Editorial

Security

Politics

World

Letters

Sports

Obituaries

Archives

Lt. Col. Susantha Seneviratne, RWP, RSP, Psc, Msc (retd)

The forthcoming presidential election is, now becoming the cynosure of most of the citizens with the increase tension among the two leading candidates and their parties in contest.

The way, events unfold in the current political forum makes everyone inquisitive; but no one, is certain of what the outcome of the election is going to be; however, a 'tough vie' among the two leading candidates, which is likely to bring a 'marginal' victory to anyone of them, may be anticipated.

However, there is one thing certain; the 'ordinary' citizens, who have been 'losing' after, every election that held in the country in the recent past, will once again have to face the same consequence, following this election, too.

Public affairs or governance

The presentation of manifesto is a 'standard' practice adopted by the political parties, prior to an election to be held and the parties, in contest must exercise this practice, 'professionally' so as to convince the public of their individual 'policy-plans' by the manifestos being presented.

But, it is very unfortunate that the manifestos presented by the political parties, today do not contain anything 'significant' to politics that would involve in 'governance'. Because, the contents of the manifestos are similar to a 'package' of promises to be fulfilled by politicians in 'public affairs'.

Notwithstanding the same, the inability/failure of the leading political parties to implement what they have promised in the manifestos, during their governance is a classic testimony to confirm the fact that the contents, therein are 'impracticable' and 'unrealistic'. Besides, most of the manifesto-programs that were implemented by the leading parties when in power are not, existing or are nearing collapse, today.

Party politics or national politics

This implies, lucidly that the manifestos presented by the parties do not bear any 'validity' vis-a-vis the 'reality' and, also are not based on a 'study' or a 'research' carried out, following the identification of the problems / crisis / issues in the country. This may be one of the reasons why such programs presented in the manifestos won't become successful.

Large funds are being poured into propaganda campaigns to give a wide publicity for the party manifestos, in order to attract voters; but none of these parties, so far have been able to present an 'action plan', which is based on 'national politics', by assessing, evaluating, and determining each problem of the country.

So, what these parties have been proposing in their party manifestos, to date are not, of the politics; but 'patch-up' answers with no 'solutions', and thus lacking 'substance' to solve a problem/crisis/issue.

Also, the practice of changing and introducing various policies / programs / projects from one election to another, demonstrates how much the politicians are conscious, of the myriad problems faced by the country, today.

Answers or solutions

The current problems/crisis/issues that emerged a long time ago are, still lingering, or have aggravated to an extend that most of them, now need to be addressed with much 'costly' solutions as the opportunities available at early stages had not been seized by, then politicians in governance with 'right' solutions.

Had the leading parties governed this country, by treating the problems with 'solutions' rather than 'answer', most of the problems that are burning, today could have been 'nipped in the bud'. During the time of impending election, it is quite noticeable that politicians of the leading parties often come out, with various 'concepts'; 'mechanisms'; of 'new' and 'special' kinds, depending on the nature of the election, and thus making grandiloquent speeches with the ultimate aim of drawing voters by deceptive means or by demagoguery.

It is interesting, therefore to examine as to how this, so called a 'concept' or a 'mechanism', thus designed/devised to solve a problem, changes or differs from one 'form' to another, from time to time with the elections to be held; and when the problem identified to be dealt with, remains same-perhaps, the conditions effecting such a problem may have worsened with the time without any solution.

However, this, evidently highlight the fact that none of the leading parties have studied the problems, nor have been able to identify the same, according to the cause, nature, effect and, also whether they are problems of 'general'/'common' or 'specific' category, in terms of the community, class, area, working group, etc and the sector or field.

Although most of these problems of 'general' and 'specific' fall into the category of 'public affairs', following proper identification of the 'root cause' of each problem, they can be resolved with remedial solutions based on 'national politics'-the 'essence' of the art and science of 'good governance', which does not require to be based on any 'party politics' or to be 'election focused' with more of 'public affairs' than governance.

It is sad to state that 'free-giving' has become the major part of the manifestos presented by the leading parties, knowing the fact that the government cannot afford to waste money, just for nothing.

These leading parties have, never thought of any 'strategy', whereby employing those recipients of 'free-giving', gainfully, in order to get their service for the development of the country. Creating hypothetical situations, so as to prepare the public, psychologically to believe certain minor/isolated matters or events as national/serious problems, and vice versa using political platforms and media by the politicians is another gimmick in the political arena, today.

And, reflecting such situations in the manifesto while proposing various programs of 'free-giving', purported to be solutions, thereto is a 'crafty' exploitation in politics, by the leading parties.

What is evident from such hocus-pocus is that a problem, which is reckoned by a party, to be of high priority is a minor problem or is not a problem, at all to another. The bottom line is that all these are manipulations by the politicians to gain votes.

Intellectual politics

Criticizing the manifesto of a rival party is a democratic privilege than a right. But, it must be done, according to political 'ethics' and 'decorum' in a constructive way; and should not be done, just as a standard practice or for the sake of criticizing as done by the politicians, today.

Nevertheless, a manifesto, which is based on 'national politics' identifying the 'cause' of each problem and, by using 'strategies' will or cannot be subject to criticism because; a manifesto of such category is comprised 'intellectual' politics, which is superior than the politics of the most of politicians that of today.

Therefore, it is important that all the political parties must understand the 'actual' status of the country when evolving plans for the manifesto. In this context, the country needs to undergo overwhelming radical changes to overcome the present downfall.

An 'overall masterplan' must be drawn, integrating each individual plans, which must be designed, by using strategies to cover various domains of 'national importance' that lead to the progress and prosperity of the country; such as judiciary, politics, defence, economy, education, health and development, while identifying the obstacles that hinder such progress, such as indiscipline, the wastage by means of resources, time and efficiency at all levels and in all sectors/fields, corruption, and incompetence; to effect necessary 'reforms', thereto accordingly.

Hence; what must be propagated by the manifesto is the 'outline plan' of such a 'grand strategy'; and not a 'package' of promises similar to that of a manifesto presented by the leading political parties, today.

Propaganda

The source of expenses for propaganda depends on the party funds and donations/sponsorships made by the supportive business tycoons. It is a known fact that certain party stalwarts of business category, who act as the 'invisible hand' behind some parties, are learnt to be 'monopolising' not only the politics, also the manifestos of such parties as that of a case of business. Although the leading parties have been lavishly, wasting huge funds for propaganda, they, have suffered both victories and defeats, consecutively at previously held elections.

This clearly, signifies the fact that propaganda, by way of posters, placards, banners, cutouts and organising mass rallies, by bringing people from every nook and corner on hire basis is not the 'contributory factor' for gaining a clear mandate/majority votes.

The politicians, however seem to have not; or pretend to have not understood that the 'winning factor' at any election is the 'ordinary' citizens, who are not involved in any politics and are willing to express their mandate at the election. Due to the frustration in the field of politics the number of this factor is on the, ever increase, in large proportions.

Though various political parties anticipate/express possible victories by the party and 'likely' votes, and 'alliances', none of them could, ever expect how the said 'winning factor' is going to react at the election - so, this is, where the propaganda should be focused on; with a 'sound' action plan based on 'national politics'.

Keeping this in view, why the politicians/party leadership cannot deliberate on something more effective, but cost less than that of posters; i.e. establishing a 'link' with the 'winning factor' on electoral basis, by mailing party information, manifestos, etc to their addresses obtained from the GS.

Loss of statesmanship

The cost incurred, in this effort will not be a waste as it goes to the postal department.

And, this system will be both 'informative' and 'educative', and above all, it will conduce towards a great psychological impact on the public than any other means of propaganda.

The politics being such an interesting and educative subject and a prestige affair, why the 'ordinary' people, today loathe both politics and politicians, in general? Who made them feel so? Who turned political 'statesmanship' to gossips, slandering, satire, thuggery, vandalism and, even extravagances at 'state cost'; thus forcing the people out of politics and limiting them, only to the polling booth.

Is this not the reason why the 'ordinary' citizens won't engage in politics and, even dislike to talk about the same in the open? Is this not the reason why the politicians have to go, in search of supporters and to hire people, today? So, who created this status-quo?

Why can't the parties resort to 'peaceful' means of propaganda, using the postal service, both printed and electronic media, IT, literature, etc and organising meetings at grass roots levels by effective canvassing systems, and thus limiting the use of posters, cutouts, banners, etc to places where its necessary.

However, the failure to apply the art, techniques and science of 'good' governance with no strategies of geo'/military/'admin'/'eco'/'socio' politics, etc whatsoever when formulating a manifesto and the manner, by which the campaigns are under way, at present exemplify how 'unprofessional' the politicians are, in the field of politics, while revelling the fact that none of the political parties, today do possess the both 'capability' and 'suitability' in governance.

www.ceylincoproperties.com

| News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security |
| Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries | Junior Observer |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager