by Rajan Philips

As Sri Lanka starts the countdown week before its September 21 presidential vote, the US finished the debate week that is expected to set the campaign tones for the remaining eight weeks before its presidential election on November 5. In a riveting performance last Tuesday, the Democratic candidate Kamala Harris exceeded all expectations and with consummate lawyerly skill laid bare the utter limitations and disqualifications of Donald Trump to be America’s president a second time.

The incoherent and blustering Trump undoubtedly made Harris’s debate tasks a whole lot easier, but the pre-debate onus was on her to show that she could perform in an unscripted engagement just as well as she is showing herself to be in organized rallies and in delivering tele-prompted speeches. And she did that superbly.

As debate politics goes, the big US and little Sri Lanka are at extreme ends. Sri Lankan presidential candidates have studiously avoided the ordeal of a face to face debate in a structured forum and the challenge of responding to independently prepared questions. Instead, they are firing questions and making accusations about one another but only from the security of their own platforms and in front of their own cheerers and hangers on. President Ranil Wickremesinghe would seem to have taken this old approach to a new level in what is fast becoming his last hurrah.

A Lopsided US Method

In the US, on the other hand, self-serving media hype has turned presidential debates into the single most pivotal moment to establish the eligibility of one candidate over the other. The irony of it is that a single debate between two American candidates gets all the hype and attention in what is globally the most consequential political election. Even so, while doing well in the debate was hugely necessary for Kamala Harris to validate her credentials, it is not at all sufficient to ensure her victory in November.

Like her Democratic predecessors, Al Gore, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, Harris is certain to win the popular vote; that is the majority of the total votes in the election. But that will not be enough unless she also gets the majority 270 of the 538 Electoral College (EC) votes in the undemocratically calibrated US presidential election system.

Al Gore polled more than George Bush nationally in the 2000 millennial election, but lost the EC vote and the election to Bush, because of his narrow loss in a single state, Florida and its 30 EC votes. Hillary Clinton similarly won the national vote but lost to Donald Trump in 2016 because of her loss in three Midwestern states – Michigan (15 EC votes), Wisconsin (10) and Pennsylvania (19), all of which had been won by Obama in the two previous elections. Biden turned the tables on Trump in 2020 and won all three states and took two more (Arizona and Georgia) from Trump.

Kamala Harris is running strong but tight with Trump in all the above five states that Biden won, and has brought two more into play – North Carolina and Nevada that Trump won in 2020. She has tremendously improved the chances of a Democratic victory since taking over from Biden, but nothing is certain until the votes in the now seven swing states are cast and counted.

The rest of the fifty states are divided between the two parties with baked in support no matter who the candidates are. Identification with and loyalty to either of the two parties is well entrenched in American politics. Democrats are dominant in 18 states, the so called blue states that are more urban, populous and diverse, and account for 225 EC votes. Republicans hold sway in the 25 red states that are relatively less populous, more rural and more white, and carry 219 EC votes.

The challenge for Harris is to win enough of the seven states to get 45 more (270-225) EC votes and prevent Trump from getting the 51(270-219) EC votes he needs from any number of the seven states. The margins of victory in any and all of these states could be a few thousand votes. And those voters will determine who America’s president and the world’s superpower leader will be for the next four years. A rather lopsided method for choosing the world’s most consequential political individual. All the more so, when it could lead to the second election of someone like Donald Trump, whom Kamala Harris clinically dismissed as a national disgrace and a global joke.

The Sri Lankan Variant

The Sri Lankan voters do not have the weight of the world on their hands, but they carry the fate of the country’s economy and its politics at least for the next five years. While Sri Lanka does not have an electoral college screening system as in the US, it has its own undemocratic aspect by virtue of the ranked method to determine the winner if no candidate passes the 50% muster on the first count. As everyone is predicting, the winner next week is likely to be determined after counting the second and the third preferential votes for the first two candidates marked on the ballots of all the other candidates.

The two front runners are widely expected to be Anura Kumara Dissanayake and Sajith Premadasa, with Ranil Wickremesinghe running third – but how close or far behind is still anyone’s guess. While neither of the two front runners is expected to get more than 50% of the vote, it is also likely that whoever comes first will end up the winner even after counting the preferential votes.

The not so strange rivals

The chances are that the ultimate winner may not even exceed 40% of the vote. He could even win with only a third of the vote and would immediately be stigmatized as the executive president with one-third mandate. In a polity that swears by the two-thirds majority. No matter, the country will have a new president. Unless Ranil Wickremesinghe magically manages in one week to bewitch an electorate that has grown tired of him over several decades. Yet it would have been more democratic, but expensive, to have a second runoff election between the two front runners to elect a president with a clear majority.

There is a second point of difference between the US and Sri Lankan presidential elections. In the US, the president, the whole House of Representatives and a third of the Senate are all elected on the same day. The new administration and the legislature start their new tenure after the inauguration in January following the November election. The Sri Lankan presidential election next week will complete only half the job. The new president will assume office almost immediately after the election, but will be stuck with the old parliament that is crying to be put out of its misery. Again, there are unprecedented possibilities.

Anura Kumara Dissanayake has declared that if elected he would immediately dissolve parliament and call for a general election. There will be a caretaker government until a new parliament is elected. That is a clean as a whistle approach that is consistent with AKD’s promise to start a new chapter for the country. But it is not without perils and pitfalls. The size of his vote will determine the leeway he has in implementing a caretaker government. And the performance of the caretaker government with AKD as president will hugely determine the NPP’s fortunes at the parliamentary election.

The challenges are huge given the NPP’s inexperience in government. Innocence in government ceases to be a virtue once you start making choices and decisions that impact people. There may not be much time for expatriate experts to arrive and take care of a caretaker government before the parliamentary election. Unless there is already a plan in AKD’s back pocket.

Sajith Premadasa, unless I have missed it, has not taken a clear position like AKD on what he will do with the current parliament if he (SP) were elected as president. Unlike AKD, SP has enough numbers in parliament to form an interim cabinet and keep going for a while before calling a general election. He will have the opposite problem to that of AKD. While AKD will have to bring in people whom nobody knows, Sajith Premadasa will have a time excluding people whom everyone hates. It is difficult to see what Ranil Wickremesinghe will do differently if he were to beat all odds and be elected as president. He could certainly savour his lifetime achievement but that will be of no service to the country.

Both Dissanayake and Premadasa will have to figure out a way to implement their promise to eliminate the elected-executive presidential system. The easiest and the surest way would be to start the process immediately and tag a referendum question on the presidency to the general election ballot. That would call for a decision on their own status as president – if they are ready to do the opposite of, and reverse, what JRJ did in 1977/78. Anything less will show their lack of seriousness. There is no point in calling it a betrayal after all the broken promises since 1994.

Traditionally, Sri Lankan voters have been motivated by multiple factors: the ethnic identity, class politics, party loyalty, caste prejudice, candidates’ likeability etc. But these factors have always been woven into an overriding wave of judgment on the performance of the government in power. Until 1977, voters generally and cyclically voted governments out of power and the opposition into power. The cycle has been wrenched up after 1977 in more ways than one.

The upcoming election next week is unique in that there is no one to be judged and thrown out of power. Aragalaya has already done that, and the Rajapaksas are now out of even contention. Ranil Wickremesinghe’s candidacy is also unique in that he doesn’t think that he should be judged for anything, but rewarded for saving the country from the Rajapaksa mess. The problem with that premise is that while he may have cleaned up the economic mess of the Rajapaksas, he has perpetuated their political mess.

For the first time, and uniquely as well, Anura Kumara Dissanayake is presenting himself as the spearhead of a new political force without past political baggage, and is appealing to the expectations of people to have an honest and efficient government. He has won over many people to his promises about the future, but what is not known is how many people are taking him at his word that his organization no longer has any of its old baggage.

There is not much that is unique about Sajith Premadasa, but he has emerged as a fortuitous beneficiary of the disintegration of the country’s traditional political organizations. Dissanayake and Premadasa are the acknowledged frontrunners, but they have distances to go to prove their political mettle both before and more so after the election.

by Amal JAYASINGHE

The backbone of the economy, Sri Lanka’s tea pickers are determined to use their powerful vote to choose a president this month who will change grim working conditions for good.Tea pickers largely voted as a bloc in past polls and the support of the estimated one million people working directly or indirectly in the industry will be critical in the tightly fought September 21 polls.

“Nothing has been done for us,” said 42-year-old tea picker K. Jesmina, who shares a small and basic two-room home without running water with 10 family members.

“We hope at least after this election, we will get some help,” Jesmina added, noting her family shares a toilet with 115 others.

Tea is the main export of Sri Lanka, the second largest supplier of black tea to the international market according to the United Nations’ agriculture agency (FAO).

In a bankrupt nation still reeling from a 2022 economic crisis and unrest that ousted strongman president Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the $1.3 billion tea exports are vital foreign income.

The aromatic “Ceylon Tea”, known by the island’s colonial-era name, is celebrated as among the finest in the world.

But behind the picturesque plantations are conditions that experts say border on modern-day slavery.

All three front-running candidates — President Ranil Wickremesinghe, opposition leader Sajith Premadasa and Marxist leader Anura Kumara Dissanayaka -– have promised to address tea pickers’ longstanding demand for better housing.

The pickers’ main political party, the Ceylon Workers Congress (CWC), are backing the incumbent Wickremesinghe.

He has promised workers freehold land rights and support for pickers to build their own homes.

But years of economic crisis and tough fiscal cuts Wickremesinghe has pushed mean many pickers are deeply distrustful of promises from any politician.

“They come and get our vote, and after that, they don’t care about us,” Jesmina said.

– ‘We are not slaves’ –

The island’s pickers are mainly from the Tamil minority and arrived from neighbouring India during British colonial rule.

Fairtrade, the global sustainability label, says industry challenges include “low minimum wages, marginalization of tea workers and the colonial legacy of tea plantation systems”.

Jesmina’s home is in a crowded housing settlement in Hatton, in the heart of the island’s tea-growing estates, some 80 kilometres (50 miles) east of Colombo.

“What we expect is better housing,” Jesmina said, while carrying her five-month-old granddaughter.

Many pickers support the CWC party, backing Wickremesinghe.

“We are not slaves,” CWC national organizer Palani Shakthivel, 59, told AFP, before addressing tea workers at a rally. “So, we want equal rights — whatever other communities, other people, are enjoying”.

Wickremesinghe’s government in July ordered pickers be paid a 70 percent wage increase — from 1,000 ($3.35) to 1,700 rupees ($5.68) per day for their backbreaking work.

But it was revoked following a legal challenge by several plantation companies.

Tea picker R. Sundarsewaran, 51, said he was considering voting for Dissanayaka, leader of the Marxist People’s Liberation Front (JVP).

“We don’t have drinking water, there are no toilets, there are two or three families in one room — we live with great difficulty,” he said.

– ‘Shocked the conscience’ –

Wickremesinghe, elected by parliament to lead the interim government, wants another term to continue tough austerity measures in line with a $2.9 billion IMF bailout loan to stabilize the economy.

Typically, a tea picker is paid for around 20 days a month — a gruelling job plucking 20 kilogrammes (44 pounds) of tiny tea leaf tips for each shift.

Pickers say take-home pay is often around 20,000 rupees ($66), just below the minimum monthly wage of 21,000 rupees.

While some tea companies pay higher wages, tea unions say plantation workers are the worst-paid labourers in the country.

In June, the Ceylon Workers Red Flag Union put plantation workers in front of a three-member panel of former judges from India, Nepal and Sri Lanka.

The judges’ report said they were “horrified by the stark realities” of the lives of plantation workers, including tea pickers, describing exploitation that reduced workers to effective bonded labour.

“It has shocked the conscience of the tribunal that such practices could continue unabated in the modern civilized world,” the report said.

For pickers like Sundarsewaran, this vote might be the time to shift alliances and try a new party.

“Politicians come here promising this that and the other,” he said. “But they are not helping us in any way.”

by Saman Indrajith

President Ranil Wickremesinghe met with journalists from Sunday newspapers at his Paget Road office complex on Thursday. During the meeting, he discussed his campaign strategy, his approach to ensuring long-term stability, and his views on other presidential candidates, while also addressing various allegations against him. He expressed confidence in his upcoming victory and indicated the programs proposed by his rivals were not feasible.

Excerpts from the interview:

Q: Are you seeking a vote of gratitude or a mandate to advance the IMF bailout program?

A:I didn’t know there was gratitude in Sri Lanka’s politics, but what I am focused on is stabilizing the economy and moving beyond the crisis, which is only temporary. We need to consolidate the economy and ensure that the crisis does not recur. We must shift towards an export-oriented economy. First and foremost, I want to make the cost of living more affordable. While we have made progress, it’s still not enough. As we address the needs of the current generation, particularly Gen Z, I also want to secure a good future. Since we all came together to reach this point when no one else was available, I urge Sri Lankans to consider their future and vote with that future in mind.

Q: Why should people vote for you?

A:We have successfully steered the country out of the crisis, but further stabilization is needed. Without this stabilization, there is a risk of sliding back into crisis. For instance, if we compare the promises in the NPP manifesto with the national budget for the coming year, we find a deficit of Rs 4,000 billion between income and expenditure, which is equivalent to 11.9 percent of GDP. Generally, we can only afford a deficit of up to 5 percent of GDP because that is the maximum amount we can borrow. If we exceed this limit, the value of the dollar could rise to Rs 400-425. If we were to propose a deficit of 11.9 percent of GDP to the IMF, along with the 18 other countries providing us with relief, they would likely withdraw their support. This would cause the dollar’s value to increase to around Rs 500. While borrowing more than five percent of GDP is possible from the market, it would come with an interest rate of 25 percent.

Q: NPP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake has stated that you call him ‘good friend’ with ulterior motives.

A: I used the term ‘good friend’ in accordance with parliamentary tradition, where opposition MPs are often addressed this way. He seemed to be upset by this, and I was informed that my choice of address caused significant trouble within their politburo. Consequently, I switched to referring to him as the former Agriculture Minister. However, I was then told that this also displeased him because it highlights his previous involvement in governance. I now need to find an appropriate way to address him.

Q: Have you read the manifestos of the SJB and NPP?

A:Yes, I have read both manifestos. The SJB has two documents: one is the “Semata Jayak” (A Win for All) concept, and the other is the Economic Blueprint 3.0. Both contain numerous promises. Additionally, Sajith Premadasa makes further promises during his speeches, including lowering the prices of essential goods while simultaneously increasing expenditures. The contradictions in these promises, especially concerning the tourism industry and agriculture, raise questions about how they will be delivered.

The NPP manifesto, which is 232 pages long, took me one night to read. I found their economic policy unclear. They seem uncertain whether they are pursuing an export-oriented or import-oriented economy. For example, a recent rally by the former Agriculture Minister emphasized an export-oriented economy, yet their manifesto suggests otherwise by proposing the elimination of free trade agreements (FTAs). If they end FTAs, it’s unclear how they plan to promote an export-oriented economy.

Moreover, NPP members Sunil Handunnetti and Dr. Harshana Sooriyapperuma have spoken against the Economic Transformation Bill. The NPP manifesto appears to rely on printing more money, which could lead to economic collapse.

I challenged Anura Kumara Dissanayake to debate their economic policy with me. I suggested that Dissanayake, along with Handunnetti and Sooriyapperuma, first clarify their party’s economic stance in a separate debate. I proposed organizing a video discussion that would include myself, Dissanayake, and Kristalina Georgieva, the Managing Director of the IMF. If they respond by this weekend, we can arrange a debate with the IMF on Monday or Tuesday. I have not yet received a response.

Q: The best qualification you have is solving financial crisis. The opposition criticizes that you secured this qualification by not paying foreign loans.

A:The reality is that we have continued to make payments on many foreign loans and their associated interest. We have kept up with interest payments; what remains is the repayment of the principal. Debt sustainability involves two key elements: first, a government’s ability to sustain its current spending, and second, having sufficient funds to repay its debts. This requires effective management of tax and other policies over the long term to avoid threatening government solvency or defaulting on liabilities or promised expenditures. We are committed to achieving debt sustainability in our agreement with the IMF.

Q: Reconciliation is also an urgent need. How are you going to address reconciliation-related issues in the North and the East?

A:This is the first presidential election in recent history that has not been dominated by ethnic or religious issues. We have initiated discussions on the concerns of people in the North, including issues related to the 13th Amendment. It is crucial to advance these discussions. Provincial councils play a significant role in a massive development drive, as they are central to local development and should be empowered to lead these efforts.

We have made progress on land issues and are working towards implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Additionally, we are moving forward with the recommendations of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry for the Appraisal of the Findings of Previous Commissions and Committees, headed by Supreme Court Judge A. H. M. D. Nawaz. We have also introduced a bill addressing Muslim burial rights.

Q: It is often heard from your camp that no other presidential candidates could continue the crisis resolution program you have initiated, and if they tried, the system would collapse within six months. Does this mean you created this program to prevent anyone else from succeeding?

A:No, that is not the case. The program can be continued by anyone who is committed to its implementation. The issue is that some candidates, such as those from the NPP, are proposing to deviate from this path, which is not feasible. Even if I myself were to diverge from this route, the risk of collapse would be imminent. The path we are on is clear and necessary for maintaining stability.

Q: You have been accused of abusing public funds and state resources for your election campaigning. Is that true?

A:Please specify where and when I have used public money or resources inappropriately. The allegation often arises because I increased public sector salaries. Is it a crime to raise the salaries of public servants? These increased salaries do not benefit me personally, and some of those public servants may not even vote for me.

Q: Who is the most challenging candidate, Anura or Sajith?

A:I am prepared to face either of them. There are also other candidates in the mix. However, the real issue is not the individuals themselves but their programs, which are not practical given our current situation. We have managed to achieve some stability, unlike the Maldives, which is edging towards a financial crisis, or Bangladesh, which is experiencing anarchy. The choice for the people is whether we want to return to crisis conditions or continue on the path we have charted. Neither Sajith nor Anura offers viable solutions for the challenges we face; they remain stuck in outdated approaches. I am committed to a new direction.