My Take On Election
Both major contenders in the election have addressed economic development without linking it to the elimination of poverty and inequality. These are two different things altogether. For instance, in the United Sates there is economic development, but there is also rampant inequality and poverty.
by Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne
“It’s the Economy, Stupid.” ~ James Carville, campaign strategist for Bill Clinton
( August 12, 2015, Montreal, Sri Lanka Guardian) In just a few days’ time, the results of the event we have anxiously awaited will be released. Many well-reasoned ideas and perspectives have been offered on various angles of this complex election. If current trends in the rest of the world are anything to go by, an emerging preference resonating the voter’s priority can already be seen. The Scots did not want to secede from the United Kingdom for historic and nationalistic reasons but above all for economic reasons. The Brits wanted to stay with the Tories for the economic benefits they were offered under the status quo, which the rival Labour Party was perceived as unable to offer. More compellingly, one sees an emergent trend in the approaches taken by candidates seeking nominations of their parties to contest the presidential elections in the United States in 2016. Two hopefuls of the Democratic Party nominations – Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are projecting the view to the American public that they are representatives of the American people who will fight for the peoples’ interests. These two candidates have shed the outworn image of the lofty, elitist politician and instead have donned a cloak of commonality that reflects a manifesto calculated to achieve economic opportunity and equality among the people in education, employment and the overall pursuit of happiness.
The United National Party, which many believe to be the front runner at the Sri Lankan elections, reportedly promises in its manifesto a “competitive economy” and an assurance that the equal rights of the people will be safeguarded, while hastening to assure the majority Sinhala Buddhists that Buddhism “would be given its foremost place.” On the face of this general statement the implicit promise is to ensure equal rights from a religious perspective. The UNP election manifesto, which was launched in Sinhala only, outlined a five-fold development plan, entitled “Our Solutions to Your Problems” that promises to create a new country in 60 months.
The UNP manifesto promises a more competitive knowledge based social economy that would create 1 million employment opportunities, establish various super development zones and bring about villages which will be governed by the locals rather than politicians and officials. Among other promises are to fight corruption by legislation; introduce devolution of power through a new Constitution; invest in infrastructure; and create a more educated and knowledge rich generation.
There is no clear statement in the UNP manifesto that addresses fighting inequality and poverty, nor is there any direct reference to bringing about equal education opportunities for the people of Sri Lanka.
It will be remembered that, Mahinda Rajapaksa who was defeated in January 2015 in his bid for a second presidential term, then laid out a 14 point programme which promised “A brighter future’ where he pledged to put Sri Lanka in a prominent position in Asia and the world and work towards a political solution to the ethnic question within a united Sri Lanka.. This manifesto prioritised the enhancing of the profile and stature of the nation with focus on new areas of development, with emphasis on economic progress. The people clearly rejected this approach, presumably based on the fact that the abject poverty and inequality that prevailed in the country had to be addressed first, as the intrinsic and integral priority.
The United People’s Freedom Alliance (led by Rajapaksa) in its election manifesto for the upcoming general election titled “A Guarantee For The Future” has a 12 point programme focusing on various areas such as national integrity, anti-corruption policy, economy, education, foreign policy, health and infrastructure.
Both major contenders in the election have addressed economic development without linking it to the elimination of poverty and inequality. These are two different things altogether. For instance, in the United Sates there is economic development, but there is also rampant inequality and poverty.
To defeat poverty and inequality a contending Party at the election should promise to enable and empower citizens to learn trades that are needed in today’s society, recognise the potential of its people, give them the opportunity to develop meaningful connections with other people in society, give their children equal opportunity in education and above all, adopt liberal trade policies that promote trade. No individual must he denied the opportunity to benefit from development. The equal rights and opportunities of women and men must he assured. National challenges must be managed in a way that distributes the costs and burdens fairly in accordance with basic principles of equity and social justice. Those who suffer or who benefit least deserve help from those who benefit most. There must be responsibility and accountability for managing economic and social development, defeating corruption, as well as threats to peace and security. Mere adoption of legislation will not do.
The poor need to be empowered. A good approach would be to have better dissemination of information on the benefits to consumers and service providers alike and encouragement of technological innovation. Jeffrey D. Sachs, former Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and onetime Special Advisor to former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan on the UN Millennium Development Goals and Economic Advisor to Governments around the World, in his book, The End of Poverty – Economic Possibilities of Our Time (Penguin: New York, 2005) states that the eradication of poverty is a distinct possibility, citing the likes of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King who did not wait for the rich and powerful but went ahead helping the cause of the poor and downtrodden.
Also needed is sustainable development by harnessing scientific and technological advancement. The last frontier is of course individuals – all of us as separate beings, contributing to the cause and supporting our governments.
What both the UNP and UPFA may wish to consider when they face each other at the final debate is one fundamental fact – that if political success and good governance is assured, the economy will prosper. Joseph E. Stiglitz, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2002, in his book The Price of Inequality (Norton &Company: New York, 2012) says: “Politicians give speeches about what is happening to our values and our society, but then they appoint to high office the CEOs and other corporate officials who were at the helm in the financial sector as the system was failing so badly. We shouldn’t have expected the architects of the system that has not been working to rebuild the system to make it work… A political system that amplifies the voice of the wealthy provides ample opportunity for laws and regulations – and the administration of them – to be designed in ways that not only fail to protect the ordinary citizens against the wealthy but also further enrich the wealthy at the expense of the rest of society”.
As Einstein is supposed to have said: stupidity is doing the same wrong thing over and over and expecting a different result. In the electoral context, I am sure Einstein meant these words of wisdom for the voter and not the politician.
