Moral basis of the society is the Issue - Not the elections

By Dr. Siri Gamage

(January 19, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) Those who witnessed the election campaign of former President J.R. Jayawardene in 1977 against the incumbent Mrs. Sirima Bandaranayike may well remember the main slogan used by the U.N.P. at the time? 'Dharmishta Samajaya' booklet explained how he will usher in a 'disciplined society' if he was elected to power. I happened to return to Kandy with an academic colleague from Peradeniya University after handing over our Visa applications to the US Embassy to proceed for Postgraduate Studies when we witnessed a massive evening rally at Gampaha where the former President was speaking. The crowd was massive and attentive at the pre-election meeting and my colleague and me sensed that a change of government was in the offing.

The passion created among the electorate by the Dharmishta Samajaya slogan and associated rhetoric at the time was so immense that even a child would have known about the change in government (this is not to deny that there were other factors also contributing to the change). J.R became the leader and subsequently the President after the change of constitution in 1978. His party ruled the country for a considerable period of time, and had the opportunity to fulfil his promise. Did he and his party create a Dharmishta Samajaya in Sri Lanka? What steps did he take to do this? Has the country gone back to an Adharmishta Samajayak? These are pertinent questions to be raised during another pre-election period when Sri Lankans are pondering about whether to keep the same President or elect a different one.

Any fair minded citizen can observe how the moral foundations of Sri Lankan society have deteriorated over the decades not only due to the changes occurring as a result of globalisation (largely defined as free market economy led by multinational corporations and the government policies that encourage the same), but also the way sections of the society embrace immoral activities and practices in the day to day behaviour within officially sanctioned institutions and in the private sphere. These pertain to the way the business of the state and its institutions are conducted, behaviour of those who run key enterprises in the private sector, the behaviour and attitudes of government and civil society leaders, presence or lack of a long term vision for the country's social and moral development, and how the inter personal relations in the formal and informal sectors are conducted. It is recognised that a government alone cannot re-establish the indigenous, moral foundations of a society that have been subjected to destruction from the colonial days. Nonetheless, leaders in the government (any government) have to show an example to the rest of the country, particularly to the younger generation, about the correct way -as prescribed by the religions, customs, values, and collective expectations. Undoubtedly, one such value that needs to be propagated and shown by example in an emotionally charged pre-election period like the present one and after is 'non-violence' (attitudes, values and behaviours associated with this concept).

All of us who have roots in the Sri Lankan society and culture have to take a deep breath and question whether we are heading towards a non-violent (peaceful) future with the kind of the political system and governance mechanisms that are in place? Are we heading towards re-establishing the moral foundations of the society that have been lost due to the 'violent political culture' embracing most institutions of the society during war years OR are we heading towards a system where further deterioration of the very foundations of the society will take place beyond repair? Right thinking people may be able to reflect on this question on the basis of their experiences over the years and decades.

While economic development is an important pre-condition for the survival and prosperity of a population, building concrete bridges, roads, and other infrastructure alone cannot make a country unique in the eyes of the world. It is the moral foundation of a society -irrespective of the forces of globalisation-that has the capacity to display to its own people and those from the outside that the country has a solid foundation for non-violent attitudes and behaviour at the core. While various religions that exist in the country profess such attitudes and behaviour in their sermons and practices, and significant sections of the civil society adhere to such dictums in their personal and professional activities in their own ways in the private sphere, it is doubtful as to whether the country possesses the 'essential moral glue' that has the potential to bind people of various ethnic, political, class, regional and other backgrounds together for a lasting and peaceful future? End of the war alone cannot take us there. Absence of war is not the peace that will endure. Necessary institutions and procedures need to be designed to take charge of the situation under able leadership. This is an aspect deserving the utmost attention of the country's leaders in the post-election period - no matter which candidate becomes the President.

I would even propose that this as the major issue that needs to be tackled by collective wisdom that has to be garnered from all quarters of the country's population, if there is to be a dharmishta society devoid of the 'violent ethos' embracing important persons and institutions of the society.

How do we achieve this? It is not possible to achieve this unless there is political will on the part of the new President and his government. It has to be an exercise that commands the allegiance of political leaders as well as the civic leaders of the country. Such an exercise has to include two key elements:

1. Examining how a violent ethos has expanded during the war years and its impact on the very foundations of society and its moral character,

2. Ways and means to reverse this trend and create a non-violent ethos as well as strengthen the moral foundations of the society.

As a first step, I would suggest the appointment of a widely representative national committee to examine the issues and canvass suggestions from a cross section of the society and its Diaspora. Regional and international committees also need to be established to undertake the same. A time period of 6 months is sufficient to conduct the investigation.

Once the committee report is prepared, the same committees should sphere head a campaign to implement the suggestions. If the government of the day is not forthcoming with the necessary infrastructure for the activities of the committee, non-governmental organizations and civic leaders should take charge of this exercise and try to convince the political leaders to come on board. A countrywide movement of all patriots has to emerge from such an exercise and grass roots change in the attitudes and behaviour of individuals and groups from a violent orientation to a non-violent orientation should be made its ultimate goal.

Many of us familiar with the system of governance in Sri Lanka, especially after 1978, believed that such change has to come from the fountain of an executive President and his/her government. The experience shows that the change did not happen this way. I am not sure if such change will dawn after the presidential elections due in this month either? If such change is to occur the person who becomes the President after January 26th has to be an 'extra ordinary' individual! Therefore, the people who are concerned about the deterioration of moral-non-violent foundations of the society in the country and in the Diaspora need to look beyond this election and devise a strategy with support from the grass roots organizations and civic leaders to identify the key factors, individuals and forces that are creating violence and devise ways to combat the trend towards adharmishta society initiated by previous leaders and their governments since 1978.

( The writer can be reached at siri.gamage@une.edu.au)