Education and positive experience: MR has none either.

“The second best experience a Sri Lanka politician gains is how to steal public money without getting caught. For example, Wimal Weerawansa is challenging people to contest his earnings. He claims that he has earned an amazing amount of money exceeding 75 million (750 Lakhs) in a short time by fair means.”
..........................................................................

By Helasingha Bandara

(December 12, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) This write up is a brief response to the article entitled “Sarath season or Rajapaksha return?” by our compatriot, professor, political scientist, diplomat and writer Dayan Jayathilleka.

His article does not go beyond the hackneyed subject of military victory to justify the re-election of Mahinda Rajapaksha (MR). Indeed the military victory was a tremendous achievement. Yet one achievement alone cannot justify an incumbent President’s re-election while he has neglected many other burning issues of similar weight. The subject of the military victory has divided people’s opinion. It is not hard to accept that those who contributed to this victory have equal right to claim their share. Mahinda Rajpaksha’s individual work load in this regard may not have been any bigger than Sarath Fonseka’s. The only difference in performance was that being the president MR’s part of the play received more publicity. Even in that regard, MR loses points for being very selfish.

“anyone who hopes for the top slot in any enterprise be it in the corporate or state sector, must either have a track record of some success in that broad area or possess academic training and qualifications in that subject, or have a combination Sarath Fonseka does not qualify on either count”

Does this mean that the criterion for the suitability to aspire to be a leader of a country is the possession of a PhD, particularly in political science? On assumption that this is the criterion, who among the two formidable candidates qualifies for the top post? Can MR be considered to have a sound academic background for him being a lawyer (perakadoruwek)? In his student days Law College was accessible to those who had money and just OL pass with a credit pass in English. The three year professional course at Law College could hardly be counted as sound academic achievement.

“A soldier of forty years experience, Gen Fonseka is seeking the top spot in the country with no experience in politics or civilian life.”

Yes SF had not been a politician. That is exactly what qualifies him for the post because any one who has been in Sri Lanka politics for a considerable length of time is undoubtedly corrupt.

It is inexplicable how DJ concluded that SF has not got experience in civilian life. He has been a fully fledged civilian for at least 50 years despite the fact that he has held a post in the military. There is no difference between a lecturer and a military commander in this respect. Both have jobs to perform in two different fields. The academic is restricted to the University precincts and the military man in the same manner is restricted to the military compound. This does not mean that they have no civilian life experience outside their working hours. Both still read newspapers, watch TV, go shopping, attend weddings, parties and funerals and have sex. If this argument has any validity, then it is the Buddhist monks who do not have experience of civilian life.

“It was his 40 years in the army that turned Sarath Fonseka into what he was: the warrior capable of providing inspiring leadership to his men to win the war. It is precisely those 40 years that disqualify him from holding the topmost civilian job in the land; a job that requires consultation, compromise and consensus, three qualities that are necessarily lacking in the army, and which Gen. Fonseka was never renowned for during his military career”.

Is this correct? How does a 40 year service in a leadership role disqualify a person to be a leader? Leadership has traits that are transferable from role to role. If SF could discipline himself first and then discipline the army to be successful in his leadership role, on what basis can we say that he will not be successful in another leadership role? Besides what experience does a politician in Sri Lanka get while in politics? Those who are in power for a five year term have no time to get good experience. From the day that they are elected, the party leadership commands them to rally the support of voters for continuous elections to remain in power. Pradeshiya Sabhas, Provincial councils, municipals, parliamentary and presidential elections and an occasional referendum continue to happen throughout the term and the whole political clan in power is mobilised in various areas on these election campaigns to work hard and win. The experiences they get are how to rig elections, how to deceive the public, how to harass the opponents, how to insult and degrade the opponents and to learn what other tricks are there to be manipulated. This is the type of experience that a Sri Lankan Politician accumulates. A person without such experience is the ideal aspirant for the top post.

MR has such experience in abundance. A glowing example of MR’s negative political experience is how he managed to convince SB Dissanayaka to pole-vault backwards (political Fosbury Flop). What promise he has given SB Dissanayaka is anybody’s guess. It however can be a big perk for SB to promise to rig the election according to Lanka Truth.

The second best experience a Sri Lanka politician gains is how to steal public money without getting caught. For example, Wimal Weerawansa is challenging people to contest his earnings. He claims that he has earned an amazing amount of money exceeding 75 million (750 Lakhs) in a short time by fair means.

The lack of such experience makes SF more suitable to lead the country. The million dollar question is, if Mahinda Rajpaksha is such an experienced politician would he sack Dayan Jaythilaka for no apparent reason when DJ had played his part very well. I was one of the first people who questioned the decision of the sacking, and in fact, that was the turning point of my attitude towards this government, for the leader’s arrogance and ingratitude. (Disloyalty should not hurt Dayan-19 July 2009, Sri Lanka Guardian)

“He is not the visionary we need to take the country united into the 21st century but as a populist he is preferable to an authoritarian persona”.

In management, authoritarian leadership is an accepted variety of leadership styles that is preferred to dictatorial leadership style. MR is not authoritarian but dictatorial who is averse to consultation, compromise and consensus. If we dislike authoritarian leadership we should hate dictatorship. What Sri Lanka needs is a transformational leader with the tendency of a disciplinarian. Lots of people have begun to see such a leader in Sarath Fonseka. Yet if SB .Dissanayaka has agreed to rig 700,000 (7 Lakhs) votes as revealed by Lanka Truth, SF has no way to win.

-Sri Lanka Guardian