Looking ahead on foundations of success

Lucien RAJAKARUNANAYAKE

The New Year dawned in the midst of an election campaign that many correctly consider to be one that will be decisive in laying out the groundwork for the progress of Sri Lanka in the coming decade and even longer.

The old year ended amidst the painful but yet hopeful memories of the tsunami that devastated vast areas of our land in the North, East and South five years ago, and where substantial progress has been made in recovery from it and building new lives for those affected.

Similarly, the last year also saw the defeat of terrorism, with all its violence that saw the loss of so many lives, among those in uniform and ordinary citizens, causing immeasurable pain and sorrow to people, as well as setting back the tasks of development and progress for the country.

The country that celebrates the New Year is one that has risen almost in full measure from the natural disaster of the tsunami, and is more than picking up the pieces in its efforts to rise from the man-made disaster that lasted for nearly 30 years in the form of terrorism of the LTTE, towards achieving its goal of separatism.

We are now faced by forces that were clearly opposed to the final rout of the LTTE last May, that are pursuing efforts to punish our country and people for the “humanitarian crime” of saving our land and people from the clutches of terror, against which the West continues to wage an apparently relentless war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and very soon possibly in Yemen, and some countries of Africa, too.

Weak fabric

As the polls date of January 26 approaches, the campaign gets hotter and it is significant that the hastily put up alliance of the Opposition, the United National Front, that backs the former Army Commander Sarath Fonseka, contesting his immediate Commander-in-Chief, largely unprecedented in the annals of military history and democracy, is relying ever more on a weak fabric of policies patched up in an uneven quilt that seeks to cover up the essential weakness of his campaign.

The core strategy of the campaign of an opposition that has so far largely been in disarray is the use of rumour to reinforce its charge of corruption against the Rajapaksa presidency.

If Goebbels used half-truths repeated ad nauseam to be believed as truths in his campaign of Nazi propaganda, the retired General and his strategists are using blatant lies in their campaign to reinforce the allegations of corruption, to shift the mind of the public away from the substantial successes the Government has to offer, which includes, most importantly, the defeat of the LTTE and its campaign of terror.

It is now becoming more evident that the people are not falling for the original line that it was the Army Commander alone, who led the battle to defeat the LTTE, but the combined strength of the Armed Services under the political direction of the President as Head of State and Commander in Chief, and the administrative direction of the Defence Secretary.

Contradictions

As the Opposition hollering about corruption grows louder, there is also a noticeable lack of enthusiasm about its earlier pledge to do away with the Executive Presidency, which may have come from a realization of the Constitutional hurdles to overcome, and also from the lack of agreement among Sarath Fonseka, Ranil Wickremesinghe and the JVP about the entre issue of a non-executive president and an executive prime minister.

What is necessary today is to have more focus on the contradictions within the Opposition and the Fonseka campaign, which arise from the vastly divergent policies of his two main political props, the UNP and JVP. The responses given by President Rajapaksa to quotations posed by the Business Times, published earlier this week, underscores these differences, which are important to understanding the policy formulations of a future government.

Business and economics

Responding to the question about five points on which Mahinda Rajapaksa thinks his opponent will fail on business and economic issues his response was thorough and detailed. He said: “If a journalist asks me about economic policy, I will not tell him that I will ask someone else and respond! I know clearly which direction our economy should take. Some opponents are sandwiched between the stance of a closed economy and the position of neo-liberal economic policy. Those two do not mix.

Just imagine what kind of a pickle the final outcome would be if one were to be guided by diametrically opposite and conflicting economic principles. The only saving grace is that the entire country knows very well that there is no chance for anyone of the other 21 candidates to be elected.

“Second, I am the only candidate who can provide confidence to the business community. We have a clear economic vision and we have delivered.

I have seen what some other candidates have offered. Some people backing a particular newcomer to politics say they want government owned businesses to be sold, lock, stock and barrel.

Some others who back the same candidate want the State institutions retained. One part says to cut the public sector employees number to half, while the other part wants to double it!

One part says to stop the fertilizer subsidy and call our farmers “amude jokers”, while the other part wants to give fertilizer free. There is so much of confusion, it is unbelievable. The business people are naturally scared about this type of candidate, and this is why the majority of the business persons are gathering round me.

Views of people

“Third, I am the only candidate who has a clear idea about what development is needed in this country. When the Mahinda Chinthana was developed, I had consultations with more than 400,000 people ....... I was able to develop policies that took into consideration, the aspirations and views of people from all walks of life. I have also kept in close touch with these and other groups, even during the past four years when I served as President.

Candidates who have been able to gather a little support from just a few parties, all of whom have been discredited in the eyes of the people, and who are driven by blind hatred, do not have any idea as to what the grass roots level wants. So, the policies that others say they will implement will not have any universal acceptance or design, and therefore, from day one, those policies and plans are doomed to failure.

Experience in governing

“Fourth, I have extensive experience in governing. We all know, it is not merely by giving orders that you manage an economy. It is not direct orders that succeed in the economic field.

It is how you fashion policy with signals and indications, as well as through direct and indirect interventions.

Without experience, one will not know what works in the field of economics, business and commerce and international trading frameworks and that is what is lacking in many of my opponents.

I also know to how to deal with trade unions and ensure industrial harmony. My industrial harmony record is the best in our country’s history. People still talk of the July’80 strike. So, from that angle too, it would be a disaster for our country if a tyrannical or inexperienced leader, or both, ever assumes responsibility for economic and business management of our country.

“Fifth, I possess a team which has been handpicked for the economy for their ability. They have proved themselves and delivered results in the most difficult times. Can any other candidate say who will be responsible for his economic policy? Who will be responsible for its implementation?

Who will handle foreign direct investments? Who will handle infrastructure development? Put another way, has there been a single cohesive economic plan prescribed by any other candidate, other than some wild promises and blind appeasement just to win support by hoodwinking people? What are their economic visions and goals? What is their policy thrust?

Can you possibly entrust a country’s economy which has been nurtured into good health through tremendously difficult global uncertainties, to an unknown, unproven, inexperienced person? Can a country take such a huge risk? Can our people be subject to such uncertainty?”

To be continued