"tight election" and other myths and rumors

it seems maithree supporters are reduced to floating rumors in social media, and to repeating words "tight election" in every other tweet and blog post they make, as if such repetition will make it "tight".  it is also a symptom of their state of denial as their fantasy breaks.  lol

in fact election is peaceful and there is a high voter turnout. so they know they have to find excuses for maithree's defeat by a significant margin.

that explains the silly rumors about grenades, variety of unattributed allegations from unnamed monitors, people fleeing country, etc. etc. 

෴

my twitter - http://twitter.com/sittingnut
this blog's twitter - http://twitter.com/llibertarian

3 basic questions to answer before voting

whoever we vote for today, mahinda or maithree, answering these 3 questions will help clarify our thoughts, thus giving meaning to mark we make.

1/ with terrorists defeated, economy growing, and prevailing democracy even enabling us to kick mahinda out, should we kick him out and why? give reasons.

2/ if mahinda and his administration have faults (nepotism? corruption? ... ) would they really be cured by maithree and his backers? are they without those same faults?  

3/ can maithree, dependent on failed politicians from unp and slfp, and fringe parties and racists of all kinds, be a resolute leader, able to keep as prospering and safe, especially with institution of executive presidency abolished?

if we are responsible sri lankan citizens we must be able to answer these 3 before voting.

here are my anwsers.

1/ we mustn't kick mahinda out because he has been a successful president.

2/ maithree backers are perhaps worse.

3/ maithree will be a weak president and a disaster.

you are free to answer differently. but do answer them. and if you do disagree with me, let me know in comments section, with reasons for all 3 questions. .

btw i have given reasons elsewhere why we should vote for mahinda in more detail.

i have also made a prediction, based on facts and rational calculations, that mahinda will win with a significant margin. track record of previous such predictions here, such as 2010 one, are excellent.  

෴

my twitter - http://twitter.com/sittingnut
this blog's twitter - http://twitter.com/llibertarian

reasons why mahinda should win

yesterday i wrote a post predicting that based on facts and rational calculations, mahinda will win by a significant margin. a prediction i am sure will be fulfilled,as my past ones here have been. this post in contrast is an opinion piece giving my reasons as to why, we, sri lankans, should elect mahinda instead of maithree, those 2 being the only credible choices available.  

i will follow a post i wrote during 2010 election.

i started then by saying,

"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."

(while the outcome of this election, will certainly be the same as last time, a victory for mahinda rajapaksa, as i said last time, "certainty of outcome should not be a sufficient reason to favor it").

question, then and now, is how to evaluate the package of polices and the trustworthiness of the individual to carry it out.

evaluating polices 

like last time, the packages offered are not ideologically consistent. only the leftist fringe candidates are offering anything like coherent policy packages. not even a fringe candidate is offering what can be termed libertarian policies that this blog adhere to. as such selection based on ideology is out of the question, unless you are a leftist who wants to post an ineffective protest vote.  

of policies offered by 2 main candidates, mahinda's is more coherent and pragmatic than one offered by maithripala sirisena.  

but let us examine each of the main policy issues.

economy 

mahinda is basically offering continuation of same polices that were in operation last 5 years. these policies involved,

• unprecedented infrastructure development,
• creating conditions for expansion of service economy, and service exports, along with continuation of export of goods.
• reduction of growth in import expenditure; through reduction of imports of oil for electricity generation, sugar, milk powder, etc.   
• creating conditions for unprecedented expansion of tourism.
• consistently lower inflation than in past. consistent reduction in budget deficit, and national debt as a percentage of gdp. increase in foreign reserves to stabilize the currency. 
• expansion of government service and apparent subsidies(though in fact. subsides as a whole have been reduced).

all these in combination has delivered around 7% real gdp growth on average. well in excess of world and regional average.  

except for the expansion of government service (and claims of increase in subsides), i have no great objections to any of this. and since sri lanka as a whole is far from being libertarian, most sri lankans would approve, rather than object to even that. though government's visible hand in reduction of certain imports, and its direct hand in infrastructure development, are violations of free market principles, these are in fact not free markets to begin with. in any case mahinda has never been a free market capitalist.

mahinda has delivered what he promised in past. and there is no reason to believe he will fail in future.

his success in economy is such that maithree has lost all coherence in his, and his handlers, attempts to advance an alternative economic policy. they have been more or less reduced to acknowledge mahinda's success with economy. instead of criticizing mahinda's policy, they are criticizing implementation methods and details. and doing so using blatant falsehoods.

sirisena supporters say country is burdened with debt. in fact national debt as a percentage of gdp has been in steady decline. in 2004 it was 105% of gdp. now it is about 70%. absolute nominal debt figure has gone up, but because economy is growing fast (both in real terms and nominal terms, second being the relevant one here) debt as a percentage of gdp comes down.    

they also say that some of the infrastructure projects are useless. however their main targets mathala airport and hambantota port are in fact operating successfully. their half hearted attempts to depict newly developed and improved roads as useless to common man, shows an unbelievable lack of connection with common people. they are silent or contradictory when pressed to declare whether they are going to stop these projects.

maithree also promises to increase on mahinda's promises on government subsidies and service. i think sri lankans can recognize fake empty promises.

maithree also resurrects a promise to increase government spending on education to 6% of gdp. this is the sort of ignorant impractical idiocy that confirm maithree camp has lost all hope of winning the election.  sri lankan government barely collects 10% of gdp in revenue and spends less than15% of gdp in total. as such without drastic tax increases, and/or massive cuts in every other sort of public spending from health, defense, agriculture, debt service, pensions, salaries of public servants, etc, this is impossible.

in sum, maithree has been content to hurl variety of criticisms (more than tinged with absurd falsifications of facts)  at mahinda's implementations, instead of offering a pragmatic coherent policy on economy. he himself has no track record on economy and politicians that surround and control him, both from unp and slfp, have track records of failure.

corruption & good governance 

an issue related to economy is corruption, which the maithree camp has tried to turn into a major issue. it isn't. of course economy has grown, so no doubt corruption has kept pace with growth. but present government is no more corrupt than previous ones, and any future ones. changing one set of governing politicians with another set (esp a set that were corrupt last time they were in power) wont change a thing. as i have maintained from start of this blog, only way to reduce corruption is to reduce the size of government, thus power of politicians and bureaucrats to control public funds and regulations. but maithree is not advocating that, as such his promise to fight corruption are false. 

nepotism is another charge against mahinda. he certainly has used and given power to his brothers. but whether that is bad or not, depends on their competence. a competent bother is preferable to an incompetent outsider. his brothers that matter, gotabaya and basil, are competent at their jobs, with solid achievements. in contrast, politicians in maithree camp, chandrika and ranil, among others, also rose through nepotism, and more importantly, were and are incompetent. maithree's own brothers are far from admirable. 

executive presidency

this is another non issue that opposition has tried to raise to a major issue. no sri lankan with any sense will want to do away with  executive presidency. it was that institution that allowed the steady leadership needed to defeat tamil terrorist pussies. similar stability is needed between elections to create a stable environment for development. under this constitution, if electorate wants, it can provide a needed check to presidency through parliament. as happened in early last decade. 

given the political make up of country with lot of small parties, and proportional electoral system, doing away with executive presidency will create an unstable wavering extremely weak governments dependent on whims of those fringe parties. 

fact that maithree, dependent on those fringe parties, promises this, is a solid reason for defeating him.

national security

sri lankans who wish to live in a free democratic country must keep their eyes open for any revival of tamil racist terrorism. while they are defeated in sri lanka , they are visibly active (and in some cases openly pandered to) in west. and their racist ideology and goals are is still the ideology and goals of racist party, tna, their one time faithful political arm. 

until tna unconditionally condemns ltte and its big pussy mass murderer prabhakaran, and participate in democratic processes, like the parliamentary select committee, to find solutions to grievances of all communities in north and east provinces, they should be treated with suspicion. that is why their extension of support to maithree should make voters for maithree hesitate a lot before marking their vote. 

maithree supporters counter this by saying many former tamil terrorists, like karuna, are supporting mahinda. difference is that these individuals contributed to condemnation and defeat of tigers, while tna and ilks, did not. nor is mahinda dependent on them, while maithree is lost without tna support. 

a weak president or prime minister, dependent on fringe parties, including racist parties like tna and slmc, is bad for national security and stability and must not be elected. 

those are the main policy issues, and with regard to all of them, mahinda is the better choice.

judging individual trustworthiness 

we also have to judge whether these candidates can be trusted enough to carry out their duties and promises.

last time i said, based on his track record, "we can generally expect rajapaksa to govern from a pragmatic center left position." he has done exactly that. he has displayed strong stable leadership needed to develop sri lanka and keep it strong. in fact there is no need to change him even if alternative was a similar individual.

maithree on the other hand, is a colorless mediocre cipher. he has no notable achievements. he is harmless enough as a bureaucrat and lower functionary. but not a person from whom resolute leadership can be expected. his political position as a dependent of others in past and now, makes it worse. he wont be able to stand up to corrupt opportunists, racists, foreign interferers, or terrorists.   

conclusion 

by all criteria for evaluating candidates, mahinda is far superior to other possible alternative, sirisena. so let us contribute to inevitable mahinda victory by voting for him.  

෴

my twitter - http://twitter.com/sittingnut
this blog's twitter - http://twitter.com/llibertarian

who to vote for? a guide

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 security
we 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.

economy
no 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 corruption
i 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 17th 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.

individuals
how 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.

conclusion
on 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.

results
i 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