Sunday Times 2
Five-year mandate; fifty-year trajectory: Is Govt. rulership or stewardship?
View(s):By Maurice Jega
Sri Lanka is long overdue for building on solid foundations. History will record that the founding fathers of independent Sri Lanka built on faulty foundations and failed miserably to build a strong, integrated nation that realised its fullest potential. While many a nation in Asia has progressed economically in the last half a century, Sri Lanka, handicapped by internal strife, lags behind in economic development and social integration.
In mid-November, a hitherto minor political alliance, the National People’s Power (NPP) swept into power with a historic two-thirds majority in parliament. It is an unprecedented mandate for a political alliance of such as small profile under the proportional representation system in effect since 1978. The electorate, let down by political leaders and formations over three-quarters of a century, has spoken emphatically. Notwithstanding the fact that most key figures in the NPP have had no prior experience in governance, the people driven by disillusionment and frustration have “gambled” in placing their bets on President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and his team to lead the nation for the next five years.
The fact remains that the mandate is only for a five-year term. In the past, governments elected for five-year terms have decided the destiny of the nation for decades. For example, the reverberations of the “Sinhala only” Act of 1956 continue to this day in terms of the social and economic costs of the brain drain and the ethinic tensions that it triggered. Given the state that the country is in socio-economically right now, a disunited people battered by a serious economic crisis, Sri Lanka’s leaders will be required to chart a course that will position the nation for robust growth and development for the next half a century. How can a group of people with a “five-year letter of appointment” take on and complete the task bearing such a grave responsibility with implications for many decades to come?
It is a sine qua non that the NPP cannot fulfil this sacred responsibility, which is not one of rulership but one of stewardship, without engaging a cross-section of stakeholders in wide consultations. They cannot run away with the notion that they have a “carte blanche” to do as they please. Striking consensus positions on key areas is imperative if the NPP administration is to do justice to the strong mandate conferred upon it. Clarity on a 50-year trajectory is needed—one that will accommodate the hopes and aspirations of all Sri Lankans, including future generations.
Key areas that require multi-partisan and stakeholder engaged policy making are:
1. The Constitution
Hitherto, constitution-making has pretty much been a unilateral effort by the political party in power. The constitution in force was bulldozed by the United National Party which won an unprecedented 5/6th majority in parliament under the “first past the post system” that was in place in 1977. Its then leader designed the constitution to confer upon himself draconian powers under an executive presidency, which is blamed for much of Sri Lanka’s woes in recent decades. While some changes were made along the way, feeble efforts made to forge consensual constitution-making have always faltered. The NPP must seek wide stakeholder consultation and drive efforts to produce a constitution that will serve all Sri Lankans for half a century to come.
2. Economic policy
Sri Lanka has failed to grow economically due to confused and inconsistent economic policies for over three-quarters of a century. The ideological chasm between the Right and the Left has left the nation on a journey to nowhere. The NPP government must seek a middle path that will pave the way for sustainable growth—not one that a subsequent government will seek to reverse. Regardless of ideological positions, making Sri Lanka an attractive destination for business and investment is vital to set the nation on a sustainable path of prosperity. It is heartening to see the NPP engage leaders from the professions to assist and one hopes more will be done in this area to produce outcomes that will be enduring.
3. Education policy
Though ranking high in South Asia on literacy, Sri Lanka’s policymakers have failed to nurture rich human capital due to a multitude of missteps. Education is a highly politicised subject and no government will dare drive necessary but unpopular reforms for fear of electoral setbacks. Language policy, reluctance to privatise tertiary education, failing to create robust vocational training pathways have all contributed to squandering away Sri Lanka’s potential for talent development. Crystallising a long-term road map for educational reform that can serve generations in the rapidly changing 21st century with a buy-in of key stakeholders will be imperative to remove the obstacles to progress.
4. National Integration
Regrettably, Sri Lanka’s post-independence leaders have thrived on perpetuating the “divide and rule” policy of the colonial masters. Majoritarianism replaced a flawed meritocracy that existed during the British administration creating serious fissures in the socio-economic makeup of the nation. A language policy introduced in 1956 has left the nation permanently divided and scarred. President AKD is perhaps the first leader in post-independence Sri Lanka to declare that the nation must seek to unite. Rhetoric must follow through into action and policies that will forge national integration so that the nation can truly reap the peace dividend following a quarter century of death and destruction due to the ethnic conflict. Equitable socio-economic development to bridge the gap between the “haves” and the “have nots” is also a dire necessity for social cohesion.
5. Foreign policy
In the choppy waters of geopolitics, international relations are perhaps one of the biggest vulnerabilities for the island nation. As India and China cross swords for dominance in the Indian Ocean, Sri Lanka has been caught in the crossfire and suffered. The political rivalry that geopolitical players can exploit will be a certain recipe for disaster, as has been the case in the past where regime change moves came into play. Regardless of the NPP’s preferred foreign partners based on ideology or other factors, the party has to exercise extreme restraint and foresight in crystallising a foreign policy that will endure the vagaries of politics—one that will position Sri Lanka to take advantage of emerging economic opportunities for the long haul while securing enduring safety for the nation and its people.
If the AKD administration considers its task as one no different from that of its predecessors where it governs the nation with only a 5-10 year horizon in mind, it is sadly mistaken and will fail to deliver outcomes that the nation desperately needs. If however, it considers itself to be a catalyst appointed to harness resources and chart a course for the country for 50 years to come, then it will succeed in fulfilling its mandate for “system change” and leave a lasting legacy for generations to come. Those with influence in the industry, professions and civil society need to prevail upon the NPP leadership to do just that.
(The writer served as a bank
executive in an international bank for
many decades in Sri Lanka and
overseas and consults post-retirement.)