On Upali S Jayasekera’s ‘Guidelines for the Voter’

Upali S. Jayasekera, who writes frequently to the newspapers, has made a decision regarding what kind of candidate he would vote for. He has approached the issue from the opposite direction, actually, outlining the kind of candidate he would not vote for.

I find Upali’s method of elimination reasonable for the most part and since it feeds the project I outlined in the Daily News of February 17, 2010, I quote it in full.

1. Those who crossed over to other political parties for personal benefit or to cover up their past corrupt practices, turning their backs on the voters who voted them into Parliament.

2. Those who seem to have amassed wealth being engaged in politics or collected allowances or house rent wrongly or dishonestly, or have been involved in corrupt practices.

3. Those alleged to be behind thuggery and violence.

4. Those who look uneducated or lack functional education.

5. Those breaking the election law by resorting to exhibit cut-outs, banners and posters, plastering public and other people’s walls and buildings.

6. Those wearing the Cheevaraya, so that I will not be a party in assisting in the disgracing of the Cheevaraya, breaking the Vinaya Rules applicable to the clergy or acting against the tenets of Buddhism.

7. Those who appear to be resorting to communal, racial or religious extremism.

8. Those who appear to lack principles by crisis-crossing from one political party to another, ‘chewing the cud’, so to say, in the process.

9. Those who I think should retire from politics giving way to the young to take their place.

10. Those who have caused losses to public enterprises while holding top positions in such institutions.

11. Those whose vocabulary in public speaking is not decent or sober.

12. Those who fail to declare their assets.

Of course I don’t agree with the entire set. For example, in a political world made of mudslinging, Point three above can be abused by all candidates; all they have to do to eliminate opponents is to make allegations of thuggery and violence and very soon we could find we have no one to vote for. I think Point eight is covered in Point one and prefer the latter because ‘appear to’ is too vague. The same goes for Point seven; it is too subjective. Point nine is valid provided that there is evidence of senility. Dr. P.R. Anthonis was performing surgery well into his 90s and I am sure there have been politicians who have out-performed youngsters. As for Point six, although I believe personally that the Maha Sangha if it sets itself the task of getting sewerage systems cleaned should like the mayor ensure it gets done and not jump into the cess pit, I am not conversant enough with the Vinaya Rules to agree or disagree. For the record, anyone can disgrace any institution, regardless of rules or norms of conduct and the potential to disgrace should not I think warrant automatic censure.

No one and eight are roughly the same. Theoretically, ‘crossing over’ is not a crime. I mean, it is theoretically possible for people to realize they are in the wrong camp and having recognized error proceed to correct. It is what they do or do not do once crossing over that will have to be assessed. In general it is not hard to ascertain who jumped for personal benefit including the need to save their behinds for being corrupt. On the other hand, given that the voter first selects party and then candidate there is a moral issue that comes into play here. Anyone who has crossed over must first apologize to those who voted for him/her and offer a full explanation why he/she crossed over in the first place. We could throw in a condition: cross twice and you are out.

No. two and No. 12 go together. May be we need an independent audit commission to really make sure that those who run for office are not interested in feathering nests. Over the years, we have had rare cases of asset declaration. This is usually done by those who don’t have much by way of assets to declare. Others are good at stashing away assets in the bank accounts of friends and family and exploiting loopholes in the law to cover tracks pertaining to purchases. Still, when Mr. Duppatha becomes Mr. Dhanavatha, the signs are pretty obvious. We don’t need an asset declaration. Rings, girth, gold, property, vehicles and such can’t be hidden.

I like No. seven ‘Extremism’ is not easy to define though. For example, one might consider certain kinds of evangelical thrusts as being ‘unethical’ and even ‘extremist’ and others could say ‘they are using whatever means necessary; just like politicians’ or even take refuge in something like this: ‘what you call “extremist” is a fundamental tenet of our faith and if you object to it you are guilty of being intolerant’. These are the arguments used by fanatics and the moment they say ‘religion=politics’ then it’s a free-for-all and there’s no room for crybabies. But it is up to an individual voter to assess levels of acceptability in affirming identity.

No. 10 is critical, I think. It refers to incompetence. And it should not be limited to losses but to inability to deliver in terms of expectations. We don’t need to re-elect someone who has shown he/she cannot do a decent job. We must reject incompetent incumbents and incompetents now in the Opposition and seeking a second or third opportunity to mess things up.

I think Upali has made an important contribution by publishing his ‘guidelines’ and it is my fervent hope that the voters take note. Sure, we really don’t have much of a choice, but then again, we have to make sure that we make the most of what little choice we do have. The lists are long and we have three choices.

We must pick the best out of the bad lot or else we lose the right to complain. Yes, yes, after the fact we can pretend the person(s) we voted for did not get in, but that’s not something we can tell our conscience.

Upali has done his bit. It’s up to the rest of us to do our bit. Meaning, we should think a little before we vote.

[email protected]