The best candidate among all the contenders for the presidency?

•  Is it Gotabaya, Ranil or Sajith or someone else?

By Chandra Amerasekare

With the Presidential Election looming ahead, most Sri Lankans today are in a quandary trying to decide who, if given the presidency of the country, would bring about the change they desire. Sri Lankans want to eliminate corruption and violence and seek an improvement in their standard of living. 

Two political parties have already declared their candidates. The UNP is struggling with internal primary debates about who should be their candidate. Other individuals too have declared themselves as candidates and they say their teams are ready. There is a talk about a Diyasena Kumaraya appearing to save the country. No wonder we are in a quandary although some of us are either green or blue until death. Do not forget it is those that are sitting on the fence (younger voters mainly) and the minorities who will write the final result of the election. 

Despite our anxiety and worry, some are busy making videos and posing for videos, some quite creative and informative, others propagating falsehoods, and at times exceeding the boundaries of common decency. They are either in favour or against a particular candidate. Let us think from the point of view of the welfare of the country and use some criteria to evaluate these candidates, both present and the expected. Having such criteria can help the voter to assess the capacity and commitment of each candidate to serve the interest of the people or citizen Perera. 

If we take the speeches that the candidates make these days to judge who would be better as the next president, we will be making a mistake and will be disillusioned within the next five years; for these meticulous speeches outlining grand promises have been tailored to suit our expectations and emotions. Our best bet would be to judge them by their public life in the past, because the candidate or his supporters cannot change the past. 

The voters’ foremost concern now is security, because the memory of the 21 April terror attack is still fresh in their minds. But we should not forget that we experienced similar or more extensive terror attacks in the past. Now we are not emotional about them because they had been too frequent and have faded away from our memory. The political leadership given by President Mahinda Rajapaksa and the excellent military leadership and war strategy of General Sarath Fonseka and last but not least, the commitment of all those who were in the war front, restored peace. If you take away any one of these factors from the equation, we would not have won the war against the LTTE.

We would be mean if we fail to appreciate that the present Government with all its inefficiencies re-established peace and calm within a record time of less than three months. Some of us have not realised the plight of minorities who continue to live in fear even after the war, due to racism and therefore security is a priority for all Sri Lankans irrespective of ethnicity or religion and the next president should not have a past that shows any alignments with racist groups.

A new challenge

Our new threat to security is quite different from the LTTE war. It is a new challenge coming from a source still unknown and may be having its tentacles spread all over the world. Net working for sharing intelligence and military cooperation with other countries, India in particular, is required to meet this new challenge. Those who shout slogans about ‘patriotism and ‘rata pavadeema’ when you suggest assistance from the west, also know this, but they will acknowledge it only if they come into power. 

Who, among the presidential candidates, has a past that shows he has the international standing and respect, the wisdom, the diplomatic skills required to keep all countries well-disposed towards Sri Lanka, and has the intelligence to select the best external policy and strategy to get the international cooperation required to ensure our security from external threats? The candidate who can stand up to this measure has an edge over the others. Just being aligned to one or two countries will not help us. An intelligent approach and international trust in us, is vital to get international cooperation. 

For Sri Lanka to re-emerge as a peaceful country where every human being likes to live, the next president we elect should have two attributes:

He should have the characteristics of a true statesman. 

He should have political experience in handling difficult situations and demonstrated his commitment to maintaining ethnic and religious harmony.

If the candidate we select does not possess these two attributes, we will be perpetuating the current situation in the country and our dreams about freedom and security, justice for all and comfortable life will go down the drain. If we fail to make the right choice this time, we will have to continue to live in fear and step back into the drain for dear life, when the motorcades of the politicians we elected come tarring down our roads to go where ever they want. Let us make sure that we vote for the candidate who has the above mentioned two attributes. These attributes are discussed below in an attempt to convince you. 

1.A statesman – Which candidate fits this description the most 

Prof. J. Rufus Fears, an American Professor of ‘History of Freedom’ says ‘a statesman is the free leader of a free people. He has four qualities or characteristics that make him a statesman.’ A statesman is defined as one who is respected, skilled, and an experienced political leader who does everything for the common good of the people and not for himself or his clan. He is not a tyrant who is feared by all around him and the people. Others do not follow him due to the fear of the consequences that would follow, if they refuse to toe the line, or due to the plums he hands over to them. 

Others, including his team and the general public, follow him due to respect for his ethics, his knowledge, far sighted vision and the consensus he builds among others with opposing views to realise his vision for the country. He is not a modern tyrant who has incriminating files on everyone to use, in case anyone opts to say no or is tempted to ignore his wishes. 

The four qualities of a statesman are:

a) A bedrock of principles/ethics

b) Is a moral compass

c) Has a vision for the country

d) Has the ability to build a consensus to realise that vision.

If one could recognise these four characteristics in the known history of these presidential candidates he/they, can be considered as a statesman/statesmen.

Not all would agree with these views, but they give us some guidelines to develop our own yardstick to evaluate the candidates and decide who is better, whether it is Gota, Anura, Sajith, Ranil or Mr. X as the next president. 

a) A bedrock of principles

A bedrock of principles means that a person’s thoughts and actions are based on the fundamental ethics and values accepted in a civilised society. Honesty (in actions), truthfulness, selflessness, respect for the rule of law, respecting the dignity and freedom of the other person and decent conduct, etc. are the accepted ethics in any society. 

In the Sri Lankan context we could say that our next president should be a person who has proved over the years that he has principles or ethics such as telling the truth and not lies to mislead the masses, has always been honest and not earned millions resorting to corruption, has shown respect for the dignity and honour of the other person and not used proxies to intimidate opponents and minorities, has respected the rule of law and the constitution, has not interfered with the judiciary or the public service, has not contributed to the disappearance of any individual.

 If a politician has been corrupt and cunning, he does not possess the ethics mentioned above. A person with ethics does not throw mud at others. Criticism is different from throwing mud at others. But if criticism is not based on facts, then such criticism is both vicious and dishonest. We have to consider the past of all the candidates in their public life to decide which candidate has shown these attributes the most. 

b) He is a moral compass

It is very important to be like a moral compass to become a good statesman. A statesman’s conduct is guided by ethics as his moral compass is based on them. Just as a compass helps you to find direction and location, his ethics prompt him to get at the truth, think of what is right and wrong, before arriving at a decision or forming an opinion. He does not carry grudges and take revenge from dissidents for his way is to win dissidents. Such people cannot be easily misguided by others (tale carriers) with hidden agendas of their own. 

Such intrigues and the weakness to listen to tale carriers has been the bane in Sri Lankan politics and the public service. In the past how many instances were there when the president and ministers who were initially friendly, became sworn enemies because of such intrigues by cunning politicians who were guided solely by self-interest. 

 A person whose moves are guided by the moral compass does not undermine his leader. He follows the leader and learns to be a leader when his turn comes. At the same time a good leader moves aside if such a move is for the greater good of the country. Coming back to the present presidential candidates, the candidate who has shown that his actions have been guided by his moral compass is the one who has not resorted to intimidating others disregarding the rule of law or undercutting others and has promoted ethnic harmony in the past. It is true that a person can change and take the right path in life, but the probability of such things happening in politics, particularly in a background where the individual is trying to gain power, is almost zero, and we cannot afford to take a risk by pinning our hopes on uncertainty.

c) He should have a vision

The candidate we select should have a vision for the country to advance. It should indicate the goals to be achieved, and the ways and means of achieving them. If it is like a gift bag from Santa Clause, one should be careful. This vision needs to be practical and capable of meeting the challenges we face in a rapidly changing world. This rapid change is taking place in terms of technology, trade, society, international politics and international balance of power. Technological advances have changed production, consumption, transport, telecommunication, security and warfare in the world. 

For example, drones and not armies destroyed the Saudi oil fields, and trading is done on the internet. Added to all these challenges, we have problems with climate change that affects lives and sustainability. Floods, droughts, hurricanes and shrinking water supply are threatening our survival. The needs and challenges are different as society has changed with globalisation and simplicity and ethics are becoming things of the past. The demographic dimensions make all these issues more complicated as population and unemployment are rising fast relative to improvements in the economy. 

Yearly thousands of A’ level students enter the labour market and become destitute. As domestic capital is small dependence on borrowing and foreign investment is inevitable and requires a prudent approach to manage them. Only a leader who is knowledgeable about these issues and Sri Lanka’s potential as well as limitations to meet these challenges to become a developed country, could have a practical and appropriate vision to take the country forward.

Managing the economy is a complicated task in the context of all these changes. Therefore the candidate who has the best vision for the country should be chosen to ensure our progress. He need not be an expert in economics. Economists in the Central Bank, Finance and Planning, Universities and think tanks are there to advise him on the plusses and minuses of following a particular economic theory, whether it is Keynesian, Friedmanite, Fisherian or any other neo-classical theory or a mix of all. A statesman has the intelligence and far sight to select the best option. 

We started with import substitution and the ‘welfare state’ model. Import substitution failed as it promotes dependency on subsidies and tariff protection, discourages competition and entrepreneurship as well as hard work. The welfare model at least helped Sri Lanka to achieve a higher ranking in the world in terms of physical quality of life and literacy. Rhetoric about the selling of national assets to foreign countries, ‘podi miniha isseema’, the rich in Colombo seven, protecting one particular religion or group, nationalism or the imperialists; is used by most politicians to mislead the voter. Rhetoric like that will create divisions among us and not lead us to the path of development. Such rhetoric is good for the future of the politician, but not for the country. It is left to the voter to use his intelligence to vade through all these lies and false promises and take the right decision before going to the polling booth. 

The vision of a statesman is based on ethics and therefore there is no self-interest. Then the vision does not include building expensive monuments to perpetuate one’s name and fame. A good vision for economic development encompasses goals to be achieved in all the sectors of the economy and the main thrust of development is directed towards achieving a satisfactory level of employment and a reasonable standard of living for the masses in a practical way. Promises tailor made to suit the dreams of different groups of people in society like women, children, nurses etc. can become empty words unless the plans and means to achieve them are spelt out. In fact in Sri Lanka the infrastructure and opportunities for their development are already in place. What is needed is the money and capacity of the individual. We had a woman as chief Justice. Excellent nurses’ training schools and 13 years of free education are available for all. Voters should not take these promises of politicians seriously. 

Only a person with common sense, intelligence and long term experience in politics, knowledge of current affairs and international politics and governance could have a practical and a realistic vision for the country. Lee Quan Yew of Singapore was such a leader. He realised Singapore had limited resources and the public service was corrupt and honesty and discipline in society was important to make Singapore a country that people would like to come. He looked beyond the shores to bring the money into Singapore by making the country a financial and an excellent services hub and selected meritocracy to eliminate corruption. He introduced laws to improve social behaviour. That is why in Singapore one does not find pickpockets, drug dealers and spit on the streets. Such a leader will see that handouts will not develop the country, it will hinder development and it is only a temporary safety net for the poorest of the poor which needs to be replaced by creating employment.

A statesman like Lee Kuan Yew, would have the ability to see that the way to develop is make all the sectors in the Sri Lankan economy export oriented. 

 d)Ability to build a consensus to achieve that vision

 Even if one has a good vision, without the ability to work as a team, he cannot realise his vision. A real statesman has the ability to work as a team even with people holding different views as others can see his intentions are honest, is open for discussion and is flexible. He can build consensus without offering bribes and plums as he has the convincing power. Lee Kuan Yuw had that power as he was intelligent and honest. Once he had said ‘I had two alternatives. One is to put my family among the richest ten in the Forbes list. The other is to put Singapore among the richest countries in the world. I chose the second alternative.’ If some of our Sri Lankan politicians heard this saying, they would have said, ‘We also had the two alternatives. But Lee Kuan Yew had taken the second alternative. So we were left with the first alternative.’ A statesman uses his skill to convince and then like the ‘soothara punchas’ in our stories uses strategy to persuade the reluctant team mates. He is unlikely to turn out to be a tyrant who would use force to suppress dissidents. In a two party system, sometimes his freedom to select the best for his team may be restricted if the voters do not give him a clear majority in parliament or vote for corrupt individuals. It is therefore important that the candidate we select gets a majority of honest men in parliament to enable him to select the best team.

2. Political experience in handling difficult situations and has demonstrated his commitment to maintaining ethnic harmony

The second important attribute that the candidate should possess is that he has the ability and political experience in handling crisis situations and should not be a racist or have any dealings with racists. According to the American Prof. J. Rufus Fears, a statesman and a politician are not the same. A statesman is a politician but a politician may not have the characteristics of a statesman. A politician is a person who always has his finger held up to the wind and tailors his rhetoric to suit the people’s mood and act accordingly, whether it is good or bad for the country. A politician will say or do anything to get elected. Such politicians always use proxies to create divisions in society in order to win. The danger in Sri Lanka is that divisive politics on the basis of race and religion can destroy the country as ours is a multi- ethnic and multi religious country. Already propagandists of one party are on overdrive trying to kill two birds with one stone; getting the Sinhala votes for the candidate they support and terrorising the minorities who may support their rivals to prevent them from voting. The web sites supporting this party are irresponsibly spreading false rumours about Muslim and Tamil threats to Buddhism and the Sinhala race. Buddhist priests like Gnasara thera and Rathana thera are doing their best to support this view. This is being done with the objective of stirring ethnic hatred and convincing the Sinhala people that only a military leader who will not hesitate to take dictatorial measures can save the country. A politician supporting the same party, (for reasons of his own survival), has said at a public meeting that ordinary Tamils and Muslims will be protected and they will be able to do business with Sinhalese only if their party wins. Does it imply that if they don’t, the opposite will happen? Sri Lankans should reject such politicians. Such utterances are dangerous and can result in racial fires destroying life and property. 

Crisis situations may be security situations like the terrorist attacks we experienced in April or the constitutional coup like the one we had last year, natural disasters, revolts in the country or even in his political party. A statesman can meet such a situation and win, as he can make quick and correct decisions which are within the law, to activate civil society, security forces and the police and has the international standing to muster international support. He will not wait to find scape goats or think of how it will affect his future and take damage control steps to safe guard himself before he thinks of the country. He will carry on courageously for the sake of the country even if the opposition parties do not support him. 

After considering these criteria for evaluation, one could think that Sri Lanka does not have such leaders. But we do have people with some of these characteristics of a statesman. May be if such a person is given a majority in Parliament, a majority of members who are honest and respect individual freedom and rule of law and not racists, he may be able to make the difference we want so badly, even if he is not another Lee Quan Yew. When we make our choice we should check to see whether he falls into the category called ‘Real Statesmen’.

As a rule of thumb Sri Lankans should never vote for a leader who can be called:

1. a racist or is supported by racist groups

2. a person who has acted against the constitution and interfered with the Judiciary 

3. a person with a past tainted with multiple allegations of corruption, using violence to suppress others and interfered with law enforcing agencies 

4. Is not intelligent or knowledgeable enough to understand domestic and global political and economic issues and the direction the country needs to take to achieve development 

5. Has not proved to the country beyond doubt that he is a citizen of Sri Lanka only. 

The only hope left is that the few hundred thousand voters who can be called ‘the ‘floating vote’ use these criteria to evaluate the presidential candidates to make their choice disregarding their emotional attachments to a particular party or individual. We have had enough experience by now to accept that ethics of the individual is the first ingredient that is necessary to make a politician a statesman and a person who respects the constitution. Let us hope that racism is not used to terrorise the minorities and mislead the Sinhalese to win the presidency.