Sunday Times 2
The case of Winston Churchill and Ranil
View(s):I could not help musing this week about a famous leader who suffered a similar fate to what President Ranil Wickremesinghe did last weekend—the British general election of 1945 often being described as history’s greatest example of democratic ingratitude.
In 1940, Winston Churchill—not the most popular member of parliament at the time—accepted the role of prime minister when the holder of that office, Neville Chamberlain, was forced to resign. Before leaving office, Chamberlain first offered the post to Lord Halifax. After Halifax declined, Churchill agreed to accept the task and invited the then-opposition leader, Clement Atlee, and the Labour Party’s deputy leader, Arthur Greenwood, to join his cabinet. As head of a coalition government, Churchill took on the difficult task of leading Britain when that nation was facing its darkest hour. It was a time when everyone expected Germany to invade and conquer England, just blitzing as it had blitzed through Poland, Belgium, Holland, and France. 
Churchill led his nation, not just from the brink of disaster but to a resounding victory over Germany and its allies—only to be unceremoniously booted out of office at the next election after Britain had won the war.
Historians have long been baffled by the fact of Churchill’s defeat.
The explanation most favoured is that the British people had struggled and suffered during the war years, facing much hardship and sacrificing a lot to finally achieve victory over Germany. As Churchill himself ruefully observed after his defeat, “They have had a very hard time.”
In a similar fashion, the Sri Lankan people over the past few years have had a very hard time. With our coffers depleted by the uncontrolled stealing of a blatantly corrupt crop of politicians (several of them continuing to hold office in Ranil’s cabinet), our country was brought to its financial knees, and the unpopular politician Ranil (like Churchill) stepped in to take charge. Let it not be forgotten that the man who came second in last weekend’s election—the famously “liked to do it but scared to do it” Sajith Premadasa—was reluctant (like Lord Halifax, who was first offered the PM’s role by Chamberlain) to accept the role when it was offered to him by the fleeing Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
Since the unprecedented success of the Aragalaya in 2022, Sri Lanka’s people had been waiting for a chance to have their say at the ballot box. There was a palpable desire for change—not only of politicians but also of the very system that had spawned these self-serving politicians. It is not inconceivable that many voters wished to punish Ranil for not punishing the Rajapaksas and their cronies, while others appear to have cast their votes for the untested NPP candidate in anticipation of a more equitable future.
Poor Ranil—a clever but logical man but devoid of emotional intelligence and people skills. He sincerely believed in the work he had done and the success he had achieved. He trusted that the Sri Lankan people would understand economic realities and give him a mandate to pursue his programme for another five years.
Why did Ranil not deal with the Rajapaksas and their hangers-on?
I suspect it is because he, with his experience and understanding of the intricacies of parliamentary procedure, was well aware that he was a president without a mandate. He was fully dependent on a legislature composed of often hostile MPs who could vote against any proposals that were put before Parliament. With his hands tied, Ranil had to keep the current bunch of MPs—corrupt though many of them were—on his side so that he could push through his programme. He had to do this until he could dissolve Parliament and get a fresh group of MPs who would honestly support his carefully thought-out and logical proposals.
Putting them behind bars and getting back their stolen loot was not an option for now. Fortunately, the normal process of the law was able to deal with Keheliya Rambukwella with no need for Ranil to take any action himself.
So Ranil, a wise and experienced believer in the Art of the Possible, did what he knew best—function as a knowledgeable and efficient CEO, negotiating confidently and pragmatically with overseas governments and agencies. He had the wisdom and personality to pull the country back from the abyss and set us on an even keel, at least for the moment. Unlike the time that Gotabaya left office, we now have fuel, gas, and food (even though these cost us more than we would like to pay for them).
But lacking charisma and people skills—being perceived as aloof and unable to connect to voters—Ranil thought he could, like Brutus after the assassination of Julius Caesar, convince the people with logical arguments.
Sadly, we the people do not understand parliamentary procedure or economics—so Ranil’s opponents, like the orator Mark Antony, outmanoeuvred him by speaking to the people in the pithy homespun language they understood and promising to change the system.
I am now in my mid-eighties, and human life spans being what they are, I do not expect that I will have the chance to vote in another presidential election.
So let me wish young Anura Kumara Dissanayake well. He comes into office with idealistic intentions and good ideas. However, once he becomes familiar with how our legislature functions, he too will find that it is not easy to get his agenda accepted by a parliament composed of folk with diverse and disparate views. Let us hope that we the people elect to the new parliament a group of citizens committed to serving the country and not enriching themselves.
Felix Dias Bandaranaike, that incorruptible politician of yesteryear, once observed that to serve as a cabinet minister and not accept bribes and commissions, one needed to receive a fairly substantial private income—or have very strong moral principles that temptation will not corrupt.
We can only hope that the strong moral principles which AKD and his team claim to have will not be bent or tainted once they get into office.