Friday Nov 22, 2024
Friday Nov 22, 2024
Wednesday, 28 August 2024 00:22 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
It is we, the voting citizens of our country, who despite experiencing the vicissitudes of such duplicitous behaviour,
brainlessly and in a zombie-like fashion vote for these chameleons who take us for idiots – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara
Even as “Mondo” Duplantis, the Swedish pole vaulter, was thrilling global viewers with a world record breaking jump of 6.25 metres at the Paris Olympics, 8,500 kilometres away in Colombo, we, in beautiful Sri Lanka, were witnessing incredible performances by several ‘political’ athletes in the jump events of long jump, triple jump, high jump and pole vault. A good number of them were ‘seasoned’ participants and previous medallists notorious for their dexterity in this field.
The notable difference between Paris and Colombo, however, was that while the athletes in Paris were striving for excellence via an Olympic Movement contributing to a better world through sports practiced without discrimination in a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play, the Colombo caucus was displaying its vulgar, selfish and time-serving behaviour of switching allegiances with the singular purpose of staying in power. Yes, there was, and there is, the odd person who may be switching based on his/her belief and conscience. But based on our experience of this ‘merry-go-round’ many of the participants were doing so for their selfish ends.
These ‘crossovers’, characterised, in the main, by opportunistic, and greedy, parliamentarians who, rather than representing the interests of the voters and/or remaining true to the party whose policies got them elected in the first instance, is a feature event in Sri Lanka’s election calendar where sitting parliamentarians fly to feather their own nests in the hope of securing positions, favours and other benefits by siding with, and sucking up, to the one they believe will be the winning presidential candidate. This is yet another aberration in our political system. An aberration which has, on many previous occasions, left a bad taste in our ‘voter mouths’ and which we the voters have been keen on spitting out in the last five decades.
The distaste becomes pronounced when considered in a background where presidential candidates who portray themselves as paragons of virtue and who behave like whitened sepulchers, are seen welcoming these ‘crossovers’ with glee and open arms despite their past misdeeds, unethical and crass behaviour and questionable backgrounds. The taste becomes even more bitter when it is we, the voting citizens of our country, who despite experiencing the vicissitudes of such duplicitous behaviour, brainlessly and in a zombie-like fashion vote for these chameleons who take us for idiots by blatantly resorting to a practice which we have publicly denounced, and continue to denounce, as being repulsive and unacceptable. We never learn. Therefore, we must not feel sorry for ourselves in the aftermath of an election because it is we, ourselves, who bring disaster upon ourselves.
Corrosive crossover politics
Despite chastising, criticising, despising and detesting those who engage in crossover politics and those who encourage crossover politics, we, by our acts of acquiescence, have made such crossovers an acceptable part of the country’s political system. It has become the norm, rather than the exception, because we accept them. The corrosive nature of such crossover politics makes system changes very challenging. It is near impossible for new thinking to emerge.
Notwithstanding this doom and gloom, the good news is that we, the voting masses, hold the trump card, i.e. the vote, in electing the 9th Executive President of Sri Lanka on 21 September. We must vote for the candidate who is most likely to change the political system. Given that the right to switch allegiances irrespective of whether it be on principle, self-interest or opportunity is available in a democracy, it is left to the voter to ultimately determine the true intent of a crossover and cast his/her vote accordingly. Notwithstanding our individual party allegiances, we must acknowledge that of the main political parties and alliances in Sri Lanka it is only the National People’s Power (NPP) which has not aided or abetted crossovers.
The political system in Sri Lanka remains and will continue to remain as the major barrier to solving our nation’s pressing economic challenges, rising economic inequality and overall quality of life because unlike in most other industries, the rules of competition in the industry of politics are controlled by the 225 in Parliament and the Executive President. Add to that, politics is a lucrative business. None of the current parliamentarians wish to be out of business. So, they have an obvious conflict of interest in deciding what is good for the country and what is good for them.
Consequently, the mode of encounter between the opposing parliamentarians is a “you scratch my back, and I will reciprocate” understanding when it comes to practices such as crossovers et cetera. Collectively, they wish to preserve the present political system as long as possible. Going by the current word and deed, it is the NPP which appears to be committed to bringing genuine change to the political system. I am very aware that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. But then, that applies to all the promises made by all the presidential candidates. And, what about the promises made in the past?
It is important to note that a new political system by itself will not result in citizens enjoying the quality of life they yearn for. There must exist an economic system which is in congruence with the political system. Government must, in keeping with the changing needs of society, evolve from being mere enforcer of the law and guardian of the people to an entity which manages externalities, formulates and drives economic policy, distributes revenues, oversees public budgets, regulates taxes and provides social security under an overarching umbrella of equal opportunity and meritocracy. Political Economics, being the study of how politics affects the economy and how the economy in turn shapes politics, confirms that the success or failure of a country is a coefficient of the efficacy of government policies.
Politics and economics are strongly interconnected
The short, medium and long-term economic policies, the governance model of the political system, the practices adopted, and the decision-making processes employed, by the government and established government institutions have a profound influence on the economy of a nation. Politics and economics are strongly interconnected. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Per Capita Income, Unemployment Rate, Trade Surplus and Balance of Payments are just a few examples of economic indicators which have a political founding.
It is in the light of this strong interconnectedness, that I found the observations/comments made by Murtaza Jafferjee, Chairman, Advocata Institute, Sri Lanka at a recent SL-Korea Business Council Discussion on Sri Lanka’s future, very illuminating, refreshing and true. He stated that Sri Lanka must address the negative impacts of ‘elite bargaining’ if it is to achieve debt sustainability and sustainable growth. He observed that, presently, the country is run for the benefit of a select crowd rather than for the benefit of all people and that the elite class has undue power, influence and decision making over most matters. Herein lies the heart of our economic problems, this being the very limited inclusion of the common man and woman in the formulation of our economic and social policies.
This has been Sri Lanka’s style from the days of yore. Our quest for independence was predominantly led by rich Oxford and Cambridge educated elites who had built fortunes trading in commodities and were in high positions in the governing establishment because of favours bestowed on them by the colonial masters. Unlike India, Sri Lanka never had a mass uprising for independence, nor did Sri Lanka have a post-independence colloquium which heard the voices of the common man in creating a national document. Even today, we have an excess of elitism in our economic policies. Our policies do not adequately encompass the dreams and aspirations of all the citizens.
Slaves to the visions of individuals
An inspired shared vision is what we need. We have been, and we are even today, slaves to the visions of individuals. We are lazy to think for ourselves. History confirms that a leader’s individual vision is not adequate by itself. While it may be catalytic, it will never match the force and power inherent in national belonging, commonality of purpose and collective determination of a shared vision. Neither will it, on its own, produce the synergies which emanate from the cohesiveness of diversity – the rich and poor, the educated and not so educated, intellectual and unintelligent – all uniting in pursuing common goals and objectives. Learning from the past and sieving the “good” from the “bad” and the “bad” from the “ugly,” we, the Sri Lankan citizens must elect a leader who is able to inspire a shared vision if we are to come out of our economic, and social, doldrums. In making this choice, we must pierce the veil of the immediately visible, tangible, touchy-feely glitter, and materiality, and dive deeper in assessing the sincerity, and credibility, in the candidates’ utterances and the candidates’ capabilities, capacities and the competencies to walk the talk.
The candidates’ records in encouraging and enabling collaboration, listening to the views of others, and bringing coherence to diverse views, communicating, employing participative decision-making styles, and in exhibiting honesty, integrity, transparency, humility, empathy et cetera are key aspects which we must scrutinise carefully. Emotional Quotient (EQ) must rank higher than his/her Intelligence Quotient (IQ).
Free-market economics tinged with socialism
I am a staunch believer of free-market economics tinged with socialism as needed and where relevant. Consequently, my adapted definition of free-market economics, or capitalism as it is sometimes loosely referred to – although it sounds rather mercenary, is a model where willing buyers and sellers arrive at prices based on supply and demand except in circumstances where government’s intervention or direct involvement is necessitated because of ‘market- failure ‘, ‘free-rider’ implications, or national security. However, it must be anchored in equality of opportunity and a strict abidance to the principles of meritocracy.
Today, there is no country which is a pure free market economy. They practice hybrids. As per the globally accepted Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom, Singapore leads the list with 83.5 out of 100, the United States is 25th with a score of 70.1, India is 126th with a score of 52.9, Sri Lanka is 149th with a score of 49.2, Cuba is the second lowest at 29.3 and, based on the limited information available, North Korea is the lowest at 2.9. Ever since the advent of accelerated globalisation, the fall of the communist bloc, the emergence of China and India as economic super-powers and the incredible success of ‘small’ Singapore, the leaning towards free-market economics modified for social/national reasons has flourished globally. So much so that there is hardly a mention of socialism or communism as economic models nowadays.
Most Sri Lankans favour a free market principled economic system provided it gives all citizens equal opportunity and upholds strict meritocracy. The opposition to free-market thinking emanates from the great divide which exists among citizens in terms of income, social mobility, and general prosperity. That is a corollary of the ‘elite bargaining’ which was referred to earlier.
The disproportionate percentage of wealth in the hands of the “haves” compared to the “have-nots” is a bone of discontent and has added fuel to the fire. Notwithstanding these negatives, free-market driven economics is now the universally accepted policy and philosophy. It is here to stay. I believe that the 9th Executive President of Sri Lanka, whoever it may be, must convince the voting citizens he will follow this globally accepted line while enabling an equality of opportunity for all citizens and the solidification and furtherance of the principles of meritocracy.
Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome
What I am stressing here is an equality of opportunity and not an equality of outcome. Free market thinking recognises that some people are born, and endowed, with certain skills and benefits which others may not possess at a given moment of time. Whether it be an extraordinary athlete, a talented opera singer or a brilliant mathematician, we must accept their inherent skills as a part of nature dictated human variety and that their end-product may be superior to others. Born into a rich family or inheriting wealth legally may be regarded by some as an unlevel starting point.
Forms of levelling can be employed in such instances provided they do not disturb the very essence of a free market. In enabling equality of opportunity, the new president must ensure that a qualifying citizen will not be barred from pursuing and engaging in any option in life based on his/her race, religion, gender, caste, creed, or other similar differences. Citizens must be free to choose based on their ambitions, aspirations, dreams, and inclinations. In such an environment the extent of success or failure must be contingent solely upon their efforts which are founded on merit, skills, determination, commitment, and dedication.
Sri Lanka follows a mixed economic model of free market and government provided/assisted services in select areas such as education and health where services are provided without a profit motive. In such situations, in particular, the freedom to choose and participate is an integral component of equal opportunity. For example, the use of quotas based on ethnicity in limiting the access of eligible students to a national university must be a definite NO. If numbers must be restricted because of space limitations, then the filter used must be based purely on merit. As to whether these choices result in success or failure because of the intrinsic or inherent ability of an individual should not be a concern of the free market.
While it is recognised that escalating inequality is not healthy and will lead to social disharmony and whilst acknowledging that free market economics in its imperfect forms may have produced unfair advantages to the elitists, studies reveal that a society adopting free market principles, sans cronyism and unethical practices, is more likely to facilitate increased individual freedom. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), our favourite organisation in recent times, observes that in societies where opportunities are unequal, including across generations, an increase in income inequality tends to become entrenched, limiting the potential and prospects of low-income earners and, thereby, stymying long-term growth.
We must vote for the presidential candidate who is most likely to push the principle of ‘the more productive you are – the more you make and less productive you are – the less you make.’ One who allows market forces to work. He must give confidence to the masses that he would allow the creators of transparent wealth to keep the wealth. Obviously, ill-gotten wealth must be treated differently.
Under an overarching environment of equal opportunity and meritocracy, there are two propositions of economic policies both based predominantly on free market thinking in front of us as the voters. One a dictated model driven purely by coercion and fear and the other a deliberated model driven by a generous dose of listening, discussion and needs of a wider society. Number two is my pick. What is yours? Which presidential candidate is most likely to deliver your pick on a sustained basis? Vote
for him.
(The writer is currently a Leadership Coach, Mentor and Consultant and boasts over 50 years of experience in very senior positions in the corporate world – local and overseas. www.ronniepeiris.com)
