Choosing the 7th executive president: Once bitten many times shy

Research your candidates and assess their track record against the key criteria. For me the important ones are selflessness, accountability and trustworthiness. Don’t vote for someone because they are a member of a certain party. Find out how they are viewed within their party, not just by outsiders. Everyone remains an individual even when toeing the party line. Keep an open mind – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara

By Ronnie Peiris

“Who would be a good president of Sri Lanka?” This has been the popular question of discussion in the past nine months in social circles at all levels from the ‘have a lot’ to the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’. 

The good and the bad and the strengths and weaknesses of many potential aspirants ranging from political leaders, corporate leaders and activists to military leaders have been dissected, debated and analysed against various criteria. 

The criteria, viewed against a “Maslownian” hierarchy of needs, cascade from the importance of Sri Lanka’s position in the international community, economic growth, equality of treatment in the application of law and order and an improvement in the overall quality of life to affordable and effective public transportation, education, healthcare and utilities. 

As explained by the economists, the “ends” are many but the “means” are limited and/or are scarce. Pundits argue that Sri Lanka’s means, though limited presently, could have been made to work better if not for the mismanagement, corruption and inefficiencies which have dogged the country over the past several decades. It is in this light, the new president, the prime minister and his team have a herculean task ahead of them. In a sense it is appropriately akin to the cleaning of the Augean Stables. 

Speculation, innuendos and conspiracy theories with regard to who will stand and who will be nominated abound. All that will end on 7 October when we have confirmation from the Election Commissioner of the list of registered contenders.

Opinions may differ but facts will talk when the majority of Sri Lanka’s citizens conclude that the party-based governance system which has existed since independence has failed miserably in delivering the country’s potential. Countries which were way behind us in economic, governance and quality of life indicators in 1948 are now way ahead of us. 

To add to the woes, the leaders who we have currently and who we have had in recent times have not displayed the virtues, values and ethics which are worthy of their positions. Recognising this, there have sprung many civil rights movements keen to establish an alternative system focused on bringing to the fore individuals who have a track record of transparency, inclusiveness, integrity and honesty. 

Key qualities 

Come 16 November, we have yet another opportunity to elect the seventh executive president of our beloved country. The purpose of this article is to draw your attention to the leadership qualities which I believe are a must in the person we elect as the president and the persons we elect as our future political leaders. 

We have to learn from the past in deciding on the future. Beware of false promises. Choose wisely, with open eyes, ears, hearts and minds. Disregard with contempt the types of statements made by representatives of three important political parties at the Sri Lanka Economic Summit 2019, organised by the Chamber of Commerce. Quote: “Leadership is crucial to provide answers to many of Sri Lanka’s governance and growth issues…” and, “Reforms are needed to foster growth and changes need to take place in the public service, SOEs, fiscal management, taxes, and governance, to ensure better policy making, anti-corruption measures, environmental protection and promote growth.” (Unquote). 

Where were they living all this time? On another planet? Such toothless rhetoric, emanating, in particular, from the mouths of those who have been movers and shakers in parties/alliances who have ruled our country in the last three decades, arouses my ire. I consider such utterings an affront to our intelligence. It is as if they have suddenly seen the light, like Saul (Paul) on the road to Damascus and are now mouthing pearls of wisdom. 

It is even more annoying to note that the audience they were addressing was the crème de la crème of Sri Lanka’s corporates. It is audiences such as this, me included, which have encouraged, and further encourage, such baloney per a posture of unquestioning silence. Are we so stupid, naïve and gullible to continuously get enticed by hollow promises? We have been taken for a ride over the past years by a circulating set of persons and their cahoots and it is time that we awakened to the reality that these persons who stand before us, once more, pleading for our support in their quest for power, lack, for a start, the essential quality of selflessness, amongst many others. 

We must, therefore, even at this eleventh hour, establish a list of the key qualities we wish to see in those who seek to be the seventh executive president of our wonderful country, a country bursting with potential, and impatient to deliver, if in the hands of good leaders. This time let us exercise our franchise wisely and let us do so with more deliberated intelligence.

Whilst, ideally, the leader I seek must be one who is self-actualised, he must, in the least, possess an upstanding character. Many are the times, in the past, where we have called our leaders morally bankrupt but have continued voting them into office, hoping they would change for the better. 

This time, let us ask ourselves: “Has anyone of the contenders come up short due to a lie, a cheat or a steal?” The leader I desire must show a track record of honesty, integrity, humility and selflessness. He must be person of character, a person whose words is his bond. His track record must reflect his desire to follow the intent of the law as opposed to the letter of the law. He must demonstrate and evidence that he will do the right thing and not ever sacrifice his reputation for any form of personal gain. 

It was Winston Churchill who stated: “All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words: freedom, justice, honour, duty, mercy, hope.” While there are many traits we can discuss, in this disposition, I will focus on three, these being selflessness, accountability and trustworthiness.

Selflessness

Talking about selflessness. A selfless leader abandons his ego and focuses on the vision, the purpose and the goal and enables his followers to accomplish. He believes to lead is “to serve” and not just “be served”. From a country’s perspective, selfless leadership is to ethically lead others in achieving goals for the greater good and benefit of the country ahead of the benefit to oneself and connected parties. 

A good leader stands above any specific religious or political views of his own and is independent of any attachment to an extreme agenda. His personal beliefs become his private matters and he learns to leave them out the door once he steps into a national leadership role. In other words, his belief expands so that it includes everyone’s beliefs provided they are in sync with those of society. He must move above and beyond any egoistic and primitive need for power, attention, or establishing his personal agendas and must work with the intention of good-for-all. 

A selfless leader says it as it is, even if it feels uncomfortable for many to hear it. He is not a crowd pleaser in that he would say anything to please others even if that means manipulating or misguiding the public. It takes a lot of courage to do this and a good leader must have tons of it. 

It will indeed be utopian to expect a person to be totally selfless. It is like the proverbial “searching for a needle in a haystack”. For, without doubt, there is a personal motive in anything we do. Total selflessness may exist in parental relationships and may come into play when pursuing causes of an altruistic nature. 

As aptly stated by Adam Smith: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest,” and “Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. He intends only his own gain, and he is, in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was not part of his intention.”

In a fast-paced materialistic world “pure selflessness” is as extinct as the dodo. It is not easy for a leader, particularly in the Sri Lanka we know, to be totally selfless. It requires determination, competence and a strong will to be even predominantly selfless. But we need not despair. Quoting Smith again: “How selfish so-ever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it.”

No one wants a weak leader, and no one should have to tolerate one. Selflessness is all about strength, and it’s not for the faint of heart. You need to know what your constituents really need from you and when you ask them what you can do for them, “listen” rather than “talk”. 

It was Lee Kwang Yew, the architect of modern Singapore, who said, “I have spent my life, so much of it, building up this country. There’s nothing more that I need to do. At the end of the day, what have I got? A successful Singapore. What have I given up? My life.” 

Despite the ruthlessness he displayed in treating his political opponents and implementing his vision, he selflessly prioritised Singapore before himself. He was honest enough to say; “I have never been over concerned or obsessed with opinion polls or popularity polls. I think a leader who is, is a weak leader. If you are concerned with whether your rating will go up or down, then you are not a leader. You are just watching the wind… you will go where the wind is blowing. And that’s not what I am in this for.” 

Well, we may not find paragons of virtue or whitened sepulchres in the final list of presidential contenders. We must ask ourselves; “What does Sri Lanka want right now?” and, “Which one of the contenders is best ‘behavioured’ to deliver it?”

Accountability

There is a crisis of accountability in our country today, a crisis of epidemic proportions. From the communication/security gaps leading to the Easter Day bombings which resulted in  more than 250 deaths, the loss of Rs. 12 billion suffered on the importation of rice by Lanka Sathosa with a further near 8,000 tons unaccounted, the loss of Rs. 4 billion estimated to have been lost on the procurement of coal for the Norochcholai Power Plant, the billions of opportunity foregone, and the illegal enriching of selected persons, as a result of the Central Bank bond scam, the burgeoning losses at State-Owned Enterprises, a monthly rental payment of Rs. 21 million to a private company on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture without complying with laid-down procedures… and now to the alleged Rs. 2 billion paid to a “fake” company involved in the construction of the Nelum Kuluna. The list is never-ending. 

But sadly, no one, particularly from among the leaders, is taking responsibility and no one is being held accountable. Don’t forget that this is taxpayers’ money, money paid by the public, money paid by you and me for the running of the Government and the services provided by the State. Monies paid by way of direct taxes and indirect taxes. 

Even more sadly, we the public are not only not demanding accountability, but some of us are planning to vote for the miscreants. These are the same persons who have contributed, over the years, to the economic and social malaise which we currently find ourselves in. The incidents highlighted are just those which come to my mind and they are just the tip of the iceberg. 

Mr. “Ordinary” is fired from employment for being unable to reconcile a Rs. 500 difference in his petty cash holding while Mr. “Privileged” roams around scot-free without assuming accountability for billions of losses and billions of investments which have yielded no benefit to society. And, we, the stupid public, allow ourselves to be used as the unwitting pawns in their game of “selfish” chess. 

The President has now appointed another commission to investigate the Easter Day fiasco. There are commissions and commissions appointed to investigate and report on many shenanigans, wrongdoings and skulduggery – but nothing comes out of them. Whatever the way it is made to look, the buck stops with the leaders. They must not be allowed to get away with their pleas of ignorance. They must be held accountable. We, the public, must not buy into the “blame-game”.

On the contrary, the emphasis on accountability is, in relative terms, very high in the private sector. In fact, the demand for accountability at top management level is, in general, stronger than at lower levels. The codes of conduct prevailing in most private sector organisations oblige the individuals, particularly those at the helm, to account for their/organisations’ activities, accept responsibility for them and to disclose the outcomes in a transparent manner. Failure to do so invariably results in termination. 

Very often, persons who value their dignity resign of their own accord. But that never happens with thick-skinned leaders in government. Accountability in the Government and in the public sector is at a pitiful all-time low. And ironically, it is the same leaders who have the gall to say in public that the private sector is not supporting the government’s economic and strategic agenda. Surely the private sector is right if they are not supporting agendas put forward by leaders who do not show credibility. It is said that “the fish rots from the head”. The current sorry state of Sri Lanka is indeed an example of that. Failed leadership over several decades. To stop the rot, we must change our thinking in electing leaders, particularly national leaders. 

A good leader while being accountable, personally, helps people understand that they are accountable to their society and its outcome and teaches them to make responsible choices. He does not support a sense of self-serving entitlement that goes too far and is counter-productive for the society as a whole. In keeping with a spirit of accountability, a good leader is focused and does not get distracted. His goals, whether small or large, are reasonable and achievable and are directed towards the long- term results. Not quick and temporary fixes which, more often than not, backfire. He must make realistic promises and not ones designed to keep him in power.

It was Mahatma Gandhi who said: “It is wrong and immoral to seek to escape the consequences of one’s acts.” We must start a “Gandhian” revolution in our demand for accountability. We must explore, at least in the long-term, the possibility of binding national leaders to “social contracts” which are enforceable via constitutional/parliamentary mechanisms. Morally, we must insist that the conduct of national leaders is no different to the conduct expected of a professional. 

As per the professional code of conduct, the allegiance, and accountability, of a professional is first to the public, then to the profession, then to his employer and lastly to himself. Failure to abide by such conduct results in the professional being black-balled. Should we not mete out similar treatment to national leaders? 

It is unlikely that revolution in our thinking of the nature I am advocating will attain momentum, garner the numbers, and consequently the force, to be impactful prior to the upcoming Presidential Election. But we must have it on our agenda. I, for myself, will vote for the individual who I believe is most selfless and has a good track record of accountability. You should do likewise. We must shun the wolves who don sheep’s clothing at election time.

Trustworthy

Is there someone out there who can be labelled a trustworthy politician? Does such a person exist? Probably, an oxymoron! Trust, in my view, is not an “all or nothing” proposition. Very few people are unequivocally trustworthy or untrustworthy in every aspect of their behaviour. Whilst we all make mistakes and act in ways that erode other’s trust in us, we, by and large, strive to be trustworthy most of the time. The presidential contenders have a past. A study of, and reflections on, such past will provide a definitive way to judge their individual trustworthiness. Has the subject person consistently acted in ways that build trust with others or have his actions been unpredictable? Ask these questions.

Literature tells us that trustworthiness is defined based on four characteristics: ability, benevolence, integrity and predictability. These four characteristics form the foundational pillars of trust. Ability describes perceptions of leadership competence in doing their job or fulfilling their role. Benevolence describes a concern for others, beyond leaders’ own needs and showing levels of care and compassion. Integrity defines how trustworthiness is linked to being seen as someone who adheres to principles of fairness and honesty while avoiding hypocrisy. Predictability emphasises how leadership behaviour has to be consistent or regular over time.

As has been practised by business in the past two decades, politicians, too, are realising that leadership is no longer one of vertical power. Despite a worldwide fixation on strength as a positive quality, strong leaders—those who concentrate power and decision-making in their own hands—are not necessarily good leaders. Evidence abounds in confirming that the leaders who make the biggest difference in office, and change millions of lives for the better, are the ones who collaborate, delegate, and negotiate—the ones who recognise that no one person can or should have all the answers. Even today, we have in Sri Lanka leaders who think that they know it all. They believe that technical finesse is the sine qua non of leadership even when the morality of such action is so obviously flawed. 

The key success factor becomes the ability to persuade someone over whom you have no power to collaborate with you in pursuit of a common mission. Leaders can no longer trust in power; instead, they rely on the power of trust. Surveys and contemporary literature recognise that leaders who have succeeded in persuading others to trust them have exhibited certain behaviours, being: They are skilled at trusting; they are good at collaboration; they operate from a clear set of values and principles which are free of blatantly visible opportunistic and selfish motives; they are more intrinsically, than externally, motivated; they do not solely depend on direct authority or power.  

As was the case in respect of selflessness and accountability, we must critically assess the presidential contenders against the benchmarks we have discussed above. In doing so, we must exercise caution. Because if trust is misplaced, and directed towards individuals who are untrustworthy, it can lead trusting people to be exploited. The negative consequences of such a situation needs no further elaboration. 

Elizabeth Hopper, a freelance science writer specialising in psychology and mental health, states that the trustworthiness of a person who shows a greater propensity for showing guilt is higher than someone exhibiting lesser remorse. Why might guilt lead to trustworthy behaviour? Whether it is in predicting the recoverability of monies lent, choosing a romantic partner or evaluating whether a politician will keep his campaign promises, researchers have found that persons who were guilt-prone experienced an obligation to act in ethical and responsible ways towards the other party/parties. 

The emotion of guilt is provoked when individuals recognise a wrongdoing they have committed. People who are guilt-prone tend to avoid engaging in behaviours that might harm or disappoint others. When a wrong is committed, the guilt motivates them to take action to right the wrong. So how can we test our contenders using this method? Perhaps we must encourage USA-styled debates where the participants are asked about their alleged past transgressions or they are asked to describe a difficult moment in their life. It is up to us to observe and conclude.

In conclusion, research your candidates and assess their track record against the key criteria. For me the important ones are selflessness, accountability and trustworthiness. Don’t vote for someone because they are a member of a certain party. Find out how they are viewed within their party, not just by outsiders. Everyone remains an individual even when toeing the party line. Keep an open mind. Politics is an area where reform can occur. Even if someone has had a shady past, they may have sincerely done enough, in recent times, to change for the better. Identify their recent achievements and utterances and evaluate whether they are enough to overcome the past. Consider whether they are showing true remorse. Whilst it is important to gauge public opinion go with your gut and the knowledge you have gleaned from your research.

(Ronnie Peiris is a Leadership Coach, Mentor and Consultant. He can be reached at [email protected].  Website www.ronniepeiris.)