There is something about the way that Sri Lanka’s 2024 Presidential Election campaign appears to be shaping up, with a mind-boggling 27 candidates already in the fray up until Friday (9) evening and none of them seemingly showing that they are reading the pulse of the voter right. The acceptance of nominations will close only on 15 August. To add insult to injury, the Election Commission announced yesterday (10) that each addition of a candidate incurs an added cost of Rs. 200 million of people’s tax money.
The fact that 27 are contesting what is essentially a three-horse race points to abuse of the system, with some of the main contenders resorting to the old trick of getting their proxies to sign up for the contest, just so that they can not only benefit from the status accorded to candidates, including airtime on State-owned broadcast media, but also eat into block votes of opponents.
In doing so, they fail to realise that they also diminish their own chances of victory given the 50% plus one requirement. Therefore, at least some of the main candidates stand guilty of abusing the system even before the race can start proper, contradicting their commitment to change and better governance. However, one redeeming factor, though still at the incubation stage, is implementation of the new Campaign Finance Act, which restricts candidates from unrestricted lavish spending, with every cent having to be accounted for.
It is interesting to note that none of the candidates appear to have taken note of the demographic distinctions that will fundamentally inform how people choose to exercise their franchise on the 21st of next month given recent developments. What is significant is that this is the first time that the people of Sri Lanka are being consulted after the popular uprising that resulted in the overthrowing of the last elected president.
The civilian-led movement that brought about that historic change was essentially driven by three distinct groups – the farmers who were hit by fertiliser shortages, the youth demanding social justice, and those affected by shortages. While the interim regime has addressed the issue of shortages, it has failed in appeasing the youth whose call for social justice – equal economic, political, and social rights and opportunities – continues to simmer beneath the veneer of normalcy.
Many governing party Members of Parliament who maintained a low profile over the course of the past two years are now crawling out of the woodwork, drawing parallels with the current goings-on in Bangladesh. They philosophise on what could have been, had the current President not taken up the role. While the debate on ‘taking up the challenge’ rages on, with the collective Opposition insisting that it was deprived of the role, the born-again theorists are missing the point with their Bangladeshi comparison.
For starters, they seem unaware or rather out of touch with the ground reality that the Sri Lanka of post 9 May 2022 is very different to the one before that; that democracy came of age in this nation and that it is no longer the plaything of politicians, whether good, bad, or ugly. These politicians seem to be pointing to the recent events in Bangladesh, in the vain hope of drawing comparisons and discrediting what took place here.
But, as fate would have it, these politicians are finding out that they may have spoken a little too early, with the Bangladeshis seemingly getting things done the right way with a globally respected Nobel laureate installed as Interim President and fresh elections to follow. It will be recalled that it was this exact same formula that the millions who gathered at Galle Face two years ago demanded, but never got, thanks to some deft political opportunism exacerbated by protest fatigue. However, politicians of the ruling party, by now choosing to draw parallels with Bangladesh, are unnecessarily opening up old wounds at what is decidedly a bad time.
As far as Bangladesh is concerned, its economy is on a solid footing and nowhere near bankrupt as Sri Lanka. There have been no reported shortages of essentials as seen in Sri Lanka two years ago, either before or even after the bout of violence. What is driving the protests in that country is therefore fundamentally different to what caused them here; something those drawing parallels seem blissfully unaware of.
Nevertheless, if comparisons must be made, the closest that Sri Lanka came to matching the aspirations of the current Bangladeshi protesters was in fact in 2014 when the then dreaded Rajapaksa juggernaut that was accused of dozens of extrajudicial killings as well as shooting down protesters, including fishermen, Free Trade Zone workers, and even civilians demanding drinking water, was holding sway.
Back then the people’s pent-up frustration was let out through the ballot in 2015 and it was Maithripala Sirisena who benefitted from it. Had that election been called into question as the last one in Bangladesh, where incumbent Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was supposedly elected for a record fourth term – a result that has been roundly disputed – then things here too could well have taken the same route.
Alternatively, had President Gotabaya Rajapaksa unleashed the security forces on peaceful protesters at Galle Face, the outcome would have been no different to what is taking place in Bangladesh. A brief preview of the outcome of such a strategy became apparent when armed thugs stormed out of Temple Trees and attacked protesters, who then retaliated by torching the houses of ruling party MPs – much the same way as in Bangladesh. Therefore, there are similarities.
But what needs to be acknowledged is the fact that the mass protests of 2022 in Sri Lanka had its roots in 2015, when the ‘Yahapalana’ regime of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe failed to honour its single biggest promise to the people of ensuring justice for the crimes committed by the preceding regime. In fact, the iron fence surrounding the besieged Presidential Secretariat at Galle Face during the entirety of the three-month-long protest movement was adorned with pictures of those allegedly slain during the pre-2015 Rajapaksa regime, highlighting the absence of justice.
Going forward, it is inevitable that more will be added to that lengthening list of crimes committed against the people of this nation, including economic crimes by the last regime, which brought this nation to its knees. Given the mood of the people both here and in the region – bringing Bangladesh into the equation – the promise of justice for these and the long list of previous crimes will surely turn out to be a key denominator of the 21 September election in Sri Lanka.
However, the most significant similarity between the protests in Bangladesh now and those in Sri Lanka two years before is that it is the youth that is on the frontline and driving the call for change. To ignore this increasingly dominant demographic, whose voter ranks in Sri Lanka have swelled by over 1.1 million since the last Presidential Election in 2019, will therefore be suicidal.
This is the segment that constitutes Gen Z or Zoomers, born after 1995 and before 2010. Known for their inherent pursuit of social justice whether in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, or anywhere else in the world, this demographic of voters is likely to make a statement with the use of their ballot on 21 September, adding to the millions of others whose call for change remains undiminished.
The lesson to politicians in general and presidential candidates in particular is that the era and relevance of political parties in the pursuit of youth aspirations is on the decline. We saw that in Sri Lanka, where the 2022 uprising was devoid of any political party involvement, and now see it being mirrored in Bangladesh.
Therefore, if parties and candidates wish to win over the youth and remain relevant in the rapidly evolving world of change politics, their aspirations must necessarily be heeded. The political frogs jumping from one side to the other in the hope of staying relevant will likely find out that it is action that matters, not words.