Come together or perish, one by one!

8 July 2014 07:55 pm Views - 3387

“The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists.”
~Ernest Hemingway

This missive or column, whatever you may call it, is intended for all those who claim to represent the broad masses of the land: Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslim, Burgher and all others. In the context of political parties, it is directed at the United National Party (UNP), Democratic Party (DP), Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), Sri Lanka Freedom Party (CBK wing), Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC), Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and any other political entity identified with resistance to ‘Familiocracy’, nepotism, corruption, racism, religious disharmony, financial bungling, wasteful State-sponsored carnivals, economic amateurism, ill-planned infrastructure building and all other anti-societal mechanisms and election gimmickry and  to their leaders who are at present embroiled in a distressing dilemma as to how to displace the current governing coalition led by the Rajapaksas.





In short, they have two major concerns: 1. What is the common platform that all of them can get on? 2. Who is the ‘best’ candidate who can deliver the election on that common platform? The more you ponder, the more distressing it gets as the leading parliamentary Opposition has failed, over a period of twenty years from 1994 to 2014, to wrest the national agenda from the Government. So long as the control of the national conversation stays with the Government, the Opposition’s role becomes exclusively one of reactive response as opposed to proactive; instead of dictating the flow of events of national significance, the Opposition becomes a virtual prisoner of the one who controls that flow of events, losing the political initiative which is vital and crucial in the process of recruitment of new members to their ranks. People do not get attracted to an alternative political agenda by random; they do not join new political trends without thinking twice or weighing advantages over disadvantages.

"A glaring example of such a massive campaign was the political campaign initiated and masterfully executed by the current US President Barak Obama in 2008 against the juggernaut of the Republican Party. When Obama offered ‘Change’, people identified the concept of change with Obama. In other words, in a very literal sense, Obama became the change that the people expected"

People do not back a political party for the sake of the country or patriotism nor do they leave a political party because they find that party corrupt or wasteful. Although negative campaigning in politics always works, that negative campaign must always carry an underlying positive agenda, an agenda which should effectively portray something very helpful and supportive to the voter and it should be communicated in the right lingo and with the necessary coating. This is what, not only the United National Party and its leader but also the rest of the Opposition, have failed to realize.

"People do not back a political party for the sake of the country or patriotism nor do they leave a political party because they find that party corrupt or wasteful."

Winning an election cannot be executed in a matter of weeks or even months. The essential preparatory work that needs to be conceptualised, planned and undertaken is enormous and could be wide-ranging. It could also be extremely hard at the beginning, in the middle and at the end. There is no rest for crusaders who embark on ‘change’. History has shown us time and time again, from the ancient Roman times in the West and the Maurya Empire of Chandragupta and Chanakya in the East, that change of regime does not just happen. ‘Change’ essentially resides at the end of a long and demanding journey, a journey that takes the warriors through valleys and peaks, minor victories and dreadful defeats and tears and sweat and even blood.

That character of a struggle for power is defined and shaped by its leaders; its core message needs to be identified with the leader/s themselves. A glaring example of such a massive campaign was the political campaign initiated and masterfully executed by the current US President Barak Obama in 2008 against the juggernaut of the Republican Party. When Obama offered ‘Change’, people identified the concept of change with Obama. In other words, in a very literal sense, Obama became the change that the people expected. The message and the messenger became one and the same! Now the question is: Is there a leader among those on the field today who could be identified as the “Change”?