Lanka Citizen

www.kottu.org which identifies itself as a syndicate of Sri Lankan blogs and which carried releases from the UNP’s official website on its blogroll has removed lankacitizen from its blogroll. We haven’t been informed of any reason. Ours is not a political-party web site even though we have an independent political view. Kottu.org carried many news items and articles from news papers and other publications published on the UNP web site and other blogs linked to kottu. Even as we write this note kottu has five items from the UNP on its site. But all our items are removed from the kottu site.

In addition to reproducing material from other sources which will help generate public discussion on political issues, we also carry articles written by the members of our collective.

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha

Over the last couple of months the upper classes have had a field day in criticizing Mahinda for what they characterize as opportunism with regard to the Presidential election. While I have to declare an interest in that the Liberal Party will now officially support him, I still think my worries about the manner in which he is attacked are based on a more objective approach than his detractors can muster.

For instance one of the main charges against him is that he tries to be all things to all men to secure their support, and that he can do this the more readily because he has no fundamental principles himself. This is I think absurd, for there is certainly consistency in the doctrine of pluralism he has enunciated, whilst refusing to go along with LTTE authoritarianism in the North-east. I suspect his confidence in his own roots allows him to make inclusive pronouncements, that make it clear he is no chauvinist, even from the Dalada Malgawa, such as his commitment to protect all religions, whereas poor Ranil has to run twice as hard as it were to maintain the same position. Thus the ridiculous assertion in the latest UNP manifesto, that ‘We will build the world’s largest dagaba in Sri Lanka’. Buddhism is granted a couple more platitudinous pronouncements, while the Muslims only get war and tsunami damaged places of worship being repaired, and Hindus repair of places of worship ‘damaged by the war and fallen out of maintenance over the years’. Christians will get an environment ‘to practice their religion freely’.

I say poor Ranil advisedly, because recently I have had students claiming that one needs to be a Sinhala Buddhist to stand for President, and that Ranil is a Catholic. I have pointed out that both these statements are untrue, and that Ranil was brought up from the start as a Buddhist, unlike other politicians such as Jayewardene and Mr Bandaranaike who were both converts. But, perceptions being what they are, I can understand why Ranil has to engage in competitions about size to prove his commitment.

That item in the manifesto is funny enough, but funnier I think are his other populist pronouncements, and the interpretation of them by the English language press that is so anxious to see him elected. One of his more myopic supporters, who had been inveighing for years against old-fashioned economic practices such as subsidies and price controls, refused to comment when I asked her what she thought about reduced prices for ‘essential food items’ – and then hastily added that this was just for one year. Given that this is twinned with a policy of not importing rice, but that rice is not mentioned as one of the essential items the price of which will be controlled, one wonders whether the population will be required to eat cake.

An article in the ‘Sunday Island’, while fulsomely praising the manifesto, claims that Ranil plans to re-introduce the systems that enabled the last UNF government to bring down inflation. However, since this will take time, he will ‘as an interim measure…set price ceilings for several key food items.’ The ‘Sunday Leader’ meanwhile takes the bull by the horns in claiming that the manifesto is ‘unashamedly populist’. Then however it argues that, since ‘Wickremesinghe cannot hope to impose price controls’, he will fund his populism ‘from increased government revenues’. Since it believes this will not be through taxation, it assumes it will be through ‘reducing waste’ as well as dipping into ‘the US $4 billion pledged by way of international reconstruction aid to keep public dissent in check until the economy can take off’.

Now, much as one admires the ‘Leader’s’ sleight of hand, I cannot imagine its editor actually believing that we will immediately get the $ 4 billion to subsidise dhal and milk powder. That he then goes on to his usual refrain about ‘a swift end to the tension with the LTTE’ underlines the thrust of his argument, made this time without snide asides about the President, that Mahinda along with the JVP will lead to ‘renewed war’. So the editorial, despite its initial questioning of the inconsistency of the current UNP approach, devotes itself towards the end to attacking Mahinda. The editor’s old bete noire the President is now presented in a very positive light, with Ranil being urged to make it ‘abundantly clear that his solution to the ethnic problem is the same as Kumaratunga’s’.

But politics does make strange bedfellows, though I doubt the President rushing to embrace the ‘Leader’. A particularly significant volte-face on Ranil’s part occurred a couple of weeks back when he embraced Sirisena Cooray whom he had shunned for so long. The elite, which had been so scathing about Premadasa and Cooray, which sees Ranil as needing to affirm his ties with JR, has obviously had to retract. Ranil it seems has finally realized that there is a significant constituency which still appreciates the achievements for the masses as well as the country at large of the Premadasa years.

That he is willing to take the risk makes clear, even more than his populist manifesto, that he has realized how misleading are the urban perceptions about his inevitable victory. Whatever the horoscopes might say, the people seem likely to disagree. And if they do, and Ranil loses, the return of Cooray means that Ranil can no longer assume he will continue to lead his party. He was phenomenally lucky that Gamini Athukorale, who had nearly succeeded in removing him in 2001 and replacing him with a more appealing figure, died so suddenly. Had Athukorale lived, there is no doubt that Karu Jayasuriya would by now be leading the UNP, and that its support would have been more extensive. However, without Athukorale, Karu would still continue modestly as Deputy Leader of the UNP however badly Ranil performed at the election. Cooray’s return changes that. If Ranil loses now, assuming he does not leave of his own volition, the leadership the party needs to ensure that he is replaced will be available.

Of course anything could happen in the next couple of months. Most frighteningly, the LTTE is not likely to remain passive. But whereas the country could well be riven, in several ways, if Ranil wins, now it seems likely that if Mahinda wins the main parties could well move towards a national consensus. That is what we need if the ethnic problem is to be resolved and the country is to progress on the basis of equity as well as development.

courtesy Lanka Academic

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha

It must be fairly clear from my recent columns that I intend to vote for the Prime Minister in the forthcoming Presidential election. I make no apologies for this, indeed the contrary, in that I get the impression that most people who function mainly in English in their working lives are likely to do the opposite.

Interestingly, one of them told me the other day that I must be the only intelligent person – purportedly intelligent, he hastily added – who would be voting for Mahinda. I was not entirely surprised at the intensity of the denunciation, because I have long realized that this country was polarizing very sadly. But it worried me, because it suggests that, in their fear of what Mahinda, or rather his strong supporters, might do, the English speaking intelligentsia has abandoned the qualities of critical intelligence that some of its representatives at least used to display.

In the same conversation I was accused of being obsessively critical of Ranil as I had been about JR, while ignoring Chandrika’s faults. My defence was twofold. With regard to JR, I pointed out that certainly I had been almost totally isolated in the Colombo circles in which I moved, when I first became critical, in 1980. But, after the 1982 referendum and/or the 1983 attacks on Tamils, even the very interlocutors who were now so passionate in their defence of Ranil, had granted that I had a point.

With regard to Ranil, I had I pointed out supported the man in 2001, when I had been very critical of Chandrika. It was the deficiencies of Ranil’s government, along with his toleration of corruption and the continuing violence of the LTTE, that had led to my conviction that the country could not be entrusted to him. I may of course be wrong, but the refusal to recognize that I might have reasons for my beliefs, and not simply prejudice, seems to me evidence of prejudice that is beyond repair.

The same went for the person who told me Mahinda could not be trusted because he had first supported the P-Toms agreement, and now wanted to abrogate it. I asked the gentleman for whom he had voted, in 1988, and he told me that of course it had been for Premadasa. He had forgotten however that Premadasa, though initially he had had reservations about the Indo-Lankan Accord, had supported it in Parliament. As a loyal servant of the then Executive President, he had hardly any option. When however, as the Presidential candidate of his party, he could be very much his own man, he had expressed his opposition to the Accord and made it clear that he would ensure the withdrawal of the Indian army.

Now it is a legitimate point of view, if not entirely practical, to claim that Premadasa and Mahinda should have resigned when their leader embarked upon actions of which they disapproved. I might have done so, as might my friend who was so critical of Mahinda – and we would both doubtless have been accused of being quixotic. What I did not think acceptable was the criticism of Mahinda while blithely forgetting what had been condoned before.

But Colombo is in that sort of mood, the Tony Anghie type move that claims that Chandrika’s perfectly constitutional dismissal of cabinet ministers was a coup. It is the same mood that, having characterized her dissolving of parliament in 2004 as high-handed, is now waiting with bated breath for her to dissolve parliament and prove that she too is at heart a member of the English speaking elite.

So it is asserted now that Mahinda is all things to all men, and that he will give in completely to the JVP and the JHU. Now I too would like assurance that, while critical of the LTTE, he will make clear his commitment to pluralism and the rights of minorities, and that he will not attempt to close down the open economy. One clause in his agreement with the JVP worried me, the one about opposition to the ‘so-called liberal open economic policy’. The clarification of the JVP General Secretary, that the alliance was in favour of a mixed economy, could I believe be clarified further. But it was a step in the right direction, as was Mahinda’s assertion, while signing an agreement with the JHU, that he saw himself as duty bound to protect all religions, not just Buddhism as was enjoined in the Constitution.

Contrariwise, when Ranil signs an agreement with a group of Muslims, to the effect that he will introduce Tamil medium to all universities, that is not even noticed, let alone characterized as hypocrisy. On the contrary, it will be argued that this is a statesmanlike compromise. So too Ranil;s vehement opposition to English medium education while he was Prime Minister is now forgotten, by the same people who blame Bandaranaike for abolishing English medium education even though it was JR who first proposed this, and it was under Nugawela that a UNP government introduced the regulations that stopped it.

But people believe what they want to believe. I am sure I too am guilty of wishful thinking, though I hasten to add that I do not think a Rajapakse Presidency will be ideal, simply better for the country at large than Ranil. But I try at least to temper wishful thinking with some awareness of hard facts. That, as I pointed out when I began writing a column again, is something Sri Lankans in general do not think is essential. That, I fear, is one of the reasons we have declined so drastically in the last few decades, without any possibility of guarding against a repetition of the mistakes to which we seem doomed to succumb.

courtesy Lanka Academic

by Kalpana Ratnayake

The youth vote will be crucial, some analysts commenting on the forthcoming presidential election point out. In a presidential election every vote is crucial, but I would not disagree with those who claim that the youth vote would be a deciding factor. This year some 400,000 are eligible to vote for the first time in their lives. In a closely contested affair this is a large number. Perhaps this is why Ranil Wickremesinghe has tried to portray himself as the champion of the youth, hence the poster “thaarunyaye vipalavaya” or “Revolution of youthfulness”.

He began his political career as Minister of Youth. He replaced Nissanka Wijeratne as Minister of Education under J.R. Jayewardene. That was another “youthful” portfolio. At another time, facing another election, Wickremesinghe called himself “tharuna agamethi ranil” (Ranil, the young premier). The years have gone by and Wickremesinghe is no longer young. This does not necessarily mean he cannot speak on youth, for them or be the voice of their aspirations. Any old man can do it, but only if he has a good understanding of where a young man or woman stands in this world, where the world is headed and the utopias and their approximations that swirl in the minds and hearts of young people.

It is still early days in the run up to the presidential elections. Neither of the two main candidates have released their manifestos. We are still at the stage of sound bytes and chest beating. Sooner or later the details must come out and then perhaps a fuller analysis would be possible, not only about their respective plans for the youth of this country, but what their positions are on resolving the conflict in the North and East, their commitment to protecting the sovereignty of the people and the territorial integrity of the nation etc.

As of now, we can only comment on track records and here Wickremesinghe is at a disadvantage. He has handled youth subjects as a cabinet minister, has been prime minister twice, presidential candidate twice and the undisputed leader of the UNP for over a decade. Mahinda Rajapakse, on the other hand, can do a Premadasa, i.e “I was a peon, nay a labourer”. The comparisons would be unfair but that’s the way it goes in politics. There is nothing free and fair about it.

Ranil Wickremesinghe introduced the infamous “White Paper on Education” in 1981, upon the recommendations made by committees on the subjects of General Education, Technical Education and National Apprentice Training, chaired by Bogoda Premaratne, S.Gnanalingam and H.D. Sugathapala respectively. That document gave rise to much discontent among the youth, especially those in rural areas who read it as yet another way of further skewing the already skewed education system in favour of the children of privileged parents, especially those in Colombo.

The White Paper was withdrawn then, but the past 24 years has seen it being implemented surreptitiously. Over this time the drop out rates in rural schools, the rate of schools being closed down etc have risen drastically. Small wonder that the political benefits of these and other related “development” measures authored by Ranil Wickremesinghe, his colleagues and later ministers, have largely accrued to the JVP.

Then came 1989, but not before 1980 (the brutal attack on the trade union movement with the July strike), 1982 (fraud-ridden presidential election and referendum), 1983 (A “Green July” that was called “Black July” and marketed

to the world as the work of Sinhala Chauvinists), 1984 (the killing of undergraduates), 1985 (Private Universities Bill), and 1987 (the Indo-Lanka

Accord). The turn of the decade saw what kinds of regard, respect and plans that the UNP of that time had for the youth of this country. Wickremesinghe

would know because he was a senior minister by then, so senior that he inherited the premiership when Premadasa was assassinated.

He was young then, of course, only a few years older than those his government butchered. Ten years later, one would expect him to have matured. At the turn of the millennium he was not talking about reforms in the education system. Instead it was bracelets, chains and chewing gum. Wickremesinghe had slipped. Badly. He demonstrated that he was not only out of touch with the youth, but lived in such a rarified atmosphere that he felt he could insult their intelligence, their youthful passion and idealism, and get away with it. He didn’t.

Does Wickremesinghe believe that the world of the youth consists of one-day cricket, internet pornography, casinos, massage parlours, sausages and meat balls? I am sure that there are young people for whom the universe is made up of just these things, but is this true of our youth in general? Who are today’s “young”? What do they look like? What were the circumstances of their growing up? Where do they want to go? What kind of society are they aspiring to create? Does Wickremasinghe have answers to these questions? Has his frame of reference changed from that which produced the bracelet-chewing gum solution to the problems of the youth? We have no one of knowing, yet.

I believe that Wickremesinghe should understand that the youth of today are no longer wide-eyed recipients of promises. They cannot be shown the free market as a glittering promise because they have seen it all. They were born after the dismal 70’s of queues and ration books was done. All that is old hat to them. They are the children of the vivurtha aarthikaya.( Open Economy) They have tasted it, digested it, absorbed what was good and evacuated what is not. They know it is not a panacea for their troubles. They know it is a non-factor because it is now a goes-without-saying thing, despite the anti-intellectualism that fuels its defense by certain quarters of the intelligentsia.

Wickremesinghe should understand that something radical has happened to this society and especially its youth. He should ask himself why over half a million people, a large percentage of whom were youth, voted for the Jathika Hela Urumaya, a party that was not offering jobs, higher salaries, job security, material prosperity and other things that usually find their way into election manifestos.

Perhaps today’s youth are more intelligent, more vigilant and less susceptible to the marketing of utopia, than those of a generation ago. They are not fond of seeni bola. When they see a poster allegedly authored by “Tsunami Victims”, claiming that they trust the “hora nokana ranil”, they are intelligent enough to ask, “if these people have enough money to print and put up a poster all over the country, they can’t be in bad shape”. When they read “thaarunyaye vipalavaya”, they will ask, “what vipalavaya?” and “what kind of thaarunyaya?”

The vast majority of the tharunayas who would have the guts and the desperation to do any kind of viplavaya are those who were denied the benefits of the free economy and who are offered globalised poverty and idiocy as prized gifts of the market economy. They are more red than they are green or blue. The way things are going, they are as we speak on their way not to the dustbin of history but the dan gediya of utopian agendas of self-seeking politicians.

Someone should advise the Leader of the Opposition that the young boys in his inner circle of lieutenants in whom he has invested so much hope are hardly representatives of the youth of this country. Bracelets and chewing gum maybe their cup of tea, but I doubt if that’s a cup of tea that will slake the thirsts of H.M. Samantha Rohana of Galgamuwa or W.G. Sumana Malkanthi of Angunakolapelessa and the million other men and women who dream of a better future, a more decent society and a more fruitful engagement with the eternal verities, the ata lo dahama, to employ a more pertinent shorthand.

Is Ranil reading? Is Mahinda? Ranil begins on the backfoot, and Mahinda does not have that handicap. So far he has been protected by the magic coat called “Peon”. Come election day it will be so hot that he would have to take it off and even be prepared to bare his chest. What is he going to say to our youth? What to our middle-aged and aged? A shadow is a nice place to lurk around and watch the political. Elections have a way of erasing shadows. He will have to show his face, as Ranil has had to.

The youth of this country, a “crucial” factor in this election, is not going to look the other way. They will look both these candidates in the eye. They(the youth) will not blink. They will not tolerate the option of an easy, friendly wink. They are not, in short, starry eyed and gullible. They have evolved. They may want a vipalavaya, but not the kind that the JVP thought could succeed, and not something draped in taffeta and imitation jewelry or showered with confetti as it marches down a street called “From Nowhere to Nowhere”. The Season of Illusion is over.

Courtesy, Lanka Academic.

point of view

By the Economist

The 2004 Annual Report of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka says the total number of employees in state institutions amount to 1,094,415. Since 1990 the number of public sector employees has increased almost by 50 per cent. Isn`t it strange that Sri Lanka was one of the first developing countries to implement economic liberalization policies yet it has the largest bureaucracy per capita in the region’ The Sri Lanka: Development Policy Review of the World Bank highlights this point and goes on to show that the government (including semi-government institutions) recruit close to 18 per cent of the labour force in the country.

Why is the government sector employment so large ‘

One reason why the government sector has become large is due to the North/East problem. First, as a solution to the problem the Indo-Sri Lanka Political Accord was signed and with it came the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. This led to the creation of the Provincial Council (PC) system for devolution of power. The PCs have generated an additional layer of a bureaucracy amounting to nearly 300,000 personnel and they serve little purpose in terms of enhancing productivity and efficiency in the economy. Needless to say, there is a large amount of duplication and overlapping of functions between the central government and the PCs. Second, there has been a substantial increase in the armed forces with the escalation of the North/East crisis during the 1983-2001 period ‘ the forces have almost doubled in size since the early 1980s. These two areas have substantially contributed to the large government sector employment and they account for between 500,000 ‘ 600,000 workers. The other factors that contributed to the growth of employment are: (1) ineffectiveness of the Voluntary Retrenchment Schemes introduced to trim down state sector employment; (2) regular large scale public sector employment made by politicians during election times.

Public sector is not very efficient not because it is inherently so as some people seem to think but due to political interference of public sector activities. Public enterprises/corporations become easy prey when politicians want to find jobs for their supporters. Many such recruits make the enterprises overstaffed and the new recruits most often prove to be redundant with the passage of time. In recent years with more and more computerization of the functions of public enterprises/corporations, the redundant workers have increased and one only needs to visit government institutions to observe the number of workers idling and just waiting for time to pass by.

When Sri Lanka has a bloated public sector who`s productivity is questionable why did the government decided to provide jobs for approximately 40,000 graduates in the public sector’ The answer to the question is not simple and straightforward. We have to examine the characteristics of the labour market and the type of unemployment to provide a meaningful answer.

Job Market and the Unemployment Problem

Although unemployment has declined during the 1990s, still it hovers around 8 per cent of the labour force. There are a number of characteristics in the Sri Lankan labour market that act as impediments for more employment creation. Among others, three hypotheses have been put forward to explain unemployment in Sri Lanka. First, the skill mismatch hypothesis which argues that the type of skills produced by the Sri Lankan education system is not suitable for the job market. Dudley Seers in his 1971 report for the ILO used this explanation to describe unemployment in Sri Lanka during that time. Second, is the job queuing hypothesis which argues that Sri Lanka`s unemployment is voluntary because youth wait for `good` jobs and in the meanwhile depend on family income. Third, it is argued that unemployment is due to the rigidities in the labour market resulting from outdated labour legislation. Such legislation prevents smooth labour exit. It is argued that due to this factor it is difficult for firms to expand in a labour intensive manner and thus create new employment.

All three explanations, among others, have some validity although the World Bank seems to think that most of the unemployment in Sri Lanka is voluntary. It is argued that most of the unemployed are waiting for `good` jobs openings but are not interested in the readily available `bad` jobs. There are many `bad` jobs available in the market ‘ about 15,000 vacancies in the garment industry, shortage of rubber tappers, and so on. The problem it is argued is not the shortage of jobs but the gap between `good` and `bad` jobs.

The World Bank goes on to argue that this gap is enhanced by the frequent waves of public sector employment by the governments in office. Public sector jobs have a traditional appeal and at the lower level it is argued that they are attractive (`good`) than similar jobs in the private sector and it is the key factor that contributes to queuing for `good` jobs. Accordingly, successive governments were advised by the World Bank to stop recruiting people to the public sector to halt voluntary unemployment and allow the market to determine the jobs. Thus, a universal freeze on public sector recruitment was put into effect in 2002 by Management Circular No. 16(1) of October. It was aimed at not only addressing the voluntary unemployment problem but also to improve the efficiency of the public enterprises/corporations.

The assumption underlying this policy was that the new entrants to the labour force will be absorbed by the growing private sector activities through the deregulation measures in the rest of the economy. This in turn will create a better balance between `good` and `bad` jobs and to a great extend solve the unemployment problem. Did this happen during the past’ The private sector as usual was on the `wait and see` mode and the graduates that the Universities were churning out were waiting at home for `good` jobs from the private sector. The call never came. The graduates took refuge in extreme political doctrines and became a disruptive force in the society.

Jobs for Graduates from the Private Sector ‘

Market liberalization and social culture needs examination in the context of jobs for graduates from the private sector. Social culture could be defined as patterns of behaviour in society at large or of selected groups in society. Sri Lankan private establishments exclusively employ the English language as a medium for conducting business regardless of the official status of Sinhalese/Tamil. The Sri Lankan business community promotes the idea of `indispensability of English for success in life` in the globalized world. A business culture centred around the English language has led to an exclusion of a large segment of society from the development process. Moreover, the recent privatization has also raised the question of language: namely the place of English in society. State run organizations, upon being privatized, have made redundant thousands already employed in the official languages.

With the private sector setting the field of employment at the expense of the Sinhala/Tamil employing state organs, the political system was under severe pressure from the frustrated masses ‘ educated for so long in Sinhalese/Tamil and awaiting employment, upon being shown the door on the grounds of non-eligibility. The Sinhalese youth insurgency of 1971 and 1988/89 and the Tamil separatist struggle of late 1970s and thereafter were responses to such frustrations. The irony here is the inconsistency of the policy of education with that of changing economics. They are not designed to meet at any point in harmony to integrate for producing desired results.

Clearly the need to refrain from creating more public sector jobs is obvious, but then for this to happen the private sector should not only immediately create jobs but should be willing to absorb the vernacular educated graduates. When the private sector is in its usual `wait and see` mode and keeps its distance from the non-English speaking graduates the problem of graduate unemployment will remain.

The Problem at Stake

It is not prudent to depend too much on the private sector to create the required jobs until certain conditions are fulfilled. First, until the North/East problem is fully settled the `wait and see` attitude of the private sector will prevail and most private investments will be short to medium term oriented which would not generate large scale jobs. Second, as long as stringent labour legislations are in operation the private sector will resort to less labour intensive techniques for more efficiency.

The government finds it difficult to tell the unemployed graduates to wait till the private sector expands and generate jobs in the long run. Keynes said that `in the long run we are all dead` thus something needs to be done soon. A two-pronged approach is thus required by the government to address this problem. Education reform should be expedited so that all graduates are trained either to be employable in whatever language or trained in the English language, and secondly labour market reforms should be expedited. Without engaging in addressing these two areas, the forces of deregulation/liberalization in other areas of the economy will find it difficult to create the required jobs in the market.

The solution to the problem is thus not straightforward. Attitude is a key problem ‘ most businesses think that Arts graduates are useless because they do not know English (few businesses have absorbed a small number of graduates under the `Taruna Aruna`programme). The private sector should realize that unemployment could be a disruptive force and shake business if they do not have jobs and idle for too long. No amount of criticism of the public sector recruitments will be taken notice by the politicians as long as the deep seated issues are not addressed when the unemployed graduates grow in number. While the government immediately takes steps for education and labour reform, the private sector should seriously consider absorbing a few graduates every year ‘ if not under the normal recruitment at least under their Corporate Social Responsibility ‘ as a first step towards addressing the problem. A deep-seated problem requires multidimensional solutions and the private sector should be a partner in this process.

Courtesy: Sunday Island, 2005/10/23

http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2005/10/4112.html

by Ajith Samaranayake

As for agriculture Mr. Rajapakse has a closer identification with the peasantry as tacitly acknowledged even by Mr. Wickremesinghe’s campaign managers who have got him to shed his lounge suit for the more average if neutral shirt and trousers or tunic suit….it has for the time being at least thrown up such curiosities as Dr. Rajitha Senaratne’s bell-bottomed new-fangled farmer, a cross between the old betel-chewing farmer and the new lumpen denim-wearing generation spawned by urban popular culture. Even more bizarre is the spectacle of the futuristic coconut plucker communicating with the ground on a mobile telephone.

Never before has the Presidential Election field been so crowded as for next month’s election. However it is clear that the fight is a duel between the two big-time contenders. The rest are mere extras pursuing a chimera, self-regarding individualists sprung from obscurity and destined to return to the same state of limbo.

The only exception perhaps are the three Left candidates, the relatively unknown Chamal Jayanetti sporting Comrade Vickremabahu’s colours, veteran Samasamajist Siritunga Jayasuriya now running under his own colours and Wije Dias of the Kirthi Balasuriya school of Dialectics, the last warrior of purist Trotskyism.

A Presidential Election is basically about policy just as much as it is a contest between strong-willed individuals on an ultimate quest for the highest reaches of power. In that sense how is the present contest shaping up?

UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe who was the first to canter on to the field began by saying that he would bring about peace on an unlikely front, what he chose to describe as the ‘Kussiye Yuddhaya’ or war in the kitchen.

If the debonair Opposition Leader had thought that this would make him the darling of the housewives he was soon shifting ground and projecting himself as the successor to King Parakramabahu the Great, a mantle incidentally picked up from the late Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake who made this the main plank of his 1965-70 Government.

This throwback to the agrarian UNP of the Senanayakes, the dynastic core of the Grand Old Party, itself is of more than passing interest. For it was President Jayewardene, Mr. Wickremesinghe’s political mentor, who broke the Senanayake stranglehold on the UNP and what is more radically shifted the party’s centre of gravity.

If the pre-1973 UNP of the Senanayakes was wedded to the welfare state, a mixed economy and agrarian revival the new-look Jayewardene UNP stood unabashedly for an open market economy, liberalisation and export-led growth piloted by a new urban entrepreneurial class turning their faces away from plaebian agriculture to exotic export products like gherkins.

This was the UNP which Mr. Wickremesinghe inherited and only time will tell whether this new UNP cry of ‘Back to the Land’ is only a reflex election-time gesture or signals a radical shift in policy. However, it has for the time being at least thrown up such curiosities as Dr. Rajitha Senaratne’s bell-bottomed new-fangled farmer, a cross between the old betel-chewing farmer and the new lumpen denim-wearing generation spawned by urban popular culture.

Even more bizarre is the spectacle of the futuristic coconut plucker communicating with the ground on a mobile telephone.

Such oddities aside these new developments have sparked off at least a peripheral debate on economic policy. The 2002 Ranil Wickremesinghe Government was identified with the neo-liberalism of the ‘Regaining Sri Lanka’ manifesto described by its critics as contributing to the downfall of that Government.

Is the UNP then ready to shift from the mercantile capitalism of the towns to the agrarian countryside? Or does it think that if can ride two horses at the same time through a new-fangled device of reviving the rural sector by injecting large doses of urban capital, for this clearly is the ideological underpinning of Dr. Senaratne’s fond image of the bell-bottomed farmer. But obversely will the urban capitalist be ready to invest in the rural sector when there are more attractive offers on the market?

On the other hand the UPFA and its Presidential candidate Mahinda Rajapakse are on more consistent ground when they advocate a sturdy national economy balancing the public and private sectors and leading to all-round national development.

As for agriculture Mr. Rajapakse has a closer identification with the peasantry as tacitly acknowledged even by Mr. Wickremesinghe’s campaign managers who have got him to shed his lounge suit for the more average if neutral shirt and trousers or tunic suit.

But for Mr. Rajapakse the more worrying question will be whether he will be able to persuade substantial sections of the urban business and professional classes that their interests will not be jeopardised. It is necessary to keep in mind in this context that in 1994 President Kumaratunga was able to win such a degree of support from this constituency normally identified with the UNP.

On the ethnic front Mr. Wickremesinghe has the advantage of adhering to his former stated position of the cessation of hostilities and negotiations based on the Tokyo and Oslo declarations. But this is not without its pitfalls for he is open to attack (as indeed he has been consistently) from nationalist positions.

However, his advantage in the present contest is that these adversaries from the JVP and the JHU have now been incorporated into the Rajapakse campaign. This prompted an initial UNP line that a Rajapakse Presidency would lead to war but this seems to have abated. Mr. Rajapakse for his part talks of a honourable settlement and has been at pains to distance himself from any suggestion of sabre-rattling.

However, he has clear differences with President Kumaratunga’s policy on this matter and whether this will be to his advantage (in the sense that he will be able to distance himself somewhat from the incumbent President and project himself as his own man) or not is to be seen.

As things stand therefore Mr. Wickremesinghe with his understanding with the SLMC and the CWC and expectations of the Tamil vote appears to be heavily banking on the minorities for support.

Similarly Mr. Rajapakse will depend heavily on the southern vote with his own proven credentials in the south reinforced by his understanding with the JVP and the JHU.

He is not without minority support either with the NUA and the EPDP on his bandwagon while he can rely on a section of the Muslim vote as well in his own right as a friend of the Palestinian cause.

The SLFP and the UNP both being national political parties also have their core constituencies so that the outcome of the election will depend on what degree the victor will be able to eat into his rival’s constituency while garnering the inevitable floating vote.

Courtesy Sunday Observer, 23.10.2005

President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga interviewed by Sunday Observer Editor Jayatilleke de Silva dwells on the performance of her regime during 1994 - 2005 barring the period of the UNF Government from December 2001 to April 2004. Ending the fear psychosis that had gripped the entire people, she considers, the single biggest achievement of her reign.

Q: Madam President, what in your opinion is the most significant achievement of your tenure of office?

A: I assumed the office of President at a time when the Seventeen-year old UNP regime had brought the country to the verge of anarchy. Law and order had broken down. “Black Cats”, “Green Tigers” and all types of armed groups were sowing terror. Human rights continued to be violated on a big scale. The entire people were in the grip of a fear psychosis. Dissent was not tolerated. Democracy was virtually non-existent.

With my election victory I ensured that there would not be any post-election violence. Law and order was restored. Democratic norms governance were re-established. There were no more midnight knocks on the door. Mothers and wives could have a sigh of relief that their sons and husbands would return home safe after work or study. Human rights were respected once again.

Besides I appointed three Presidential Commissions of Inquiry to investigate the involuntary disappearance of persons during the previous regime. These Commissions submitted their reports and follow up action was taken to pay compensation to the victims and take legal action against the culprits.

In short, we were able to install a system of caring, humane and democratic governance.

Q: Could you elaborate on the legal and institutional mechanisms that were introduced to realise the concept of caring humane democratic governance?

A: Conscious of the practice of torture that had taken place during the previous regime an Act cited as the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was brought to Parliament in November 1994 and approved. Under this Act torture was made a punishable offence. Further awareness programs on human rights and international humanitarian law were conducted for law enforcement officers, including the security forces.

Q: In what sense could you say democracy was advanced during your regime?

A: As I mentioned earlier I have eliminated state terrorism that reigned during the previous regimes. Freedom of expression, freedom of association and other individual freedoms were restored. Above everything else I restored the right to life, a right that was not guaranteed by J. R. Jayewardene’s 1978 Constitution.

You would have noted that the media was free even to run libellous material against the Head of State. The number of electronic and print media establishments proliferated during my regime.

This was in stark contrast to the situation that prevailed earlier. Trade Unions could agitate and win their demands in contrast to what happened in 1980 when they were dismissed en masse for striking. Provincial and Local Government bodies could function without hindrances unlike in the Period of Terror when a note sent by a brat could bring the whole country to a virtual standstill.

As you would remember I brought in a new draft Constitution that devolved power to the periphery in a substantial degree guaranteeing the rights of all communities. Unfortunately the UNP sabotaged it in Parliament.

Extracts from The Sunday Observer, 23 October 2005