The general direction of the Manifesto is towards ‘a strong nation and a fair society.’ Twenty operational areas are clearly identified in the introduction, followed in respective sections, not only for the voters but perhaps subsequently for policy implementers as well.
by Laksiri Fernando
At last Sajith Premadasa Manifesto (SPM) is out on
behalf of the United Democratic Front (UDF), in all three languages at the same
time. The English version is reviewed here.[1] The SPM appears ‘people
friendly’ addressing the voters simply as ‘My Dear Friends’ in his personal
message and saluting them with ‘Ayubowan! Vanakkam! Assalamu Alaikum! It
is also futuristic, titling the Manifesto as “There is No Limit to What Sri
Lanka Can Achieve” subtitling it “Let us Prove It Together.” But how is the
question?
Right in the second paragraph of the personal message
of the presidential candidate, there is a genuine admission that people have
concerns and unfulfilled expectations. Premadasa is assuring that he is
committed with his political team, advisors and professionals to address each
and every of them. This may be too optimistic given the Sri Lanka’s present conditions
and the role and record of the government he was serving for the last almost
five years. However it could be appreciated that he has come forward, out of
those ambivalent conditions, to ‘promise’ a better deal and better service in
the future, as the leader of the government and hopefully of the party and the
alliance, if he is finally elected by the voters.
Another natural question at this juncture is whether
he is too late? His nomination was too late within the party, of course beyond
his control, and now the Manifesto is rather late, three weeks after the formal
nominations. There is barely two weeks left for further campaigning before the
election day, and the SPM came at the brink of the two day postal voting with
over 650,000 eligible voters. The TNA or the main Tamil parties have not yet
taken a clear decision pending his Manifesto. While these may be some
disadvantages, he has also gained a clear advantage by countering the Gotabaya
Rajapaksa Manifesto (GRM)[2] through what he has now produced
to the voters. Premadasa has already conducted many multilevel campaign
rallies, meetings and consultations, and if he, his supporters and the UDF
manage to distribute the Manifesto far and wide, it might prove to be an
effective tool in the campaign trail.
Let me offer a quick SWOT analysis but only focusing
on the first two aspects, strengths and weaknesses.
Some Strengths
The general direction of the Manifesto is towards ‘a
strong nation and a fair society.’ Twenty operational areas are clearly
identified in the introduction, followed in respective sections, not only for
the voters but perhaps subsequently for policy implementers as well. This is double
the 10 points in the Gotabaya Manifesto. These include affordable cost of
living, housing, education, health care, drug control, dealing with extremism,
e-governance, women’s empowerment, business promotion, renewable energy, environment,
empowerment of farmers, youth, migrant workers and public transport. Therefore,
the first strength of the documents as a Manifesto is its scope and delineation
of clear policy areas.
Three national scourges are correctly identified: (1)
Drugs (2) Corruption and (3) Religious Extremism. It is also smart to declare that
there can be one or interrelated solution for these three problems. That is the
swift and firm implementation of the laws. However, there can be delays because
of present unclear laws and hesitation on the part of implementors even if we
discount the possible political interferences. This is not taken into proper
account.
The National Security is correctly perceived within creating
a united and a strong nation. This is not there in the GRM. This encompasses
strong democratic institutions including a New Constitution. Although not
mentioned, the Easter Carnage particularly came about within the context of a
constitutional crisis not limiting to October events. When different
institutions compete for power or simply do not cooperate, that affects the
security, security institutions and security personnel. The State apparatuses obviously
collapse or become weakened. The following two pronouncements for a new constitution
may be for the interest of the Tamil and Muslim communities but the term
‘multireligious’ is however missing! The declared policies are also scattered. There
are other sings of a hurriedly written document.
“Our constitution must reflect the multiethnic,
multicultural, multilingual and pluralistic nature of our country and must
unite us not only in law, but also in our hearts.” (p. 14).
“Maximum devolution of power within an undivided
and indivisible Sri Lanka, will be implemented.” (p. 18).
A new people’s constitution is the promise. Unlike the
inbuilt hesitation which was characteristic of the UNF manifesto in 2015, going
before the people for a referendum is declared and determined. Nevertheless the
new constitution is promised as an extension of the 19th Amendment
particularly in respect of reduced presidential powers and independent commissions.
A Senate is promised not as a decoration of the institutional structure, but hopefully
as a proper representative council of the Provincial Councils, ensuring power
sharing at the Center. This could be considered structurally a most far reaching proposal in
the constitutional reform agenda.
There is a clear promise in revising the electoral
system. This includes the abolition of the present preferential voting,
hopefully which would stop not only interparty but also intraparty conflicts that
allows unsuitable, uneducated and even criminal personnel to move forward. The
national list system is not abolished, but it says, “an increase in the
participation of women in Parliament will be legislated by stipulating that at
least 25% of the National List is women.” Is this sufficient is the
question?
There are few more progressive pronouncements. The
Manifesto under ‘Accountable Leadership’ says, “We will withdraw luxury
duty-free vehicles for all 225 parliamentarians while ensuring they have the
necessary facilities to carry out their duties in service of the public.”
This is a welcome initiative saving considerable amounts of money for the
public service. There is no doubt about Sajith Premadasa’s personal determination
in implementing them. A major weakness of 2015 manifestos, both at the
presidential and parliamentary elections, was the lack of much concrete
proposals although a general promise of curtailing corruption and waste was
given.
There is nothing much ambiguous or wrong in the tax
policy declared, unlike in the GRM.
Some Weaknesses
Although twenty policy areas are clearly identified,
there are no cost estimates or appraisal of financial implications, except in
some areas. For example, for encouraging entrepreneurship and innovation, Rs.
20 billion is indicated. But for free seed paddy and free fertilizer for
farmers, there are no estimates given, and independent sources believe that
free fertilizer alone would cost Rs. 45 billion for the government. Where would
you find money? This is not explained.
Although the proclamation on eradication of drug
menace, corruption and religious extremism are praiseworthy, no clear road map
is given for curtailing particularly religious extremism. There is no acknowledgement
that this is more prevalent in the majority community than in minority communities.
Sajith Premadasa’s determination alone would not be sufficient in curtailing
any of the menaces, judging by the past five year experience.
Although there are appreciative declarations on
national unity and a new constitution, those may be insufficient to convince
the affected minority communities because of still intermittent violence,
threats and xenophobia in the country most explicit during the present election
campaigns.
As I see it, the incompatibility between the pronounced
socio-political policies and economic policies appears to be the main weakness.
As the candidate, Sajith Premadasa has pronounced, there is a need for a Social
Revolution. The reason? There is obviously a fundamental defect or flaw in the
existing socio-economic system that he has admitted. Simply said, the poor and
the needy are neglected. His advocated policies verbally are mostly of welfarist
or social democratic orientation. However, the written economic perspectives particularly
on page 26 are incompatible with the pronounced welfare measures or social
democracy, giving emphasis primarily only on the private sector. It says,
“The private sector is the engine of growth. For a
strong and a prosperous nation to share its wealth with its citizens, the
private sector must operate efficiently. However the private sector is shackled
by archaic regulations, logistical bottlenecks, and government red tape; it is
unable to achieve its true potential.” (p. 26).
There is no question that deregulations are necessary
to remove bottlenecks etc. However that is not the only reason for the
inability to achieve the ‘true potential’ of the private sector. In a
developing country, there are serious problems of capital accumulation and also
entrepreneurship. The State in certain areas is in a better position to invest
and gear development, if corruption, waste and mismanagement are eliminated.
Simply said, Sri Lanka is in a better position to gear development through
private and public partnership and having ‘two engines’ for growth. This does
not mean nationalizations or restrictions on the private sector, but a proper
and clear division of labor between private and public partnership. Both
sectors can thrive and contribute. As the title of the Manifesto says, ‘there
is no limit to what Sri Lanka can achieve,’ but in the right direction and combination.
It is because of this incompatibility or lacunae
particularly in the economic policy, among other things, some right thinking
people might consider first voting for Anura Kumara Dissanayake of the NPP/JVP and
then giving the second preference to Sajith Premadasa.
A Merit in Implementation Plan
As we all know, as a result of the 19th
Amendment, supported also by all the present SLPP/SLFP MPs who were in
Parliament at that time, there are many limitations to power of a new President
after the forthcoming election. Even the new President, whoever is elected,
cannot hold the Ministry of Defense directly. Premadasa has already indicated,
right or wrong, Sarath Fonseka for that position.
A clear merit of Premadasa Manifesto is that there is a
practical road map or plan that he has outlined how he is going to implement
his declared policies. This is completely absent in Gotabaya Manifesto. GRM abruptly
ends in page 80 after promising 10 goodies to the ‘estate connected communities’
(Wathu Arsritha Prjawa). In this GRM, the next two pages are blank, at
least in the online (Sinhala only) copy, apparently left for Notes. But there
are notes!
In the Premadasa Manifesto, under the title of
‘Implementation: Strengthening and Monitoring,’ 10 implementing measures are
outlined, prefaced by the key mechanism as follows, which I have found
appropriate, realistic and implementable under the circumstances.
“A new Presidential Task Force for National
Development will be created to overlook the delivery of key performance
indicators in all the Ministries. All the Divisional Secretariats in the
country will have a subunit of this, so that there would be a direct link
between the President and the constituents when it comes to the provisions of
public services and national development.” (p. 75).
On the merit of this practical implementation plan and
the road map, one even might give the first preference to Sajith Premadasa, in
preventing Gotabaya Rajapaksa coming into power with several unknowns and
dubious credentials.
Notes
Post a Comment