What Is Political Hypocrisy

 By R.M.B Senanayake -June 26, 2013 

R.M.B. Senanayake

Mr. Gamanpila of the JHU, sees no wrong in canvassing for the abolition of the Provincial Councils while continuing to hold office there-in. He has declined to resign from his membership of the Provincial Council. What do we make of this behavior? Should not a person behave in accordance with his beliefs? In common parlance this is called political hypocrisy. The concept of hypocrisy originally arose in the theatre where persons who were acting pretended to act out a behavior which in reality they were not. People who play a part are potentially unreliable, because they have more than one face they can display. So does not his continuing to serve in a Provincial Council  mean that Mr. Gamanpila does not believe that the Provincial Councils are a useless burden and should be abolished?

Hypocrisy always involves some inconsistency in behavior and behavior which is not in keeping with one’s beliefs. The absence of self-awareness can turn into a kind of deception of oneself or the people. The only sympathetic view of such behavior is that it is due to some kind of self deception.

Any sort of person who says “do as I say, not as I do,” is a hypocrite. An alcoholic parent or a smoking parent who tells his grown up teenager not to drink or smoke is a hypocrite. A person who preaches the value of vegetarianism but himself eats meat is a hypocrite. People think that whatever your principles are, you should believe and act in accordance with them. In the modern sense, a hypocrite is someone who criticizes something that he also does, or someone who acts in a manner that he specifically does not condone. This is considered to be a bad thing, in most cases, and there are plenty of idioms that express it when someone is acting in this manner. “The pot calling the kettle black,” is a classic one, and “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones,” is an equally popular saying.

But in politics Machiavelli argued for political hypocrisy. He wrote that princes have to at the outset of their career lie and deceive people. He pointed out that such behavior is necessary during the early part of one’s political career where one is weak or dependent on others. He said in times of weakness or dependence hypocrisy is the preferred mode of conducting politics for republics as well as principalities. Machiavellian ethics are specifically political ethics and he argued that instead of applying a pre-determined set of moral values to politics as to every other activity or relation,  the Prince should follow a set of rules for political activity that are justified by the unique character of that activity (politics). Certainly, he believed that the idea that political morality can be boiled down to a set of all-purpose maxims is itself an illusion.

Campaigning for something you don’t act out is hypocrisy. People think that whatever your principles are, you should believe in them and you should in your behavior conform to them. But hypocrisy has also come to describe public statements of principle that do not coincide with an individual’s private practices—indeed, this is what we most often mean by hypocrisy today, where the duplicity lies not in the concealment of one’s personal beliefs but in the attempt to separate off one’s personal behavior from the standards that hold for everyone else.

Non-Partisan Boards Of Ministers For Provincial Councils – Good Bad Or Indifferent

By R.M.B Senanayake -June 25, 2013 

R.M.B. Senanayake

It is usual for public spirited citizens to bemoan the partisanship of the political process and suggest that the parties should get together to run the Administration after the rivalry and posturing of the political parties at the election is over. Mr. Ranil Wickremasinghe has echoed the same sentiment and suggested that the Board of Ministers in the Provincial Councils should be drawn from all the political parties on the plausible argument that it will ensure less division and more co-operation among the parties in the Provincial Council (PC). He is of course referring to coalition governments at the PC level.

But this is to ignore the fundamentals of human nature. The rational model of behavior by politicians who will put the public interest ahead of their personal and private interest has been exploded in the literature of economics. Politicians are as much driven by self interest and extraneous interests like other human beings and to expect a nobler ideal from them is naïve. This point was shown by the Public Choice theorists like James Buchanan the Nobel Laurelist.  George Washington despised political parties and some the Founding Fathers of the American Democracy thought political parties should be abolished. But this has not happened. They are as much a part of representative democracy.

It is generally argued that single majority party governments are better than coalitions because they enable faster and decision making since all the Ministers belong to the same political party, while coalition governments find it difficult to reach decisions and to co-ordinate policy decisions. The Ministers will be accountable to different party leaderships and the political process affects the governance process as well. Power will be further divided if there are Deputy Ministers drawn from a different party than that which the Minister belongs to.

What is important to consider is whether the governance process will be more likely to work in the public interest if there is a coalition government rather than a single party government at the sub-national level. Judging from the way the present regime has formed coalitions through the offer of Ministerial posts which carry many perks and allowances which the public are called upon to fund, this is unlikely to make things better for the people. They will have to cough up more money to fund these dudes. Of course if a single party does not get an outright majority coalitions are inevitable. But to think it is an ideal is wrong.

There is not enough information available about how the Chief Ministers and the Board of Ministers in a P.C functions. Is the Chief Minister acting like a Prime Minister in the Westminster model or like an Executive President in our Presidential system? If it is the latter then the Board of Ministers are a mere aide playing a subordinate role in governance. How important is the Board of Ministers in a PC?

Any Board of Ministers as a policy making body at the PC is likely to lack the knowledge of the subjects at issue as well as the necessary operating and management experience. Much will depend on the bureaucracy. If the bureaucracy is appointed on political patronage then it would be below par and it will be a case of the blind leading the blind. A Coalition is more likely to use patronage to staff the bureaucracy. The Ministries are not fixed by law and the present regime has shown how their number can be increased without any administrative or functional rationale. So there seems to be no particular merit in the proposal of R.W.