Saturday Dec 28, 2024
Saturday Dec 28, 2024
Wednesday, 1 April 2015 00:10 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
That sea-change into something rich and strange – that a genuinely good and accountable government could coalesce in less than a third of a year – has not materialised, some seven dozen days out of a hundred later. Instead, as some of us argued – hoping against hope that we were wrong – “the more things change the more they stay the same”. Well, that was well put.
Some of us said this because we were more realistic than others. Not unpatriotic, nor unduly partisan. But because we were quicker – if more loath, maybe – to realise that human nature in general and political cultures in particular don’t change overnight. Even if they want to! Especially, perhaps, if they need to? There is a certain inertia in the governmental tide, which, taken at the flood, leads on to much of a sameness.
The things some of us said, then, bear looking back in anger at, now. Not because what has been done – or left undone – can be undone or done, or done differently. But because it is never too late to learn the lessons that 67 years of bipartisan tinkering with polities, policies, constitutions, hasn’t taught us.
To wit, as a would-be politico but was-actually circus-master P. T. Barnum said: “There’s a gullible voter born every minute…” – or words to that effect. (You know what word’s missing in this dictum, don’t you.)
Change vs. Stability
The clearest and sharpest clarion call on the presidential campaign trail in late 2014 was for “change”. Whether this would be a change for the better – or worse – or whether there would be no discernible change should have has raised red flags then. At that time it was felt that the then entrenched Rajapaksa regime may have the edge in terms of arguments favouring security, stability, and continuity. It was also felt that the then opposition coalition had singularly failed to delineate how it would effect the sweeping reforms it has promised. There was then – and there still is – no little confusion and misunderstanding about “reforming” the Executive, in some way, versus “restricting” its powers. Three months later, there is no real consensus on the way forward; and why this – if it eventuates, as looks likely now – will improve the status quo. Won’t the emerging Executive Premiership simply be another powerful head with a different face? (The one thing is that the name and the face now attached to the hot seat generate more confidence in at least the readership of this paper, if not the polity at large!)
Some 80 days into its tenure, we are now painfully aware that arguing for a regime-change is not quite the same creature as assuring political-culture change. Scratch a coalitionist from this alliance and, like any other cravenly opportunistic cabinet minister from the other coalition, is he or she not likely to bleed corruption, criminality of one degree or another, and cost-of-living bungling all over the House carpet? (In fact, as is embarrassingly obvious to everyone else except those who gave and accepted such portfolios, these culpable culprits are one and the same ministers of cabinet and members of parliament!)
So the conventional wisdom in westernised Colombo three months ago was that “change is a must”. This might now be characterised as a naïve (if altogether earnest and sincere) expectation. For the few commentators who played devil’s advocate then who suspected and said that “the more things change, the more they might stay the same” have been shown to be closer to the mark.
Boom vs. Bust
Part of the extended argument of the change-stability matrix above was whether Growth, Development, Progress (the new national GDP and every party’s favourite election mantra) would continue at the same pace under a new government. This was chiefly because both in real terms as well as in terms of perception management (read, “propaganda”), the then 10-year-old regime were past-masters at pleasing and appeasing GDP-niks. So the Old Guard of the Grand Old Party had to pull out all stops on the campaign trail to assure the polity that it would go on, and thereby secure – or re-secure – investor confidence. (Truth be told, at one time there was little to differentiate some UNP platforms from, say, JVP planks.)
Having won the election, it appeared the half of the voter bloc that counted trusted the new government to get on with the once and future GDP project. But in the first few weeks into its administration there was some confusion as to which agenda was being followed. The Premier was saying one thing and the Cabinet Spokesperson appeared to be saying to say another: on the Port City, for instance. Then, the President went to India and made noises about how the Chinese-driven project would not continue amidst a placatory blitz back home. Now, the Chinese have inveigled the President into making a pledge that it will not be held fineable in the same week as the President’s brother gets killed. Is it a case of getting ones wires crossed, or is it a straightforward game of cross and double-cross?
In a high-stakes game such as the Port City Project – and between China’s rock and India’s hard place – it is not surprising that the government (‘national unity’ or not) has had to run with the socialist hare and hunt with the neo-conservative hound. The end result of such to-ing and fro-ing is that the administration has been shown up to be no less – or no more – pragmatic than its predecessor in terms of investment, development, investment-development, and foreign policies. Thus a citizenry (read, “voters”) keen on not losing GDP-momentum might rest assured that under either administration, development would have muddled along in a manner that we might not notice. After all, wasn’t it a senior SLFP MP turned UNP mandarin turned PA stalwart who once repeatedly said that “Sri Lanka will grow at 5.5% per annum with or without a finance minister”?
So the conventional wisdom then was that “GDP is good, GDP is right.” – with apologies to Gordon Gekko – no matter which government was in power. But the devil’s advocates among us still argue that “growth with honour, growth with equity/equitability” means that some governments must sometimes fail at this… And pay the public price of promises made and kept. Because governments aspiring to “good” governance must be prepared to fail, be seen to fail, and be changed once in every 5-6 years – much like some long-term “national nappy” would be changed when politicos excrete all over it in pursuit of their own (or other outsider) agendas.
Such a view, of course, is pragmatic from the polity’s point of view… But no government worth its salt would be willing to fail, or admit to it, or be seen to fail, at playing ducks and drakes with the world’s two fastest emerging superpowers.
Rule of Law and Order
There was a time not so long out of mind that if government mentioned “law and order” they would have to be pulling our leg. Then came the regime change; but even if it is on a far less titanic scale, there is no such thing as a clean bill for even this most republican of democracies! The less said about “relative merits” the better…
Really, when it comes to “rule by law” – or the selective application of criminal code or constitutional writ – there’s a closer race being run between representatives of one cabal/clique (regime) and the other coven/claque (republican democracy). Whether it’s tweaking amendments to suit one’s political ambitions or rescuing errant politicos’ sons from remand without due recourse to the magistracy, we have seen what power can do to erstwhile upright law-abiding citizens and their kith and kin. Let’s not even mention state-endorsed robber barons in the corporate sector (did someone mention central banks and treasuries) pillaging and plundering like the new colonisers they are… While the drug mafia, and gambling and prostitution rings, and much rumoured but little acted on ‘dukes of ethanol’ may be a thing of the past, and bribery no longer the butter on just about everyone’s bread, the playing field is still very tilted indeed. And government keeps shifting the goalposts to get and keep its cronies out of gaol. Let’s get real. One administration’s corruption is another incumbency’s capital graft.
The conventional wisdom under an oppressive regime then was that law-and-order had come a-cropper in this country. But playing devil’s advocate might persuade us that there is still an unconscionable quantum of rule-by-law (which is as unjust, if not more so for a government seemingly committed to good governance). Get a life, defenders of the faith! Because ‘democrats’ can be absolutely corrupted as much as ‘despots’, given enough time and money or sufficiently powerful opportunities. Sooner or later, out pops the cloven hoof! And then, well-intentioned agendas and seemingly good ideas about good governance get relegated to the back-burner.
Some of this is beginning to sink in among even the ranks of Tuscany. A UNP deputy minister who has been described as “a respected government politician” said just two days ago that the new coalition government’s 100-Day Programme is unlikely to be completed within the prescribed period. He was, in a sense, preaching to the choir when he reportedly told a “corporate planning workshop” in the capital city that “it’s not easy to undo what has happened over decades” (or sentiments to that effect). Admitting that there were “shortcomings” in the then 75-day-old government, he pleaded: “But don’t throw the baby with the bathwater. Don’t lose sight of the larger picture.”
Words that his beleaguered leaders, other senior members on both sides of the artificially-divided House, and embattled political-war veterans would do well to hear. Words that he needs to ask himself whether he and his government – all of them – are serious and sincere about. Words that voters are unlikely to forget come 23 April. Whenever. (Now pull the other one, would you.)
In the final analysis, we could have predicted the present impasse before we came to this pretty pass. But would have been counterproductively subversive. After all, there’s still 21 days to go.
