However, the chaos and destruction that followed the defeat and removal of the regime has generally been interpreted as revealing an important technical ‘lesson to be learnt’ by the state building, this issue is not as a political problem of any cohering political force which could tie Sri Lankan society together and give its citizens a stake in its future, but as a technical problem of the sequencing and management of post-conflict political administrations.
Many critics of good governance regime’s policy and conduct, for example, argued that the good governance regime should have played a much larger role in the transition process and assisted the developing a rule of law programme (no results on previous regime corruption investigation), which could have prevented or ameliorated this much destruction while regime administered and advised by the more unpopular among general public specially the Sinhala Buddhists and organizations (national and international), it is unlikely that greater opportunity and involvement would have made much difference to the Sri Lankans, but where are we today?
Understanding of the rule of as asset solutions that can be drawn in internally without external pushers; law that is disassociated from the political process of consensus building and genuine social need is more a particularly when there is a question whether we need to gain the consent of elected or appointed representatives (what happened in Sri Lankan parliament recently) laws going against the will of elected representatives at state, entity and local levels-conflict ended showing the power of the rule of law.
Taking everything to consideration, the narrow understanding of both political parties, which is dismissed as irrelevant to general public needs, and of rule, which is seen as an off-the peg external solution, has little in common with the traditional liberal-democratic meaning of the rule of law. It is important to stress to develop the qualitative difference between the liberal-democratic approach (are able to get out of the neo-liberal approach today?), imposing a rights framework for the relevant groups and individuals of the political process of debate and consensus-building.
By virtue of the power, as every individual is to be concerned in relation to good governance initiatives, there is a clash and misunderstand between the demands of these programs, such as anti-corruption campaigns (one individual or small group of people cannot achieve), and the demands of politics by means of the public interest demands impartiality while politics would indeed not be necessary if all questions could be decided by the technical experts of good governance developing the correct law or ideal methodology of administration. As with all supports of good governance and anti-corruptions easily neglected by the political reality of the coalition and building individual interest of the cheap party political life in the country today.
As with all supports of good governance and anti-corruptions easily neglected by the political reality of the coalition and building individual interest of the cheap party political life in the country today
In favour of this politicization of process is clearly illustrated after having won the election in January 2015, as well as the issue of the political corruption was high on agenda as support of the representatives of national and international (only talking), there was not enough significant attempt to deal with the stranglehold the corrupted politician in the country on the part of these leaders and wash their hands off it by virtue of power vested upon them, where the three major parties have just decided to split up the country and themselves without considering the country’s need.
Respecting the country’s requirement today, we need an anti-politcal corruption campaign and holding Sri Lankan politicians to the highest standard of good governance should drive the political system today; there is to be strict control or regulation of the media; punishing political parties or elected representatives ‘obstructing’ progress (unfortunately not in Sri Lankan contest). The more restricted political sphere is, the less responsibility and accountability, elected representatives being able to build social bonds in divided Sri Lankan society for their individuals and group interests than national interest in the country.
Peace, trust and reconciliation is the most pressing need of the present circumstances; democracy is fine for developing a stable state, but its destabilization for a state which is failing or is making the transition from war to peace. In this assert elections are important - the goal is to promote the democracy after all, to achieve this political reconciliation and the development of a shared sense of political community should proceed towards competitive election - there must be moderate parties that also need popular support (not with the corrupted political groups or individuals) with the internal assistance, according to the prevailing situation in the country that is to be a long and complex process (a market economy and liberal democracy as the two preconditions for a stable peace; here we, misunderstand and misuse the process of transition from war to peace).
Considering the recent political chaos, the general public and political parties have to consider whom they would choose for high government positions. The fact that politicians’ immunity is now severely limited and case of criminal indictment would cause political parties and voters to think twice about electing individuals for high office, who have a questionable past or close connections with the corruption cases and the criminal world. If so, this would be the biggest step that has ever been taken to clean up Sri Lankan politics and would open the way to a new chapter. Honest and cleaner hands should take over the government in view to see a better future for the younger generation to live peacefully without considering the ethnic and religious differences as Sri Lankans.