Prime Minister's chance to get it right
 

BY SPECTATOR

AS THE Presidential campaign draws to a close, there is little the Prime Minister can do to change the minds of the rock solid supporters of the Leader of the Opposition.

At least they would be casting their votes fully aware of the consequences of a victory for the Leader of the Opposition - an agreement with the LTTE and full speed on a capitalist path of development.

But there is a sizeable group of uncommitted voters who seem inclined to vote for the Leader of the Opposition come election day out of fear.

They fear a return to war. They fear the JVP becoming a dominant force in Government if the Prime Minister is elected President. These voters could well make the difference between victory or defeat for the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister needs to convince them that such fears are misplaced; and, if elected, he would lead the nation with vision and competence and win the trust of the population as a whole.

So what should be done? The easy part is for the Prime Minister to make a persuasive case that the road map of the Leader of the Opposition would worsen pressing national problems, and push the country in the wrong direction.

Recognising a de facto LTTE controlled state within the country is not a solution to the Tamil problem. Compromises with the LTTE, which is not the same thing as capitulation, are a necessity.

These must, however, be made in the framework of the rights and interests of the Tamils in the country as a whole.

The Prime Minister would be on firm ground too in pointing out that the economic philosophy of the Leader of the Opposition has little relevance to deal with problems crying out loudly for solution: the ever widening gulf between rich and poor; the rapidly expanding two-tier system of services that matter to the public (education, health, transport, living conditions, environment); impoverished and decaying public services side by side with the emergence of superb private services for those who can pay; fraying social bonds, inability to walk the streets at night without fear; and, not least, corruption that has seeped into every nook and cranny of society.

Negative campaigning may still fall short of persuading uncommitted voters to support the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister must have the confidence to pitch for a positive appeal, the difference he would make as President for all in an inclusive manner.

It is for that reason that he needs to articulate a core of principles that would unify, define, and provide strategic direction to a Government that includes the JVP, under his leadership.

One component of core principles must surely be to foster greater equality. That means a major attack on unjustified disparities that divide the nation. Political inequality is one such area (Tamils living in the South feel discriminated, not without reason).

Likewise, there are major injustices in the gender and social sphere to be tackled. Provincial inequalities too operate harshly and unjustly (e.g. the Western Province accounts for 58% of national electricity consumption, the Northern Province barely 2%).

The mother of all inequalities, however, is the unprecedented disparities of income and wealth. Low income groups today have the dice loaded against them for life chances.

No progressive coalition could be said to have succeeded, even if the country prospers from sustained fast economic growth, unless it ensures a substantial reduction of income and wealth distribution during its term of office.

Some levelling down would be required but levelling up of the many is far more important.

Another component cannot but be a shift from the paramount creed of individualism in society towards much more cooperative activities. Mutual help would widen the area of choice for the many to realise their potential fully. Communitarianism implies an active and participatory citizenship.

That, in turn, requires the widest possible diffusion of power and responsibility. Local responsibility should be encouraged well beyond the political sphere, to all things involving collective purposes e,g. schools and hospitals.

A third, should be to provide some degree of effective collective security to all in the things that matter to them - a certainty of a job, a roof over one`s head, adequate education, health and transport services, social insurance (old age pensions) and a clean environment for living. A hand-up for all, not hand-outs to favoured pressure groups.

Such an inclusive "one nation" governing philosophy would mean little at a practical level, however, in the absence of economic competence.

Economic incompetence - for example, any combination of galloping inflation, high interest rates, slow growth, rising youth unemployment - would be fatal. The coalition would self-destruct in the midst of political unpopularity.

So what does economic competence mean ? A first step is to keep inflation below, say 3% a year, by administratively increasing taxes and reducing wasteful and socially unproductive expenditure both in the public and private sector. Low inflation benefits the masses, high inflation the propertied classes.

Economic competence also requires administering those matters under the Government's ownership or control in a manner that they reach exemplary standards e.g. State banks, State commercial enterprises, State financed services such as health, education, transport; inefficient management rewards a privileged few, the majority suffers. Only with efficiency will neo-collectivism be credible and be worth having.

A still more demanding task for the coalition is to provide an environment for broad-based high economic growth in both the formal and informal sector.

More generally, it includes operating adroitly a managed open economy to encourage exports and discourage luxury and non-essential imports of goods and services, and to facilitate increased inflows of remittances.

Broad-based dynamic economic growth uplifts the many, skewed high growth (powered by large domestic and foreign corporations) primarily benefits the few.

It would be disingenuous to pretend that economic competence, while implementing a progressive agenda, would not need to be associated with austerity and sacrifices all round.

It is far better to persuade people to accept austerity at the beginning of a Presidency, rather than being forced to impose austerity by events.

Far greater discipline and hard work on the part of the population, responding to a Presidential call for idealism, would lessen the need for sacrifices.

Austerity would not be politically viable without real cuts in private affluence. Financial incentives and disincentives thus need to be designed to shift national resources away from luxury economic activity (hotels, apartments and office buildings and on luxury consumption) towards public and private socially desirable production (e.g. agriculture, low cost housing, education and skills for a modern economy, export-oriented manufactures, information technology and other non-luxury services).

Cynics may well ask whether a heterogeneous coalition, including a dominant JVP, would agree to austerity measures and painful trade-offs in both the public and private sectors to achieve, for example, price stability.

There is no alternative if the ambition is to implement a coherent and credible progressive agenda based on greater equality, social cohesion and economic security.

All the evidence suggests that the JVP has developed its thinking on exercising power. Perhaps the most significant legacy of Lakshman Kadirgamar is that he made the JVP realise that they could "do business" with people who are poles apart from them in every way.

How else can you account for the extraordinary rapport that made him its nominee as Prime Minister? Kadirgamar earned JVP respect as a gentleman to his fingertips, and for his insights and honest dealings.

He made them comfortable to act as equals with people who came from different worlds, and to seek compromises based on reality not weakness.

The JVP leaders of today appear ready to "do business" with erstwhile demons, such as the international financial institutions, donors, the business community, the LTTE, and even the so-called duplicitous Norwegians, to help correct injustices.

The Prime Minister, if he wins, would need to persuade a significant majority of the Sri Lankan people to consciously and actively support short-term austerity and hard choices to build a good society.

Perhaps only the JVP, speaking the language of those at the bottom of the pile, can generate "a temper in the country" for such austerity; and insist that the affluent sacrifice more than the rest. Am I alone in thinking that the keys to the Finance Ministry should be given to the JVP?