Social Entrepreneur and Ambassador for Democracy Earth Eranda Ginige asserted that there should not be any career politicians.
Below are excerpts of his interview with The Sunday Morning:
Should an elected head of state have to be a career politician?
Of course not. As per the Constitution, any citizen can apply. So I think to answer your question, we have to decide what a career politician is. Personally, I think, considering politics, managing the affairs of the state as a life-long career is obsolete. I think, especially in a republic, all citizens have to do 24 hours and 365 days of politics. These so-called politicians are really people’s representatives. These representatives have to keep changing, new people have to come, others have to step out – so it doesn’t have to be career politician and I personally believe they should not be career politicians.
Why do you say that?
When you start to think of politics as a career, it becomes your income source and what you’re going to do for the rest of your life, and that’s what leads to corruption, inaction, and general deterioration of the purpose of doing politics. Some politicians celebrate 25 or 30 years in politics, but I think it’s shameful to celebrate that many years of politics as a career, especially if you also come out and say “after so many years of independence the country is in such a bad situation” – so you have contributed so many years of your life in that career to that destruction as well. I don’t agree with this concept of career politicians.
Should celebrities, sportsmen, and professionals, who have no experience in the subject, enter politics?
Well, that question assumes that you need to have some kind of experience to do politics. But my argument is that politics does not require you to have any specific political experience because we are doing politics every day.
For example, if there is a very experienced sportsperson, that person would have gone through a very rigorous, challenging journey in developing him/herself to become so accomplished in that sport. All these things are good attributes for governance and politics as well.
So there are no special skills as such that a politician would need because a politician is simply there to represent the people, make decisions, and execute those decisions. So whether it’s a sportsman or a farmer – anybody should be able to run for office.
What about religious figures? Should they take part, or enter politics?
Well, yes. If you mean monks and priests, then yes. They are citizens of this country and enjoy the same privileges as any other citizen and have the same responsibilities and duties as any other citizen, so I don’t see any reason for them not to do politics.
But I think the problem is that when you try to bring your religious interests into the decision-making process is when these conflicts emerge. As long as a religious priest or monk could deliver in the people’s representative role without having a bias towards religious beliefs, I think it’s fine.
So in your view, what role should religion play in governance and politics?
I think it is naïve to say that you can completely disassociate governance and politics from religion because a lot of states, particularly states like Sri Lanka and South Asian states as well as some of the European states, were defined by religious and cultural influences. There are elements of religious thinking in the governance model.
However, in day-to-day decision making – particularly if that state gives equal freedom to believers of all religions and faiths – one religion need not be considered prominent.
When it comes to governance, would a secular state bring about more stability in a country like Sri Lanka?
First, we must define what a secular state is. One would say that it is a state which is not governed by any religious doctrine or one would say a separation of religion and the governance mechanism or one would say a state that is completely void of any religious involvement. I think the concept of secularism needs to be properly analysed.
For example, I would argue that Sri Lanka is a secular state already by its Constitution, but whether a secular state would necessarily be more prone to development is, I think, a myth because there are a number of secular states in the world which are in dire poverty and there are non-secular, highly religious states in the world that are truly successful. So I think that dichotomy is not helpful in this conversation.
In the current context, what in your view is the main problem with Sri Lanka’s politics and governing?
I think, looking at it from the people’s point of view, number one is security of the state and the people. Then, the biggest issue is with the lack of a cohesive economic development plan – a direction of where we are heading. Yes, we are doing things here and there but there is no leadership or vision. There is a breakdown on the economic side. I think those are the two main issues whoever needs to address.
There were certain issues you raised on social media during your visit to the North. Do you think these issues are what the potential presidential candidates are not addressing?
One of the issues I pointed out was the lack of drinking water and water scarcity in the Jaffna peninsula, Vavuniya, Kilinochchi, and even in the southern regions such as Monaragala and the East.
Water is one of the biggest social and environmental issues and will be one of the biggest social and environmental issues in the future. I do think that the presidential candidates have addressed that issue in any meaningful way.
Post 2030-35, India is expected to have a huge water crisis and there will be a demand for our water and if we don’t have a policy and if we don’t manage our resource in a professional manner, it is going to be problematic. That is one of the issues the candidates need to address.
None of the candidates or parties have put up manifestos, so it’s early days and I don’t want to accuse them of not addressing this issue, but I haven’t seen them openly talking about it.
(SG)
Of course not. As per the Constitution, any citizen can apply. So I think to answer your question, we have to decide what a career politician is. Personally, I think, considering politics, managing the affairs of the state as a life-long career is obsolete. I think, especially in a republic, all citizens have to do 24 hours and 365 days of politics. These so-called politicians are really people’s representatives. These representatives have to keep changing, new people have to come, others have to step out – so it doesn’t have to be career politician and I personally believe they should not be career politicians.
Why do you say that?
When you start to think of politics as a career, it becomes your income source and what you’re going to do for the rest of your life, and that’s what leads to corruption, inaction, and general deterioration of the purpose of doing politics. Some politicians celebrate 25 or 30 years in politics, but I think it’s shameful to celebrate that many years of politics as a career, especially if you also come out and say “after so many years of independence the country is in such a bad situation” – so you have contributed so many years of your life in that career to that destruction as well. I don’t agree with this concept of career politicians.
Should celebrities, sportsmen, and professionals, who have no experience in the subject, enter politics?
Well, that question assumes that you need to have some kind of experience to do politics. But my argument is that politics does not require you to have any specific political experience because we are doing politics every day.
For example, if there is a very experienced sportsperson, that person would have gone through a very rigorous, challenging journey in developing him/herself to become so accomplished in that sport. All these things are good attributes for governance and politics as well.
So there are no special skills as such that a politician would need because a politician is simply there to represent the people, make decisions, and execute those decisions. So whether it’s a sportsman or a farmer – anybody should be able to run for office.
What about religious figures? Should they take part, or enter politics?
Well, yes. If you mean monks and priests, then yes. They are citizens of this country and enjoy the same privileges as any other citizen and have the same responsibilities and duties as any other citizen, so I don’t see any reason for them not to do politics.
But I think the problem is that when you try to bring your religious interests into the decision-making process is when these conflicts emerge. As long as a religious priest or monk could deliver in the people’s representative role without having a bias towards religious beliefs, I think it’s fine.
So in your view, what role should religion play in governance and politics?
I think it is naïve to say that you can completely disassociate governance and politics from religion because a lot of states, particularly states like Sri Lanka and South Asian states as well as some of the European states, were defined by religious and cultural influences. There are elements of religious thinking in the governance model.
However, in day-to-day decision making – particularly if that state gives equal freedom to believers of all religions and faiths – one religion need not be considered prominent.
When it comes to governance, would a secular state bring about more stability in a country like Sri Lanka?
First, we must define what a secular state is. One would say that it is a state which is not governed by any religious doctrine or one would say a separation of religion and the governance mechanism or one would say a state that is completely void of any religious involvement. I think the concept of secularism needs to be properly analysed.
For example, I would argue that Sri Lanka is a secular state already by its Constitution, but whether a secular state would necessarily be more prone to development is, I think, a myth because there are a number of secular states in the world which are in dire poverty and there are non-secular, highly religious states in the world that are truly successful. So I think that dichotomy is not helpful in this conversation.
In the current context, what in your view is the main problem with Sri Lanka’s politics and governing?
I think, looking at it from the people’s point of view, number one is security of the state and the people. Then, the biggest issue is with the lack of a cohesive economic development plan – a direction of where we are heading. Yes, we are doing things here and there but there is no leadership or vision. There is a breakdown on the economic side. I think those are the two main issues whoever needs to address.
There were certain issues you raised on social media during your visit to the North. Do you think these issues are what the potential presidential candidates are not addressing?
One of the issues I pointed out was the lack of drinking water and water scarcity in the Jaffna peninsula, Vavuniya, Kilinochchi, and even in the southern regions such as Monaragala and the East.
Water is one of the biggest social and environmental issues and will be one of the biggest social and environmental issues in the future. I do think that the presidential candidates have addressed that issue in any meaningful way.
Post 2030-35, India is expected to have a huge water crisis and there will be a demand for our water and if we don’t have a policy and if we don’t manage our resource in a professional manner, it is going to be problematic. That is one of the issues the candidates need to address.
None of the candidates or parties have put up manifestos, so it’s early days and I don’t want to accuse them of not addressing this issue, but I haven’t seen them openly talking about it.
(SG)