Features

The New Cabinet: Somewhat lean, poorly structured, and rather untalented

Published

4 years ago

2020/08/16

The new Cabinet of Ministers: Sitting from the left – SM Chandrasena, CB Ratnayake, Bandula Gunawardena, Janaka Bandara Thennakoon, Vasudeva Nanayakkara, Nimal Siripala de Silva, Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Chamal Rajapaksa, Dinesh Gunawardena, Wimal Weerawansa, Prof GL Peiris, Pavithra Wanniarachchi and Gamini Lokuge. Standing from left – Dullas Alahapperuma, Namal Rajapaksa, Ali Sabry, Prasanna Ranatunga, Mahindananda Aluthgamage. Rohitha Abeygunawardena, Keheliya Rambukwella, Mahinda Amaraweera, Udaya Gammanpila, Johnston Fernando, Ramesh Pathirana and Douglas Devananda

by Rajan Philips

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa gets full marks for creating a comparatively lean and applaudably mean cabinet. Leaving out the likes of Maithripala Sirisena and Wijeyadasa Rajapaksa is among the best cabinet making decisions in Sri Lanka’s 73-year history of cabinet government. The less said of them the better, and, hopefully, there will be no second thought on the matter. After ten years of sickeningly bloated cabinets, five under Mahinda Rajapaksa monarchy and five more under Sirisena-Wickremesinghe dyarchy, the new cabinet looks lean and trimmed. There is room for more trimming, and what was trimmed as ministers has been more than padded as state ministers. What is more lacking, however, is structure and talent. There is much room for structural improvement. Talent is all the dearer considering the twin challenges facing the country – a globally uncertain pandemic and an equally global crippling of the economy.

But what more can the President do? To paraphrase Pieter Keuneman’s timeless wit, you cannot perform a cabinet miracle with a pack of jokers and no aces. At the same time, and in spite of all the constraints, the Administration would seem to have missed a great opportunity in not using the long interval between dissolution (in March) and elections (in August) to create a well thought out cabinet design, identifying requisite portfolios and matching them with available talent and experience. Unfortunately, the new cabinet does not indicate much functional thinking or purpose behind it.

We know from Sir Ivor Jennings that DS Senanayake wanted to limit the cabinet size to 20 in the constitution, but was advised against it by colonial officials. It would be restrictive for future governments given the reality of expanding government roles. That was the reasoning against too small a cabinet. AJ Wilson used to say that Mr. Senanayake was a master manager of men (as Ministers) and that he ‘federalized’ the cabinet to mirror the plurality of Sri Lankan society – its religions, languages, castes, and locales. After the first cabinet of DS Senanayake, the most stable cabinet was under Dudley Senanayake in 1965. The cabinets in between were not necessarily unstable, but chaotic.

The United Front cabinet (1970-1975) was the most programmatic cabinet in that it bore a direct correspondence to the UF Manifesto on which it won the election. And the cabinet had both talent and experience due to the presence of the Left Parties. NM, Leslie Goonewardene, Bernard Soysa (NM’s alter ego at Finance) and Pieter Keuneman knew how the government worked inside out; Colvin was known to master any file in a matter of minutes. An unintended shortcoming of that cabinet, however, was that the distribution of portfolios went along Party lines at the expense of cabinet ‘federalization.’

President Jayewardene had started identifying Ministers for his cabinet even before the 1977 elections and before some of them became MPs. A few of them were from outside the UNP. And his cabinet was ‘federalized’, talented, and experienced, including first time Ministers who had earlier been senior Civil Servants or senior professionals. All of them were elected in the last first-past-the-post election that was held under the parliamentary system. That was also the last time Sri Lanka had a cabinet government, that Jennings wrote a textbook on, and which had sunk strong roots in Sri Lanka. Cabinet government was left to wither and die thereafter in Sri Lanka, under the presidential system that President Jayewardene left behind.

The new cabinet is by no means a restoration of the old cabinet government. No one expects that. But is it sufficiently structured and enabled to deliver on all the lavish promises that the SLPP has been making? And all the expectations that people have been made to project on President Gotabaya Rajapaksa? On all the matters that need to be done and have been promised to be done? How will the new cabinet and its ministers relate to the various Tasks Forces that were established in the pretext of the pandemic, when parliament was dissolved? These are the questions that are arising in the early days of the new government. Answers will come eventually in the actions of the government and their results, and not out of speculation.

Subject matters

In the allocation of ministerial subjects, the President has assigned himself Defense, the bogey of the 19th Amendment notwithstanding. A glaring omission in the constitution. This is odd. The SLPP vigorously campaigned for a two-thirds majority, to overhaul the constitution and go beyond even the limits of JR. In the new cabinet, the constitutional file is not assigned to any Minister. A logical location for it would be the portfolio of Justice. But assigning it to the new Minister of Justice, Ali Sabry, would raise the hackles of Sinhala Buddhist organizations who are already protesting the appointment of a Muslim to the Justice portfolio.

The Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) is also concerned about Mr. Sabry’s appointment, but not for ethno-religious reasons; it is over ethical concerns. Ali Sabry was the defence lawyer for apparently 14 SLPP politicians who were unsuccessfully arraigned on charges of corruption under the last government. Another oddity, at least optically, is appointing a supportive Muslim lawyer to Justice while trying to prosecute a politically unfavourable Muslim lawyer, Hejaz Hizbullah, allegedly based on his professional work as a lawyer. Stepping over professional courtesy, a senior government lawyer even compared Mr. Hizbullah’s professional work to that of the LTTE’s Anton Balasingham. That was not a legal argument but political grandstanding. Not that Mr. Sabry is going to have anything to do with Mr. Hizbullah’s case, given the depoliticized independence of the Attorney General’s Department that is only too well known. But it is difficult to miss the awkward appearances of conflicts of interest whenever Rajapaksas are in power.

To get back to the Constitution, if there is no Minister assigned to the subject, is it being outsourced to a task force? One headed by the non-playing coach of all departments of the game, Basil Rajapaksa. Is there a realization of the pitfalls of constitution-changing and an internal decision has been made to step slowly on the constitutional pedal? Or, are there internal differences about the scope and extent of constitutional changes that need to be resolved within the family before embarking on a formal public process? There are areas, such as the electoral system, where changes are needed and on which it would be possible to achieve a broad consensus in parliament. A minister in charge of the file would be the person to stickhandle the passage of positive changes. May be the President and the Prime Minister do not find anyone in the current parliament who could be entrusted with this task.

G.L. Peiris looks too burnt out for the constitutional task now, not quite the new spark that he was when he forayed into politics from the academia in 1994. So, he is now assigned education. It seems a comprehensive assignment, and not the chop suey that Ranil Wickremesinghe created when he cut education into pieces and stitched up higher education and highways in one ministry. While education is one subject, it is not clear whether the two State Ministers on related subjects – Piyal Nishantha de Silva (Women and Child Development, Pre-School and Primary Education, School Infrastructure and School Services), and Seetha Arambepola (Skills Development, Vocational Education, Research and Innovation) – are supposed to work with the Minister of Education, or independently on their own. There is also no indication of the parliamentary support to the Minister in the core areas of the Ministry: schools and universities.

The distribution of support responsibilities is similarly unclear in the other social infrastructure portfolio – Health. Pavithradevi Wanniarachchi continues as Minister despite the spat she ran into with Public Health Inspectors during the election. There is no indication of the parliamentary support she will have in the core areas of the Health sector. The one State Ministry role in related area involves – Promotion of Indigenous Medicine, Development of Rural Ayurvedic Hospitals and Community Health, and is assigned to Sisira Jayakody. There is no special mention of anything regarding the current pandemic situation either as specific responsibility, or as an individual assignment. This is the pattern of linkages between all the cabinet ministers and the state ministers.

In the old system, each Minister had a Deputy Minister, or Parliamentary Secretary, and occasionally more than one if the Ministry had multiple subjects. State Ministries were created after 1978 to address specific subjects or undertake critical projects over a limited period of time. Now they seem to have morphed into another layer of sub-ministerial positions as pseudo-ministerial rewards to MPs for their political loyalty, and not for any special project assignment. The cabinet portfolios are limited to 28 (with the Prime Minister looking after three of them), while the number of state ministers is kept at 40, along with another 23 MPs appointed as District Co-ordinating Committee Chairmen (no one seems to have been assigned to Batticaloa).

There is no intelligible correspondence between subjects looked after by cabinet Ministers and those assigned to State Ministers. The oldest Rajapaksa brother, Chamal. is both the Minister for Irrigation and State Minister for Internal Security, Home Affairs and Disaster Management. This is another pickle portfolio like Highways and Higher Education in the same Ministry during the last government.

That said, the state ministry system has been used to serve a special presidential purpose in the new cabinet: that of accommodating Viyath Maga MPs, all but one of whom are newly elected, as Ministers of State (three elected MPs and two National List MPs) and as Chairman of District Committees (three elected MPs).

Their appointment as full cabinet ministers may have been vetoed by the Prime Minister to keep the cabinet positions open only to the older MPs not only from the SLPP (19), but also from the SLFP (two), and one-off ministries to the one-MP constituent parties (six) of the old UPFA. Vasudeva Nanyakkara gets Water Supply, while the old LSSP and the CP get nothing. Of the Viyathmaga MPs, even Sarath Weerasekera and Nalaka Godahewa who topped vote tallies in the Colombo District and Gampaha District, respectively, have had to settle for positions as State Ministers. So has Nivard Cabraal, who enters parliament for the first time but on the National List. Sarath Weerasekera, a former Rear Admiral in the Navy, and the only MP to vote against the 19th Amendment in 2015, is the new State Minister for Provincial Councils and Local Government Affairs. This is a mystifying appointment. Is he being set up to preside over the resuscitation of the Provincial Councils, or their liquidation? Time will tell.

Key Sectors and Old faces

There is nothing mystifying about the appointments in the key sectors of the economy and employment – finance, agriculture, industry, the export sector, and infrastructure. The old faces have returned generally to the same old, or occasionally new, positions. The structure and the composition of the ministries in these areas, in whatever thinking that may have gone into them, do not convey any sense of urgency in trying to come to grips with the current economic crisis. There is no clear lead minister in charge of such an effort. The Prime Minister takes charge of Finance, but not just Finance, as finance portfolios are universally assigned. He is also padded with Buddha Sasana, Religious and Cultural Affairs, on the one hand, and Urban Development and Housing, on the other. The two additions could easily have been consolidated in other ministries.

Still better, Finance should have been assigned solely to a single Minister with economic gravitas – like JR Jayewardene (1947-52), UB Wanninayake (1965-70), NM Perera (1970-75), or Ronnie de Mel (1977-88). Not that they were infallible or their records are unblemished, but they conveyed the seriousness with which governments here and everywhere approach finance and economic management of the country. This is more so in the current context of a global economic crisis. It may be that there is no one else in the SLPP, other than the Prime Minister to tackle this task. In which case, the SLPP should have invited some new talent to the Party and enabled her/his entry to parliament at the last election.

There are about nine individual ministries (Agriculture, Plantations, Land Irrigation, Industry, Fisheries, Trade, Tourism, and Ports & Shipping) that are pertinent to the economy, employment, and export earnings. There are many more scattered across state ministries. They could have been easily consolidated into fewer portfolios with tighter mandates. The ministerial appointments are hardly inspirational, and it is mystifying why anyone of the Viyath Maga MPs could not have been considered for some of these positions. It is the same story in the areas of infrastructure, the environment and energy. I could not find the pigeonhole where airlines and aviation are nestled in; unless, they are already airborne in Ravana’s helicopter.

On the bright side, there might be more method and purpose in the making of the new cabinet that sideliners like us cannot quite see through. There is also the opportunity for creating cabinet sub-committees and parliamentary committees and tasking them (not as task forces) with specific responsibilities. There is no minimizing, however, the gravity of the challenges facing the government – preparing a credible budget, meeting debt payments, protecting jobs and redressing those whose jobs are not protected, ensuring food production, and preventing a collapse of the export sector. All of this and more while struggling to keep the new coronavirus at bay. It’s a tall order. One that dwarfs the two-thirds majority.

All News Advertisement

Features

Why agriculture insurance is key to avoiding food shortages

Published

4 hours ago

2024/09/16

Thilina Walpola

Indra Rupasingha

Securing Sri Lanka’s farming future:

By. Lalin I De Silva

Indra Rupasingha, a senior value chain consultant at Vivonta Green Tech, has collaborated with the World Bank on intercropping spice crops, coffee, and tea. His expertise, enriched by Scandinavian and European agricultural systems, includes environment-controlled agriculture, organic production, and animal husbandry. His extensive experience is further demonstrated by his roles as Director at Sri Lanka State Plantations Corporation, General Manager at John Keels Plantations/Elkaduwa Plantations, and Managing Director at Lipakelle Plantation.

Sri Lanka’s agricultural sector, the backbone of the nation’s economy and food supply, faces unprecedented risks due to climate change and unpredictable policy shifts, such as the abrupt push for organic agriculture, which led to a national crisis. As the 2024 presidential election approaches, it’s imperative that candidates prioritise the creation of a robust, transparent, and effective agricultural insurance system, learning from successful models like those in Canada, New Zealand, the United States, and France. These nations have demonstrated how a well-implemented insurance system can not only protect farmers but also secure the country’s food security. Sri Lanka must follow suit to shield its farmers from disaster and encourage them to continue cultivating for profit.

Sri Lanka’s Agricultural Insurance: A Critical Need for Food Security

In recent years, Sri Lanka’s agricultural sector has suffered heavily from natural disasters and ill-advised policy changes. The overnight shift to organic farming, which lacked proper planning and execution, left farmers in disarray and the nation teetering on the edge of a food shortage. While Sri Lanka has the National Insurance Regulation Authority, it has yet to truly serve the needs of farmers, burdening them with convoluted insurance agreements and inadequate protection. With 29 insurance companies operating in Sri Lanka, only one openly shares its Net Promoter Score (NPS), leaving the rest to operate under a shroud of secrecy. This lack of transparency has eroded trust and failed to provide the safety net that farmers desperately need.

But what if Sri Lanka could learn from other nations that have successfully mitigated agricultural risks? Countries like Canada, New Zealand, the United States, and France have all developed effective agricultural insurance programmes that offer timely payouts, use advanced technology, and provide farmers with peace of mind. Implementing such a system in Sri Lanka could help the nation avoid food shortages and promote continuous, profitable cultivation.

Learning from Canada, New Zealand, the US, and France

In Canada, the AgriInsurance system is a federal-provincial partnership that leverages satellite imagery, AI-based risk assessments, and real-time data monitoring to ensure fast and accurate crop loss evaluations. Farmers in Canada are particularly satisfied with the programme because it is transparent, affordable, and provides swift compensation, allowing them to recover quickly from natural disasters and resume cultivation.

Similarly, New Zealand’s FMG Rural Insurance focuses on customer-centric services, allowing farmers to use mobile apps to report losses and track claims. This ensures minimal delays in payments and fosters trust between insurers and farmers. In the United States, the USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) works with private insurance companies under federal oversight, providing quick and standardized claim processes. Their use of satellite technology and cloud-based systems ensures accurate monitoring and dispute resolution.

In France, Groupama Agricultural Insurance integrates digital platforms that allow farmers to monitor real-time weather data and crop growth. With highly automated claim processes, French farmers enjoy efficient compensation, minimal delays, and high satisfaction.

Justifying the Need for Agricultural Insurance in Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka’s agriculture sector is critical to the country’s food supply and economic stability. However, the risks associated with climate change, fluctuating market prices, and ad-hoc policy changes threaten to destabilise this vital industry. Crop insurance can provide a safety net, allowing farmers to continue cultivation despite the odds.

One of the key barriers to implementing an effective insurance system in Sri Lanka is the bureaucratic red tape, leading to delayed claims and confusion over policy conditions. Farmers are left feeling unsupported, often burdened with agreements they cannot understand without legal assistance. A simplified, transparent, and technology-driven insurance model—like those seen in developed countries—could remove these barriers, instill confidence in farmers, and promote sustained agricultural output.

In addition to protecting farmers from natural disasters, agricultural insurance can also provide a buffer against policy-related risks. As seen during Sri Lanka’s overnight shift to organic agriculture, farmers were unprepared and left vulnerable to losses. A well-drafted insurance scheme would ensure that, even in times of policy shifts, farmers can rely on compensation and return to farming.

Five key Recommendations to Make Agriculture Insurance Popular and Effective in Sri Lanka

Introduce a Farmer-Friendly Insurance Policy: Develop a simplified insurance agreement that is easy to understand, without the need for legal expertise. Make the terms and conditions clear, concise, and accessible in local languages to encourage widespread adoption.

Leverage Advanced Technology for Crop Monitoring and Claim Processing:Adopt satellite imagery, AI tools, and mobile apps to monitor crop health and assess losses. These technologies will provide real-time data, ensure accurate assessments, and expedite claim settlements, creating a transparent system.

Implement Government-Backed Reinsurance to Guarantee Payouts: Ensure that the government partners with private insurance companies to back up the claims process. This would help maintain timely payouts, build trust among farmers, and reduce the risk of disputes.

Tailor Insurance Solutions to Local Agricultural Needs: Offer insurance policies that cater to Sri Lanka’s diverse crops and regional differences. Whether it’s paddy fields or tea plantations, the insurance system should be flexible enough to cover various risks specific to each agricultural zone.

Government Subsidies to Make Premiums Affordable:Provide government-subsidised premiums to make agricultural insurance affordable for smallholder farmers, who form the majority of Sri Lanka’s agricultural workforce. This would ensure that all farmers, regardless of size or income, can access insurance coverage.

Conclusion

As the 2024 presidential election draws near, Sri Lanka’s leaders must recognize the importance of agricultural insurance in safeguarding the nation’s food security. By learning from global examples like Canada, New Zealand, the US, and France, Sri Lanka can create an effective, transparent, and technology-driven system that protects farmers and encourages them to continue cultivation in the face of adversity. Implementing these reforms will not only benefit farmers but also ensure the long-term sustainability of the country’s agricultural sector – an outcome vital to Sri Lankas future.

Lalin I De Silva, former Senior Planter, Agricultural Advisor / Consultant, Secretary General of the Ceylon planters Society, Editor of the Ceylon Planters Society Bulletin and freelance journalist.

Features

Charting a brighter future: Sri Lanka’s path to prosperity

Published

4 hours ago

2024/09/16

Thilina Walpola

By Dr Matara Gunapala

During the reign of King Parakramabahu (1153-1186), Sri Lanka earned the distinguished title of the ‘granary of the Orient,’ reflecting its unparalleled agricultural abundance. The island’s breathtaking landscapes, fertile soil, and bountiful resources—including precious stones, renowned tea, rubber, and coconut—alongside its strategic deep harbours, made it a crucial hub in maritime trade. These resources drew foreign powers’ attention, and Sri Lanka experienced successive periods of colonial dominance under the Portuguese, Dutch, and eventually the British from 1815 to 1948.

British rule shifted Sri Lanka’s focus to export-oriented plantations and infrastructure primarily to benefit colonial interests. By independence in 1948, the Sri Lankan rupee was valued at approximately Rs 3.33 to the US dollar. However, economic mismanagement in the 75 years, following independence, has led to unprecedented economic crises and currency depreciation. As of February 2024, the rupee has plummeted to around Rs 310 against the US dollar, with only a slight improvement to Rs 300 by August 2024, plunging Sri Lanka into the ranks of the world’s 22 most heavily indebted nations.

Since Sri Lanka adopted an executive presidency, a cascade of constitutional amendments has fostered an environment where corruption and misconduct flourish, compromising democratic governance, destabilising the economy, and undermining the rule of law. The urgency of the situation cannot be overstated. Politicians wielding excessive power have exploited their positions, undermining institutions like the Central Bank and judiciary, eroding accountability, and distorting justice, leading to degraded public services and denying equitable access to opportunities, a distant dream for ordinary citizens.

While those in power and their associates revel in luxury and foreign travel, many Sri Lankans grapple with soaring prices and shortages of basic necessities. Therefore, Sri Lanka must embark on a transformative journey without delay to restore its economic health and political integrity, paving the way for a prosperous future.

Constitutional Reform

The Constitution is the bedrock of a nation’s governance, shaping the balance of power and safeguarding citizens’ rights. In Sri Lanka, however, the Constitution has been amended over 20 times, often in ways that have concentrated power in the hands of politicians, eroded judicial independence, and compromised economic stability and public service effectiveness. These changes have frequently undermined ethno-religious unity and hindered equal opportunities for all citizens. Recent attempts to further amend it to delay presidential elections have only deepened concerns about the current Constitution and the need for its drastic reform.

A few have advocated for significant changes for constitutional reform. Former President Chandrika Kumaratunga, presidential candidate Nagahananda Kodituwakku, and the Collective for Democracy and Rule of Law (CDRL)—a coalition of senior academics, professionals, and activists—have proposed new constitutional reform. The National Peoples Power (NPP) party has highlighted the urgent need for constitutional reform in its policy statements.

For Sri Lanka to embark on a path to prosperity, a transformative new Constitution must: a) discard the presidential system of governance and curtail politicians’ ability to influence the public sector, limiting their responsibility for policymaking; b) strengthen checks and balances to combat mismanagement and enhance transparency, ensuring accountability with strict penalties for misleading the public or making false promises, c) strengthen judicial independence to uphold justice, d) fair representation to ensure equal opportunity of all ethnic groups in governance, promote unity, and give every citizen an equitable voice, e) ensure Parliament is not a burden to the country. An excessive number of parliamentarians (225 members and the President) has long been a focal point of criticism. Their extensive powers and privileges have frequently burdened the nation. The proliferation of politicians—alongside over 455 provincial councillors and nine governors—has led to inefficiencies and corruption, with many exploiting their ability to misuse administrative and financial powers for personal gain. Therefore, a new Constitution should:

Prevent malpractices by implementing stringent measures to curb corruption and misuse of power, ensuring that public officials are held accountable for every action and expenditure.

Reducing inefficiencies by streamlining the parliamentary system by reducing the number of representatives and establishing an independent body of experts to oversee political conduct, aligning governance with democratic principles and national interests.

Introduction of merit-based appointments

The current economic crisis and rampant corruption are symptoms of a deeper problem: many politicians lack the commitment and capability to serve the nation effectively. The mismanagement of nationalised enterprises has resulted in significant economic losses and weakened public services. For effective governance, members of Parliament and public officials must be selected, based on merit—education, capability, experience, and integrity—rather than nepotism or sectarian interests. Parliamentary members should possess qualifications comparable to a recognised university degree and demonstrate essential leadership skills, including collaboration, critical thinking, and effective communication.

Moreover, political parties must prioritise national unity and development, preventing sectarian policies and political dynasties. Leadership should be determined by merit, honesty, and education rather than family ties, race, or other divisive factors. Embracing principles of meritocracy, pragmatism, and integrity—mirroring the values that contributed to Singapore’s success—can help restore Sri Lanka’s status as the “Pearl of the Indian Ocean” and set it on a path to renewed prosperity.

Strengthening Judiciary

A strong and independent judiciary is essential for upholding social justice and ensuring fair governance, especially in a nation battling widespread corruption, mismanagement, crime, and racial divide. Recently, Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court has highlighted numerous individuals, including influential politicians and their associates, as key players in the country’s ongoing economic crisis. Yet, the judiciary has struggled to enforce the law effectively, allowing wrongdoers to evade accountability and enjoy government-funded luxuries. Consequently, Sri Lanka urgently needs a judicial overhaul to have an independent judiciary that will create an environment where justice prevails, public confidence in the legal system is restored, and governance is transparent and accountable, reinforcing the rule of law.

Education and Skill Development

Education is the cornerstone of a nation’s success, fostering strategic thinking, innovation, and entrepreneurship that drives prosperity and navigates the global landscape. A robust education system equips individuals with the knowledge and skills needed for personal and professional growth and promotes social cohesion. By ensuring that all ethnic and religious groups are represented in every educational institution, education can bridge divides and reduce communal tensions, creating a more unified society.

Moreover, providing opportunities for those who leave school early through technical and vocational training is crucial. These programmes enhance employability and contribute significantly to national development by preparing individuals for the workforce and addressing skill shortages.

Investment in higher education and research institutions is equally vital. Nations experiencing rapid development—such as the United States, China, South Korea, Singapore, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, and various European Union countries—are notable for their substantial research and higher education funding. This investment drives innovation, economic growth, and global competitiveness.

Additionally, independent media is crucial in educating the public and informing citizens about significant issues. In Sri Lanka, information suppression has enabled corruption and misuse of power to flourish. An independent media sector encourages critical thinking and impartial analysis, helping to curb government inefficiencies and promote transparency. Independent media, in turn, supports socio-economic development and fosters a more informed and engaged citizenry.

Building a Disciplined Nation

A nation’s prosperity hinges on effective government institutions. Honesty, integrity, capability, and effective communication are essential for creating a thriving society. Despite having limited natural resources, countries like Japan and Singapore have achieved remarkable success primarily due to their strong sense of national discipline and robust legal systems.

In contrast, Sri Lanka has faced numerous challenges rooted in a lack of discipline across various sectors—from the streets to workplaces and even Parliament. This systemic issue has significantly contributed to the country’s struggles since independence. Building a disciplined nation requires a concerted effort to instil and uphold high standards of conduct at all levels of society. By fostering a culture of accountability and ethical behaviour, Sri Lanka can pave the way for sustainable growth and renewed prosperity.

Conclusion

Sri Lanka’s post-independence journey has been marred by corruption, mismanagement, and self-serving politics, culminating in a severe economic crisis. It has squandered countless opportunities for prosperity. Through comprehensive constitutional reform, Sri Lanka must curb politicians’ undue influence over the judiciary and public sector to reverse this decline. Establishing an independent judiciary and promoting disciplined behaviour across all levels of government and society enables racial unity and enhances good governance.

Investing in education, research, skill development, and entrepreneurship will unlock new opportunities and drive national prosperity. Additionally, safeguarding the environment and conserving natural resources are vital for developing Sri Lanka’s tourism industry and enhancing overall quality of life. Without transformative leaders like Mandela or Angela Merkel, it falls to the people to hold politicians accountable, driving them to embrace critical changes. Only then can Sri Lanka harness its true potential, restore integrity to its institutions, and forge a brighter, more equitable future for all its citizens.

Features

Countdown Week in Sri Lanka and Debate Week in the US

Published

1 day ago

2024/09/15

Thilina Walpola

An angry Trump and a lawyerly Harris

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.