By Skandha Gunasekara
Former professor of the Department of Political Science and Public Policy at the University of Colombo and Founder-Director of the Centre for Policy Research and Analysis Prof. Jayadeva Uyangoda asserted that religious figures should not be involved in politics and that religion should only provide a normative framework for politicians.
Below are excerpts of his interview with The Sunday Morning:
Should an elected head of state be a career politician?
That is the usual practice. In Sri Lanka, it is very difficult for a non-political or an apolitical person to get elected as president.
In the US, Trump is not a career politician but he had to go through the process that was defined by politicians. He had to go through the primaries, the Republican Party convention, and had to be accepted by the Republican Party and only then could he become the President. So it is difficult to give a direct answer to your question. There are occasional exceptions where people who are not professional politicians have been successful in winning presidential elections. But in Sri Lanka, I don’t think it is possible.
In your view, what are the ideal qualities for an elected head of state?
The very concept of an elected head of state comes from a specific tradition of politics which is the republican tradition – not from the Westminster tradition of parliamentary democracy and cabinet government.
We have three ways of appointing heads of state in the world today. One is hereditary – the British head of state is a position which is hereditary.
The second is the Indian model where the head of state is the president but the president is elected by a limited electoral college. India has a semi-republican framework in their Constitution.
Then, there is the republican tradition where the head of state is directly elected by the people for a limited term of office. This started with the American Constitution, which established that the head of state was the president and would be elected by the people for a period of four years. So the problem with a president who is directly elected by the people is that he/she will have a direct mandate from the people, and that’s very different from a head of state either appointed by the prime minister or elected by a limited electoral college. So your question depends on what type of head of state you are referring to.
What about an elected head of state in the context of Sri Lanka?
Sri Lanka has a different model. Presidents are elected in a particular political and social context. Sri Lanka at the moment is in deep political, economic, and social crisis. So whatever traits the President should have, should qualify that person to handle these multiple crises that Sri Lanka is facing, through democracy. That should be the primary qualification.
In the run-up to the election, in your opinion, what should be the criteria for the voters when selecting their candidate?
Well, I think the voters should gauge the candidates on the strength of their manifestos, promises, and slogans. They must show their potential to give leadership to democratic, pluralistic political order in which social justice, ethnic peace, and redistribution of wealth are priority. All leaders in Sri Lanka run the risk of being captured by a few media institutions, like the one you are serving at the moment, being captured by corrupt business people, and being captured by corrupt government bureaucrats. So any leader, who is elected on a mandate from the people, must take extreme precautions not be a prisoner of these corrupt forces.
Should religious figures enter or take part in politics?
I don’t think so. I’m against that. I’m for separating religion and politics.
What role should religion play in politics and governing, in your view?
Religion should only provide a normative framework and guidelines for citizens as well as politicians and officials. Corruption is a major issue in Sri Lanka and so religious leaders can provide normative frameworks for politicians and bureaucrats to be open, to be transparent, not to be corrupt, and not to abuse political power in a tyrannical manner – all religions can provide normative guidelines for political behaviour.
Should celebrities, sportsmen, and professionals, who have no experience in the subject, take part in politics?
It’s very difficult to say that they shouldn’t because they are citizens and every citizen has the right to get involved in the public’s interest. But this hero-worshipping of these celebrities and holding media circuses around them – these things trivialise politics. So I have no objection as long as they don’t trivialise democratic politics.
What do you see is the key problem in Sri Lankan politics?
Politics has ceased to be an emancipatory social practice. Politics has become a means of private gain. I think that is the fundamental problem in Sri Lankan politics today.
Politics has always been for public good. But in our country, politics has been reduced to a means of private gain. So the idea of politics must be emancipated from this decadence of being a means to accumulate wealth and power.
Civil society played a big role during the 2015 elections, but some say that the candidate you promoted failed to live up to expectations. What role will civil society play this time round?
This time, I’m not sure. The candidate we promoted last time did not understand the historical meaning of the 2015 political change. The reason is that he was not a part of that whole democratic struggle in Sri Lanka. President Maithripala Sirisena was not a part of the struggle until the last week of October 2015. So the struggle for democracy has not been a part of his political makeup. He had been associating with the Rajapaksa regime. But it doesn’t absolve Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe either.
Wickremesinghe has been in the struggle for democracy but when in power, he allowed that historical opportunity to slip away.
This presidential election is also significant. How will civil society take part or contribute?
I don’t know, as I will not be involved in any political campaign. I’m going to play the classic role of a student of politics – watching what happens.
Former professor of the Department of Political Science and Public Policy at the University of Colombo and Founder-Director of the Centre for Policy Research and Analysis Prof. Jayadeva Uyangoda asserted that religious figures should not be involved in politics and that religion should only provide a normative framework for politicians.
Below are excerpts of his interview with The Sunday Morning:
Should an elected head of state be a career politician?
That is the usual practice. In Sri Lanka, it is very difficult for a non-political or an apolitical person to get elected as president.
In the US, Trump is not a career politician but he had to go through the process that was defined by politicians. He had to go through the primaries, the Republican Party convention, and had to be accepted by the Republican Party and only then could he become the President. So it is difficult to give a direct answer to your question. There are occasional exceptions where people who are not professional politicians have been successful in winning presidential elections. But in Sri Lanka, I don’t think it is possible.
In your view, what are the ideal qualities for an elected head of state?
The very concept of an elected head of state comes from a specific tradition of politics which is the republican tradition – not from the Westminster tradition of parliamentary democracy and cabinet government.
We have three ways of appointing heads of state in the world today. One is hereditary – the British head of state is a position which is hereditary.
The second is the Indian model where the head of state is the president but the president is elected by a limited electoral college. India has a semi-republican framework in their Constitution.
Then, there is the republican tradition where the head of state is directly elected by the people for a limited term of office. This started with the American Constitution, which established that the head of state was the president and would be elected by the people for a period of four years. So the problem with a president who is directly elected by the people is that he/she will have a direct mandate from the people, and that’s very different from a head of state either appointed by the prime minister or elected by a limited electoral college. So your question depends on what type of head of state you are referring to.
What about an elected head of state in the context of Sri Lanka?
Sri Lanka has a different model. Presidents are elected in a particular political and social context. Sri Lanka at the moment is in deep political, economic, and social crisis. So whatever traits the President should have, should qualify that person to handle these multiple crises that Sri Lanka is facing, through democracy. That should be the primary qualification.
In the run-up to the election, in your opinion, what should be the criteria for the voters when selecting their candidate?
Well, I think the voters should gauge the candidates on the strength of their manifestos, promises, and slogans. They must show their potential to give leadership to democratic, pluralistic political order in which social justice, ethnic peace, and redistribution of wealth are priority. All leaders in Sri Lanka run the risk of being captured by a few media institutions, like the one you are serving at the moment, being captured by corrupt business people, and being captured by corrupt government bureaucrats. So any leader, who is elected on a mandate from the people, must take extreme precautions not be a prisoner of these corrupt forces.
Should religious figures enter or take part in politics?
I don’t think so. I’m against that. I’m for separating religion and politics.
What role should religion play in politics and governing, in your view?
Religion should only provide a normative framework and guidelines for citizens as well as politicians and officials. Corruption is a major issue in Sri Lanka and so religious leaders can provide normative frameworks for politicians and bureaucrats to be open, to be transparent, not to be corrupt, and not to abuse political power in a tyrannical manner – all religions can provide normative guidelines for political behaviour.
Should celebrities, sportsmen, and professionals, who have no experience in the subject, take part in politics?
It’s very difficult to say that they shouldn’t because they are citizens and every citizen has the right to get involved in the public’s interest. But this hero-worshipping of these celebrities and holding media circuses around them – these things trivialise politics. So I have no objection as long as they don’t trivialise democratic politics.
What do you see is the key problem in Sri Lankan politics?
Politics has ceased to be an emancipatory social practice. Politics has become a means of private gain. I think that is the fundamental problem in Sri Lankan politics today.
Politics has always been for public good. But in our country, politics has been reduced to a means of private gain. So the idea of politics must be emancipated from this decadence of being a means to accumulate wealth and power.
Civil society played a big role during the 2015 elections, but some say that the candidate you promoted failed to live up to expectations. What role will civil society play this time round?
This time, I’m not sure. The candidate we promoted last time did not understand the historical meaning of the 2015 political change. The reason is that he was not a part of that whole democratic struggle in Sri Lanka. President Maithripala Sirisena was not a part of the struggle until the last week of October 2015. So the struggle for democracy has not been a part of his political makeup. He had been associating with the Rajapaksa regime. But it doesn’t absolve Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe either.
Wickremesinghe has been in the struggle for democracy but when in power, he allowed that historical opportunity to slip away.
This presidential election is also significant. How will civil society take part or contribute?
I don’t know, as I will not be involved in any political campaign. I’m going to play the classic role of a student of politics – watching what happens.