the main failing of a representative democracy like sri lanka is that voter cannot decide on each policy individually, one by one.
we have to decide between individuals who make promises to act according to a package of policies.
(btw while the outcome of this election, a big victory for mahinda rajapaksa,
was clear from the start, imo mere certainty's of outcome should not be a sufficient reason to favor it.)
i will come to individuals later, now we will look at,
how to evaluate a package of policies.first we will have to ask, are the policies consistent with each other? in other words
do they adhere to any ideology.
in sri lanka as in other democracies the
electable candidates are not likely to be creatures of any ideology. there are few minor candidates who may have policies that are ideologically consistent. any vote for them will be wasted, except as an almost invisible protest. (btw bc in sl minor candidate ideologues are either marxists or racists, and there are no libertarians, i cannot make such an empty protest even if i wanted)
2 major candidates are ideologically inconsistent. however
vaguely left of center mahinda rajapaksa is more coherent than all over the place sarath fonseka.
since a choice based on ideology is out of question, how are we to continue, esp given their preference for empty platitudes and slogans rather than policy specifics or implementation details.
to judge between such undefined policy collections, we have to focus;
we have to concentrate on what we consider major policy decisions facing the country and drop all minor ones. then we have to make out from available material whether there are any material differences between the candidates about those.
what are the major policy issues?national security and economy will be my answer. some would also add good governance/corruption. (so i will comment on that as well)
national securitywe defeated murderous tamil tiger terrorists. that is a glorious national achievement (to which both candidates contributed significantly; one of course had greater responsibility by definition). that achievement should be defended in every way possible.
nobody should be allowed to roll it back. esp not by giving power to unrepentants who were willingly
either racist pro terrorists and/or pro appeasement peaceniks (i.e. those who believed peace is worth any cost, even the cost of human rights, freedom, justice and democracy; they opposed defeating the tamil tiger terrorist pussies
with violence if needs be, preferring instead to handover fellow sri lankans to terrorist oppression in appeasement). ppl with such attitudes at such a time proved that
they are both morally pervert and unrealistic. by refusing to repent and renounce their former attitudes, and continuing to denigrate the national victory, they now prove
they are incapable of learning and/or corrupt to the core .
now
such ppl (unp leadership, tna, likes of mano ganeshan, peacenik ngos) are
supporting sarath fonseka. why? bc he has agreed to their conditions, which while not explicit in rolling back the defeat of terrorists, will give means to these ppl to do exactly that.
his willingness to accept of such conditional support coupled with his own irresponsible statements to media, only indicate his less than willing commitment to defend the great national achievement.
some might object, that
mahinda rajapaksa too has a few such supporters. he has some such ppl,
but in contrast to fonseka's, they after renouncing the attitudes referred to above, in most cases even helped in defeating the terrorists. nor will they be in a position to roll back the terrorist defeat in case of a mahinda victory since
he is not working under conditions imposed by them.
i think on this issue, the voting decision is very clear for anyone who values freedom, human rights, democracy, and justice.
sarath fonseka and his current supporters should not be allowed to achieve power.economyno recognizable policy by either candidate, beyond irresponsible spending sprees of gigantic proportions. needless to say, if carried out, such actions will lead to total collapse. thankfully
they are impossible to carry out, so will not be implemented.
in any case,
government's ability to influence economy is pretty limited, bc sri lankan are very good at ignoring government (from taxes to regulations) and getting away with it.
if
there is a difference, it is
one of degree. mahinda camp (confident of victory, in contrast to desperation in foseka camp) seems to be
more restrained, knowing they will be held to account for not keeping to promises, come next election. one election promise will illustrate this. fonseka promises rs.10,000/= monthly salary increase to all public servants. mahinda so far has made a point of not following this with a counter bid, pointing out its unrealistic nature. of course he has upped or initiated other such 'promise bids'.
it goes without saying that
as a libertarian, i am completely frustrated at this state of affairs; there is
no candidate to stand for a pro market, less government, position. this is partly the
fault of unp as i have explained before.
in all this, it must be remembered that sri lankan
economy is doing well in spite politicians; growth is likely to be in 6%+ levels in next few years, inflation is at 25 year low, and stock market is at a record high.
anyway,
there is not much of a difference when it comes to economy. mahinda has already shown that he hasn't/can't ruin it in spite his promises, while fonseka's similar promises probably won't be carried out either if he gets elected.
iow,
fonseka has not shown why he should get the vote based on economic issues. good governance and corruptioni don't think this is a major issue. but some ppl do try to make it an issue and it is the one that is most talked about by politicians and commentators, while imo
most voters will decide based on above two issues.
anyway, i
don't see a difference between the candidates on this issue. both are corrupt, both have corrupt supporters, both sides used/use government property and benefits for campaigning.
what could be more absurd than ppl like ravi karunanayake denouncing corruption (as he did in unp ass licker harsha de silva' program yesterday). lol.
while
corrupt should be punished lawfully if possible, i seriously
doubt individuals promising to eradicate corruption of others. at most there will be political show trials of opponents that go nowhere due to technicalities if the accused is no fool (such outcomes are a part of democracies, for show trials with convictions (and executions) go to china).
some supporter of fonseka talk of
'good governance' through implementation of 17th amendment. most voters would not know the difference between it and 13th. imo 1
7th is an undemocratic, unworkable, loophole ridden, bureaucratic, money wasting monstrosity, and cannot and should not be implemented. (i really should write a post about it, but 17th is so cloud cookooish i can't motivate myself). in any case i doubt unp, jvp, tna, and others, who were each in part responsible for failure to implement it at various times, will agree to it when in power and handover power to unelected commissions of fractious nominees.
only way to achieve good governance and less corruption is to reduce the size of government, limiting its ability to spend our money and its ability to interfere in our lives and activities. handing power for both to a new set of government commissions will not do that.
iow
there is no difference between the main candidates or their supporters on this issue.
individualshow confident are we that these ppl will keep to their promises.
we know a lot about rajapaksa. we know he
has not kept most of his economic promises (thank god) and has
kept his promises regarding the terrorists (thank god again). we can generally expect
rajapaksa to govern from a pragmatic center left position as he has done so far.
about fonseka we don't know much beyond his constant
whining (bc he thinks he is not being appreciated enough),
and his willingness, through resulting
bitterness, to enter
unprincipled incoherent alliances and endanger his fellow officers/subordinates/superiors by uttering
irresponsible and
false statements, in
revenge.
not very good signs for a man who wants to be a political leader.
conclusionon the main issues other than national security there is not much difference.
on national security it is clear fonseka and his supporters must be defeated to ensure we continue to enjoy the benefits of liberty from terrorists in the future.i will vote accordingly. you should too.resultsi think
by giving a big margin of victory for mahinda rajapaksa,
sri lankans will send a clear message of unacceptability of anyone who welcomes and works to further, the agendas of unrepentant peaceniks and terrorists supporters.
opposition after ridding itself of peacenik leaders,
could have made this a more competitive election (and gained my vote)
by fielding someone who does not accept such support and who has clear contrasting pro market economic policies. they may still have lost this election, but they would have remained with a firm principled platform to build on and absorb any dissatisfaction with the next rajapaksa administration.
they blew it.now
they will have nothing to build on after fonseka's inevitable defeat. most we can hope for is that they will get
the message as to what kind of opposition is needed.෴
my twitter - http://twitter.com/sittingnut
this blog's twitter - http://twitter.com/llibertarian
