The Way Forward: Charismatic Leader Or Ordinary Citizens?

The By Ruvan Weerasinghe -April 20, 2015

Dr. Ruvan Weerasinghe

President of Sri Lanka for the next five years (assuming the constitutional reforms are passed in parliament) is Mr. Maithripala Sirisena. However, it appears that the new political race, precisely owing to the reforms, are for the Prime Minister post, and possibly that of the Leader of the Opposition. The same kind of politicking that was there for President, Chief Minister and Mayor is now being played out for the PM post! Even parties within the coalition, including the SLFP and the JHU appear to place their stakes on it, rather than being eager to usher in a new political culture, that this government got the mandate for. Quite ironically, it is those outside the government, namely the JVP and the TNA who see that the only absolute requirement before Parliamentary Elections are called, is to pass the 19th Amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka.

It appears from the conversations that I hear in public – particularly within party politics, but also in the corridors of education – that we Sri Lankans are hooked on the notion of a ‘strong leader’. What the leader stands for is almost secondary. The current President’s moderate and democratic rule is considered too ‘soft’ or ‘weak’ and not good for the country. We need a president who can ‘stand up to the Western powers’ is a common sentiment echoed across even the so called intelligentsia (misleading the general public to think that this is even possible for a county of our size). Dr Dayan Jayatillaka is probably one of the best examples of this

 admiration of near-dictatorial leadership as the ‘need of the hour’ (not to mention decade). It seem as if our culture is hard-wired to hero worship such leaders. Any other model of leadership is considered inferior and weak.

This model of leadership has been described using the ‘bus driver’ (and passengers) analogy. The leader is perceived as the bus driver who knows where we are headed, so the passengers (the citizens in our analogy) can be as disinterested as they need to be. Even those concerned about where we’re headed may only make their opinions known, if their opinions are sought, not otherwise. This model is safe as long as the driver is honest in seeking the best interests of all their passengers equally. It has a single point of failure – the driver, and their decision making. It carries the risk that we’d only be aware of being driven to a place far from ideal, far too late. And even in that case, to convince the driver would take too much effort, since they have already been given the mandate to take us to where we thought they would be good for us. Listening to the opinions of the passengers is strictly optional, often considered unnecessary.                                 Read More