Is Regime-Change Alone The Answer?

By Chrishmal Warnasuriya –January 6, 2017

Chrishmal Warnasuriya

Two Years On Since Our ‘Silent Revolution’

Soon we will celebrate the 2nd anniversary of our Peoples Revolution of 8th January 2015, one which this writer himself described as “our third independence” in its immediate aftermath; having played at least some minor role in overthrowing a manifestly despotic, fearfully oppressive and overtly nepotistic regime that was said to be insuperable at the time. Therefore it is prudent and our duty to look-back and critically evaluate what we have (or have not) secured with that change; as that common saying goes these days – sathutui da den (are you happy now)?

A resounding “YES” is the answer for the basic freedoms we have managed to secure, which is evident in the thousands of voices springing up daily, both as collectives or individuals under the common theme of “civil society”; many who were too fearful to speak-up during that period of “white vans” but who have now found a democratic way of expression. However is that freedom of speech and expression alone sufficient? Do we allow several political cronies who were carried to office on the shoulders of the common man to now shirk their responsibilities by simply showing us that “freedom-candy” and continue in the same corrupt bandwagon of merry-men; with absolutely no difference in the management (or mismanagement) of the State and its resources to that of the previous lot? This is a question that we must collectively answer!

I, Myself & Me – Personality Variables Superseding Public Need

In the scientific study of foreign policy and global politics, we are confronted with a theory by James Rosenau that role variables of leaders in smaller or developing countries play a significant part in the behaviour of nation-states. This can be seen in our comparative political history too, as for instance between the statesmen in premier SWRD or President JRJ who opted for less “limelight” in their affairs to the more PR oriented tenures of Presidents Premadasa or Rajapakse; the latter pair predominantly playing to the “populace gallery” in managing the State where they were much loved by the masses.

These personal yearnings of leaders for attention, to garner credit for themselves for duties owed by the Institution are not only common to politics but unfortunately, filters down to the very root of most of our civil interactions. At the village level, in a temple or church (I’m more comfortable discussing the latter) even men of the cloak, from junior priests to Bishops would much rather be surrounded by sycophantic “yes-men” who will never dispute anything and thereby miserably fail to manage the Institution, where they could have delivered much better results had they worked with constructive critics with knowledge and erudition. The same is true for schools, principals or headmasters or any other such Institution; these same ego-centric desires have reached up to national level politics.

In such a backdrop, we need to question whether changing a regime alone without addressing these fundamental questions, by simply changing faces within the same old cancerous system without a conscious effort to cut-out that self-centredness of those assuming public office; will deliver to us the service standards commonly accepted as a benchmark by tax payers in any developed nation.

Read More