New political dynamics in the offing whoever wins Presidential poll

VOTERS AT A POLLING STATION 

• The country was nowhere near self- sufficiency in rice production by the time Independence was gained. However, agriculture policies led by the successive governments since then enabled the country to achieve self- sufficiency
• Whoever wins, it will be difficult to deviate from the IMF programme. It is nothing but a reality now for any party seeking to govern Sri Lanka

Sri Lankans will cast their ballots on Saturday. The country is at a crossroads politically and economically. People will avail of themselves the opportunity on Saturday to elect the next Executive President of Sri Lanka for a period of five years. Executive presidency, an idea mooted way back in 1966, came into effect on September 7, 1978.  Incidentally, in the very same month of this year, people will elect the next President out of a basket of 38 candidates in the fray (Another candidate died after entering the fray). 

Ever since 1994, the Presidential candidates have vowed to scrap executive presidency to opt for a parliamentary system of governance but they all, upon election to office, have proceeded with it despite occasional attempts at pruning its powers. Similar pledges were made at this election too.  

Saturday’s poll , the first to be conducted since the country went through its worst ever economic crisis in 2022, is crucial for Sri Lanka since its outcome , be it whatever , is set to change political dynamics of Sri Lanka for the future in the short run , if not in the long run. 

Global phenomenon 

It is a global phenomenon that the countries that experienced political turmoil and tumult experienced drastic changes in political dynamics, even compounding their current predicaments.  Ukraine and Greece are better examples to be cited in this case. 

In Bangladesh, after former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, was chased out of office, the interim administration is now struggling to  bring about economic, social and political stability. In a way, Sri Lanka’s case is unique since it emerged out of the grave crisis in the span of less than two years. The country is not out of the woods, though. 
However, the economic crisis triggered a radical change in conventional political thinking. The presidential poll is going to be conducted on Saturday in such a context only.   Some people, in fact, castigate the past rulers and their parties for the current economic ills of the country. Those who ruled the country since Independence have been packaged as a rotten lot that ruined the country. Still it is not a fair criticism since the policies of some of the leaders from both the mainstream parties led Sri Lanka to reach high echelons of socio- economic development compared with the countries in South Asia at least.

Self- sufficiency 

The country was nowhere near self- sufficiency in rice production by the time Independence was gained. However, agriculture policies led by the successive governments since then enabled the country to achieve self- sufficiency. The country achieved high literacy rate and increased life-expectancy, only thanks to the policies of the past rulers. 

Of course, it is true that the country was unable to realise its potential to become an upper middle income because of policy missteps, absence of policy continuity, inefficient bureaucracy, corrupt practices and frauds. The past governments are held responsible, no doubt.

When a set of policies introduced by one government begins to take roots, they are uprooted by the other government that succeeds. This has dented Sri Lanka’s capabilities as a nation. 

The serious  need for policy consistency has arisen today since the country is now half way through the IMF(International Monetary Fund)  programme. It has laid down policies to be followed for the achievement of both micro and macro level developments of economy.

In the run up to the presidential poll, the candidates focused on the IMF programme and the way forward. President Ranil Wickremesinghe who is contesting the Presidential election as an independent candidate, tried to drive home the point that it is the only way out for Sri Lanka to gain economic stability and debt sustainability. 
The two other main candidates- Sajith Premadasa of Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) and Anura Kumara Dissanayake of National People’s Power ( NPP)- talked about giving it a human face or amending it to give more redress to people . The IMF programme will weigh heavily on candidates when deciding whom to vote for on Saturday. 

However, it is obviously not the sole factor that impact voter behavior at this election. People have firmed up their views that corruption, frauds and wastage of public finances stood in the way of Sri Lanka gaining economic prosperity.  The past politicians who helmed the affairs incur a blame for it, according to public perception. 
Whoever wins, it will be difficult to deviate from the IMF programme. It is nothing but a reality now for any party seeking to govern Sri Lanka.  At the same time, the challenge will lie ahead for anyone to get the country out of this programme at one point in the future so that it can stand on its own with successful debt servicing and all.

Saturday’s poll 

Also, the outcome of Saturday’s poll will set the stage of drastic overhaul of political dynamics. Based on the outcome, the current politics will explore ways and means to navigate new trends in politics. New political alliances and alteration of the existing alliances will be the order of the day ahead of the next General Election that will follow the Presidential election immediately. Given by the experiences of the past national elections, it can be concluded that people are not ready for long term sacrifices. In fact they are not prepared to endure hardships in the short run for long term benefits no matter what they are. 

 People will look to the next government for succor for sure. It will be hard pressed in ensuring benefits for people in terms of cost of living reduction, tax cuts and pay hikes. It is challenging for any government to appease people who are unwilling to pay taxes but expect benefits.