Sri Lanka is at the worst of times and the best of opportunities. The worst of times is because it is at the lowest ebb, socioeconomically down to the near collapse due to political misadventures since 1971, caused by politicisation and corruption seeping into the bureaucracy. The best of opportunities is because race, religion, populism and promises which were the unique selling propositions during the past elections are today replaced by promises of policy changes to improve the status.
The country being at the lowest ebb cannot afford to experiment this time with a party or person-centric approach than cogent policies that can bring effective changes to the corroded society. People are tired of political misadventures, and failure this time would lead to anarchy and instability.
Of the three popular candidates, President Ranil Wickremesinghe, a veteran having five decades in statesmanship, was helicoptered to power by chance due to his master manoeuvrability and leadership capacity, a position no others dared to fill due to the precarious state of the country in turmoil. Despite challenges, he steered well in the last two years, restoring stability and preparing the country for the Presidential Election. His challengers, Samagi Jana Balawegaya and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa, followed by Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna and National People’s Power Leader and Opposition Parliamentarian Anura Kumara Dissanayake, a Marxist with a comparatively lesser track record in governance.
Wickremesinghe’s campaign is a message of national unity, asking citizens to rally round him to salvage the country. He positions himself as a common candidate of the people, away from party or personality-cultic differences, focused on salvaging the country from the current mess. Having become the President, come to rescue the country when the Rajapaksas’ (former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and former Prime Minister and incumbent Government MP, attorney Mahinda Rajapaksa) failed to deliver, he is seeking a mandate to continues to stabilise the country to normalcy and progress. He focuses on a strong policy drive to fix the issues in the economy, politics and society, bringing in much needed fiscal discipline and a policy driven approach to governance.
Premadasa is a right leaning candidate like Wickremesinghe with policies marginally different to Wickremesinghe. He calls for renegotiation with the funding agencies. He had the opportunity to become the interim President like Wickremesinghe during the crisis time when the country was in dire need of a leader, but he refused to accept the opportunity.
Dissanayake is a Marxist candidate who has little experience in governance. His position is diametrically different from the other two candidates. He is for sealing the leaks in the economy through fighting corruption and relieving the tax burden on the people.
Leadership challenges
The candidates must have the metrics of talents and capacities to lead the nation - an ailing country having low key performance indicators, foreign debt burdens, rising unemployment and emerging social issues internally. The challenges of turbulence in the global economy, food security, climate change and geopolitical manoeuvres by powerful States externally are key components that leaders must be aware of and dexterous to handle. Which of these candidates possess the required dexterity to manage multiple fronts to stabilise the country is a question that the voters must contemplate seriously. Electing a President should not be driven by emotions, a sense of race, religion-based or ethnicity-related feelings, or other parochial issues but by rational, knowledgeable and pragmatic decision-making by the voter, considering the long-term goals. The voters need to be cognisant of the fact that restoring the economy alone will not resurrect the country. It requires a multi-pronged response by the leadership for the different components in the vital metrics. The uplifting of the socio-economic status, the equitable distribution of the nation’s wealth, increasing productivity, strengthening food security, resilience to climate changes and sustainable environment are vital. However, there is a severe lack of discussions on the challenges of geopolitics that can challenge the independence and territorial integrity of the country.
A poor country has several challenges. Sri Lanka in the throes of economic stagnation as experienced recently is a challenge having severe geopolitical ramifications. For example, recent updates from the post-Hasina Bangladesh reveals that several bilateral agreements that Bangladesh has signed with India has compromised national security by capitulating to the Indian geopolitical design during her tenure like Indian overtures in Sri Lanka culminated in the Indo-Lanka Accord of 1989. Keeping a country insulated against geopolitical manoeuvres by regional powers or the global powers is an important aspect of ensuring national security and independence. Which of the candidates has the knowledge, maturity and capacity to manage Western, Indian and Chinese geopolitical pressure and keep Sri Lanka independent from external interference?
Potential challenges
Sri Lanka is just emerging from the economic collapse, though still at the intensive care unit (ICU). There are no clear-cut policy statements from the candidates about bolstering the economy holistically by increasing productivity, enabling it to bolster economic independence. President Wickremesinghe is advocating the position of continuing the ICU treatment for the next five years till the economy recovers and sustains the capacity to pay the loans. This requires austerity to recover and grow to build the capacity to pay back loans.
Premadasa is advocating in similar terms but not in tandem with the requirements of the funding agencies, since he wants to renegotiate. This requires clarity and substantiation about the sustainability of his approach about how he will strengthen the economy and maintain geopolitical independence.
Contrary to the above two candidates, Dissanayake is focused on a standalone approach of sealing the bucket to avoid pilferage, leaks and stamp out corruption to increase the State revenues to pay back loans. He also wanted to give tax concessions to ease the burden on the public. This seems a populist approach; how pragmatic it is, is questionable.
The people are the best to judge the prudence of the policies that these candidates advocate, and any failure to judge prudently at the vote, people will get what they deserve - Economic prosperity or hara-kiri compromising national security and territorial integrity.
It is important to understand how these candidates can outmanoeuvre the geopolitical challenges apart from strengthening the economy. They are silent on this aspect though economic independence and geopolitical independence are intertwined. In an integrated world, the economy cannot be truly independent, and geopolitics has its own tentacles to make economies subservient to geopolitical designs. It will be interesting to see how each candidate would respond to this. Economically weak countries like ours are vulnerable to geopolitics that can stifle economic growth to keep us perpetually dependent on the regional or global powers against the wishes of our people. Our leaders may shout about being independent, but, they will be dependent if we fail the economy.
Therefore, it is important that our postures be policy-driven with a 360-degree view of how to be independent geopolitically whilst recovering economically. The Western geopolitical machinations, Indian geopolitical manoeuvres and competing Chinese interests are challenging questions that these candidates must be prepared to take on. So far, their policies are not clear enough to prove that their economic policies can sustain whilst bolstering it can also ensure geopolitical independence. These candidates must have the capacity and maturity to manage this challenge. Which of them can best manage this is a question equally important as the economy and social sustainability as a nation.
Blind talk of independence, geopolitical or otherwise, will not materialise true independence if the economy collapses again and we start begging for help. India, the West or China may capitalise on the opportunity to gain inroads to deeply influence by throwing crumbs into our begging bowl. This would lead to total capitulation and the very same political leaders who wish to play around the planned debt management process by unplugging will be forced to surrender to geopolitical manoeuvres without question. Such an eventuality would make Sri Lanka a vassal State of the economic and geopolitical power that succours us.
(The writer is an architect and sustainability consultant)
–------------------------------------------------------------
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication