23 October 2019 12:00 am Views - 848
And if people turn the pages of time and analyse the past two presidential elections they would see that there was the same frustration. Another thing associated with the frustration is the gambling mentality in voters. Their thinking or believing that a man who won the war for the country, build walking paths and grew flowers in Colombo could turn around a failed economy, could be likened to that of gamblers.
However the 2005 presidential election was different. Ranil Wickremesinghe was the favourite to win, but the LTTE Leader Velupillai Prabakaran had a huge say in that election. He observed that his survival would depend on the war and blocked the northern votes; the result was Mahinda Rajapaksa who also harboured a war mentality emerging the victor. Even though Prabakaran lost the war, he adopted calculative thinking.
Two key areas where there are doubts about the country’s future are regarding media and human rights
We didn’t see that kind of vision in voters during the 2010 presidential elections. A fare amount of votes went to former Army Commander Sarath Fonseka not because people saw any political skills in him, but because people didn’t like the manner in which Rajapaksa administrated the country. What rubbed the people on the wrong side was the elbows out attitude the Rajapaksas adopted during governance and the scant respect shown to professionals who served the state during this time period.
Then the people took the biggest gamble in 2015 at the presidential elections. That was to bring in the Yahapalana regime and oust the Rajapaksas. Had we seen any political acumen in Maithripala Sirisena to consider him as a presidential candidate back then? The answer was no. He was successful working at grassroots level and was never really in the news for any specific achievement as a lawmaker. People believed he could rally round everybody and usher in good governance. People thought that the regime could eradicate corruption and make this paradise island a safe place to live in. How wrong we were! The alleged Central Bank bond scam, the series of bombings on Easter Sunday and the appointing of a new prime minister during a 52-day government which led to a constitutional crisis proved that decisions taken from the heart can be best described as disasters when one reviews them in retrospect.
At times it becomes a matter of concern when one looks at the people Sajith is surrounded by
So it seems we would have a third episode of such a situation. We assume Gotabaya and Sajith both ‘can’ deliver. The former’s inexperience and naivety were exposed at the maiden press briefing organised recently to give media personnel an opportunity to ask questions from the presidential hopeful. We saw how Mahinda Rajapaksa had to come to the rescue of his brother when reporters asked questions about paying back debts and regarding the economy from the bidding president. Unlike Sajith, there could be some hope for Gotabaya to succeed because he seems to be accommodating the views of his experienced brother, Mahinda. Analysts opine that if Gotabaya wins he would look into the security matters of the country while a team of economic experts guided by Mahinda would look after the economic interests of the country.
Sajith might run into a brickwall. Though making claims of possessing a degree in economics, Sajith affirmed that he wouldn’t be a hostage to any adviser. At times it becomes a matter of concern when one looks at the people Sajith is surrounded by. The difference here between Gotabaya and Sajith would be that when it comes to matters relating to economics Gotabaya has realised that two heads are better than one.
A fact that bothers voters these days is the statement made by Sajith that he would provide fertilizer free of charge to farmers if he assumes office as president. How on earth could he do that given that the economy is at a low ebb? Isn’t all this giving false hope to the farmers?
Economic experts promote empathy and provide solutions to aggrieved parties. Thinking on these lines it’s commendable that premier Ranil Wickremesinghe said that farmers would be provided with modern equipment on concessionary terms. Wickremesinghe made these comments when throwing his weight behind a ‘Sajith rally’ held at Rathota recently.
Two key areas where there are doubts about the country’s future are regarding media and human rights. The media play an important role as a stakeholder of the society and does so by keeping the citizens posted about day-today happenings. People who savour democracy would value freedom of expression and their rights being protected. Sajith boasts of working on signing MOUs with nations where Sri Lankan women seek employment. This is to ensure that expatriate Sri Lankan females will see their rights being restored. Can we assume that Sajith would continue to safeguard the existing media freedom and the freedom of speech that citizens enjoy in the event he becomes the first citizen of the country?
People assume that Gotabaya has shed his military image and acquired a more friendly personality. People assume that Sajith would travel in the footsteps of his father, but not repeat the mistakes the late president made. These are just assumptions. When one studies the political history of this nation we have enough examples to underscore an old saying, ‘the best way to judge a person is to give him power’. Taking a decision on whether votes should go to Gotabaya or Sajith can be best described as a gamble. An angry voter may still bring out the good in a hopeless situation where he has to cast a vote. But a frustrated voter in that situation can do just one thing ‘cast the vote and hope for the best’.