Time for those unpopular but Provident Moves

Corazon Aquino, the former President of Philippines made a significant remark after she left office in 1990. She said that the Presidency had taught her a valuable lesson in governance. “I realized that I could have made things easier for myself if I had done the popular things rather than the painful, but things that are right in the long run. And after all, in the long run I wouldn’t be here to be blamed”.

Mao Tsetung

Le Kwan Yui

Dr Mahatir Mohamad

This statement brings to focus one of the principal weaknesses in democratic politics and especially as it affects new and emerging nations of the world since the new world order commenced in 1945.

Democratic politics with a limited period for the incumbent ruler discourages long- term providential policies and encourages popular but myopic measures. Dudley Senanayake lost the election in 1970 because he had a long-term plan for the development of agriculture in Sri Lanka and the people could not share his vision. Mrs Bandaranaike lost the election in 1977 because she introduced austere measures to encourage production and self-sufficiency.

J R Jayewardene probably won the second term in 1983 because he expanded the short-term service sector at the cost of the long-term production sector. Thus it is an established fact that all the governments that governed this country since independence faced this quandary of compromising between what is good for the country and what is good for that incumbent government’s political survival.

Democratic system

Democratic system, or the ‘Government of the people’ could be the best form of governance but by its own character the system make the people the sovereign and thus the ultimate ruler. Yet it is not a requirement in a democratic system that the government should have the unqualified approval of all the people and what is required is just above 50 percent approval. Therefore the situation we have in a democracy is where the majority is always the ruler. Then again we know that if a country is to prosper the rulers have to perceive with a vision and act with wisdom. Thus we then reach the inevitable conclusion that, if a country is to survive and prosper as a democracy the majority in that country have to be wise and visionary.

When the universal franchise was thrust upon Sri Lanka in 1931, the people in this country, having lived under colonialism for four centuries could hardly comprehend the meaning of what they were bestowed with.

Crucial issue

Granting of universal franchise transformed the people of Ceylon from extreme servitude to the position of becoming the masters of their destiny; a rather incongruous and sudden transformation. But then it is said that the British were in a hurry to leave Ceylon as they sensed trouble for their empire with the spread of communism in most parts of the world. That explains the situation because the Ceylonese, with poor literacy and lacking in self-confidence, were hardy the type who could become the sovereigns and their own ultimate rulers.

The situation however, has changed over the years and today the people of Sri Lanka, with high literacy and a high sense of self-esteem, are politically an emotionally matured. Signs of this maturity became ever more visible since the election in 2005 because in that election the majority selected the candidate that offered to unify the country over the candidate who offered ‘dhal and sprats at a reasonable price’. Since that election the position of the incumbent who advocated long-term measures has grown in strength and the fortunes of the Opposition has turned out to be a misfortune with every election.

Cost of living that dominated Sri Lankan politics for well over 50 years since independence has now ceased to be the crucial issue. The fact that those who attempt to exploit this issue is increasingly left behind in politics is a testimony to this reality.

The recent elections, in no uncertain terms confirmed the reality that the present government has reached a level of acceptability unprecedented in the history of democratic politics in Sri Lanka, not for its myopic time serving palliatives but for the long-term measures it has introduced such as, the elimination of terrorism, revamping of the roads/highways, reinvigorating tourism, massive investment in the energy sector, strengthening the farmer, encouraging investment in manufacture and liberalizing capital etc.

Political chicaneries

On the other hand, the problem with the Opposition UNP is that its unpopularity does not seemed to ‘bottom-out’ even at the present 22 percent. Thus with matters as they stand now, the chances are that UNP will soon be a non-entity in the Sri Lankan political firmament.

All this adds up to give President Mahinda Rajapaksa a unique opportunity in the history of Sri Lankan politics. He no longer has to concern himself with short-term popularity and instead he could undertake long-term political, economic and social measure to put this country beyond petty politics. In the recent history Mao Tsetung, Le Kwan Yui and Mahatir Mohamad are some of the leaders who successfully gave long-term leadership to their people. Ironically they were all called ‘dictators’ at some time or the other. May be, their leadership was too wise for the average voter to comprehend.

The post independent generation of Sri Lankans are aware that democracy is not an end in itself but only a means to an end.

Therefore it is time for the people to press on with a leader who takes long-term and wise decisions and continue to discard the short-sighted and time serving, political chicaneries.

[email protected]