Sunday Times 2
Bridging the poverty gap effortlessly
Of the many rash and brash promises made by the two leading contenders in the presidential race, we have been able to identify one promise as an achievable and pragmatic pledge. Gotabaya Rajapaksa has promised to end the poverty gap between the haves and have-nots. We didn’t find reports of direct pledges by Sajith Premadasa promising to bridge the poverty gap, but he has echoed his father’s cry of ‘empowering the poor and the weak’ against the ‘rich and powerful’ quite often.
Both the former Lt. Colonel and his main opponent Premadasa had failed to spot the simple solution that has been there ready for pickings:
Simply reduce the income and assets of the ‘rich and powerful’ to the level of the ‘poor and weak’. And, hey presto, the entire poverty gap disappears into thin air and the problem resolved. QED—quad erat demonstrandum—as we said years gone by at school having resolved Euclid’s problems.
It could be argued that this is not a Eureka moment like that which sent Archimedes jumping out of his bathtub and running in his birthday suit down the streets of Athens. This line of thinking is in accordance with propaganda of Americans during the Cold War. They said: It’s true that capitalism makes the rich richer but socialism makes the poor poorer. That is what happened to the Congress-led governments of the Nehrus and Gandhis in India and Bandaranaike governments of Sri Lanka that pursued a mixed economic policy—Capitalism and Marxism. They were hit by a double whammy. There were no rich left—only the poor. That’s why they didn’t speak of a Poverty Gap in those days.
We may be accused of being facetious for our comments but consider the astronomical conning of the presidential candidates. Perhaps the last pledge made before the elections will be on the import or export of pineapples to or from the moon. And their supporters will cheer lustily. The only candid comment we heard last week was from the JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake, who when asked at a press conference whether he would seek loans in view of the tremendous debt burden. He answered in the affirmative and explained he would do so to overcome the current crisis and work out strategies to get over the debt crisis.
There is much averseness to speak about borrowing from foreign resources or foreign investments in the context of the government’s debt burden and the Rajapaksa regime’s contribution to it in their time. Candidates are not speaking about resources to fund their grandiose promises.
Perhaps they consider acceptance of direct foreign investments—particularly some Pohottuwa radicals—is tantamount to parcelling off the country’s wealth to foreign companies. Their objections taken to logical conclusions imply that foreign investors are here for the benefit of the locals—politicians, bureaucrats, local partners—and profit made by foreign investors is highway robbery of the country’s resources.
It is indeed bizarre that the hundreds of thousands that have flocked to these mass political rallies during the past few weeks are well aware that promises made by their heroes are fakes because any future president will not have the resources to fund them from the bankrupt economy; nor are the candidates indicating the ways and means in which they could find funds for implementation. Yet, these supposedly enlightened masses cheer lustily their future president not giving two hoots about the fake promises.
This begs the question whether the mass support and loyalty their candidates draw from them are not because of the love and admiration for them but because of the hatred of their opponents and parties. The UNPers are voting against the Rajapaksas and the Rajapaksa supporters are voting against UNP and Premadasa. Is it a vote not for their candidate but one against their opponent?
Lanka’s foreign policy is another issue where the masses are hoodwinked. The answer to questions about the increasing superpower rivalry in the Indian Ocean region and the power play around Sri Lanka for access to its strategic ports is warded off by both the Pohottuwa and the UNP group with the statement that Non-Alignment will be the foreign policy of both parties. Even though the Non-Aligned policy of Sri Lanka in the sixties and seventies tilted towards India and the Soviet Union because of the pressures exerted by Indira Gandhi and worked due to various other reasons, a near 50 years have lapsed since then and geopolitics have changed drastically. China, with its ‘String of Pearls’ in the Indian Ocean and the One Road and Belt winding its way through Asia and beyond to the West, has radically altered the geopolitical equation.
National security is being declared as the one factor on which the rise and fall of the Sri Lankan nation will be decided by Candidate Gotabaya Rajapaksa who has projected himself to be the last word—the Oracle—on the subject. Following the Easter Sunday attacks on tourist hotels and churches, he has projected himself as being indispensable. Sajith Premadasa declaring Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka as his nominee for the Defence Ministry portfolio has deflated the blown-up image of this country’s guardian deity.
Security measures and strategies are all hush-hush and thus cannot be debated on political platforms. But the thousands of supporters at Rajapaksa rallies are absolutely convinced that their man is the best guardian of the nation. Whether national security amounts to eradication of terrorist outfits, keeping internal stability and peace within a community by providing food and shelter is not the concern of the raucous masses.
This week saw the most significant development during the run- up to the presidential election: Following the decision of the ITAK (Ilankai Tamil Arasu Katchi), the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) which ITAK dominates, agreed to support Sajith Premadasa. It put to test all pretenders in the promotion of national unity in the ranks opposed to the UNP. No sooner the news was out the usual rumblings were heard in the bowels of the Pohottuwa: Sajith has agreed to a federal state, a division of the country and a secret pact has been signed were being drummed up in Pohottuwa circles. Mahinda Rajapaksa in a statement said that the ‘manifesto of Sajith Premadasa’ has agreed to a federal state, in all but name’.
Are we to go back to 1958 slogans about federalism and division of the country despite the TNA’s categorical assurances that it stands for a united Sri Lanka? So much for the concern of the great pretenders of rights of the two minority communities—Tamils and Muslims and their basic human rights!