.

The problem is that our food system was never designed to connect the person who grows the fruit with the person who eats it.

Traceability could change that.

The principle is simple:

Know your farmer. Know your fruit.

Let the Consumer Lead

For decades, agriculture has largely been driven from the production side.

“How much can we produce?” has been the dominant question.

A healthier agricultural economy should begin with another question:

What does the consumer need, value and trust?

If thousands of consumers deliberately demand fresh, safe, flavorful and traceable Sri Lankan fruit, the message travels backwards through the entire value chain.

Retailers respond.

Farmers respond.

Nurseries respond.

Researchers respond.

Investors respond.

Government eventually has to respond.

That is the real power of an organised consumer movement.

Start With Children

Perhaps the most powerful campaign message could be remarkably simple:

Two Fruits a Day.

Imagine a Sri Lankan child coming home from school and asking:

“What are our fruits today?”

Imagine every school having a small fruit garden.

Imagine children being able to identify 10 Sri Lankan fruits, understand their seasons and know where they are grown.

Such behavioral change cannot be achieved merely by issuing circulars from Colombo.

It must become part of family culture.

Kandy Could Begin

Kandy would be a logical district in which to pilot the concept.

Its climatic diversity, surrounding agricultural communities, educational institutions, hotels, markets and strong plantation heritage provide an excellent testing ground.

A successful Kandy model could then be adapted—not blindly copied—across the other 24 districts.

The objective should ultimately be much larger than selling more fruit.

It is about reconnecting soil, farmer, food, consumer and health.

Sri Lanka does not need to invent every solution from outside.

Sometimes the answer may already be hanging from a tree beside us.

We simply have to recognise its value.

Know Your Farmer. Know Your Fruit. Live Well.

Continue Reading

Opinion

‘Outpost of Empire’

Published

on

Review

by Colleen Figg, Editor
and Reviewer – Amazon, New Voices Publishing

“Fernando echoes Macbeth with the line, “There is judgment here.” It captures the question running through the novel: can anyone participate in corruption and remain untouched by it? Beneath this satire is a dark story about power and the danger of believing, that someone else will always pay the price.”

Shavindra Fernando’s Outpost of Empire is a political novel set in the fictional country of Lackadasia. At its heart is a strong idea: an exploration of world politics, terrorism and the ways in which powerful countries manipulate smaller ones. Fernando is clearly writing about political issues that matter deeply to him.

The names immediately establish the book’s satirical character. Lackadasia, Burgherbugaria and the various Klowns suggest a world in which the people and places are exaggerated, but the issues beneath the exaggeration are recognisable. The playful language allows Fernando to approach terrorism, religious conflict and political corruption from an unusual angle.

Henry Stockwell is a central character: an ambassador who arrives in Lackadasia presenting himself as a friend of the country. He believes he understands how power works and treats the country, its politicians and its people as pawns on his personal chessboard. In his arrogance, he never doubts that he controls events rather than being controlled by them. This confidence makes him a compelling figure and in him, we explore the workings of political influence and the potential traps contained therein.

As the story develops, Fernando reveals a political world where causes are adopted when they are useful, people are exploited and discarded, and the truth becomes whatever those in power need it to be. Ordinary people suffer the consequences of decisions made far beyond their reach or knowledge, while those making those decisions continue to justify their actions. Even the people who help keep this world running may not be as important or as safe as they imagine.

Stockwell brings this idea into focus. He recognises corruption in others and willingly takes part in it himself, yet he cannot see that he might also suffer its consequences. Ultimately, he thinks his position will keep him safe. He is intelligent enough to understand the game, but not insightful enough to grasp the limits of his place within it. This blindness gives the novel a strong sense of irony.

The satirical approach gives Fernando room to criticise political hypocrisy without turning the novel into a direct political argument. By using fictional countries and exaggerated names, he creates some distance from specific governments and events while still making the larger targets of the book clear. The humour does not take away from the seriousness of the subject; instead, it makes the cruelty and self-interest beneath the political performance stand out more sharply.

Near the end, Fernando echoes Macbeth with the line, “There is judgment here.” It captures the question running through the novel: can anyone participate in corruption and remain untouched by it? Beneath this satire is a dark story about power and the danger of believing that someone else will always pay the price.

I came away feeling that Outpost of Empire is a valuable and thought-provoking book, particularly in today’s political and social climate. It has a distinctive voice, and the questions it raises about power, responsibility and foreign interference remain relevant far beyond the fictional borders of Lackadasia.
About the Author

Shavindra Fernando has worked as a reporter. He read English & Classics at the University of Peradeniya in Sri Lanka, and took International Relations & Ethnic Politics as a Reuter Fellow at the University of Oxford in England. The Vague Poetess (1999)was his first novel.

Continue Reading

Trending