This narrative underscores the importance of addressing deep-rooted grievances and fostering inclusive governance to build trust and unity across ethnic and religious lines.
The expulsion of Gotabaya by Aragalysts was a grassroots uprising against perceived authoritarianism and oppression, challenging his leadership rather than being a racially motivated act by non-Sinhala-Buddhists, as he pathetically attempts to portray in his conspiracy theory.
He began his term by taking positive steps, such as forbidding the display of his photograph in state institutions, reducing his security detail, and downsizing his motorcade from seven to three vehicles
Two years after his ouster from office by a people’s movement, former President Gotabaya has attempted to defend himself by attributing his political downfall to a “conspiracy” involving foreign parties.
Despite advice from some members of his family and many competent advisors, he embraced the recommendations of some of the Viyathmaga ‘experts,’ including an abrupt ban on fertilizer use.
Bill Clinton wrote a book titled, “Back to Work: Why We Need Smart Government for a Strong Economy” presenting page after page of intelligent suggestions on how the US can reduce its crippling debt, create new jobs, and reinvigorate its position in the global economy, emphasizing a return to forward-thinking initiatives. Barack Obama’s book, ‘A Promised Land,’ manages to avoid being ponderous, as might be expected, and is always pleasurable to read.
Sentence by sentence, the prose is gorgeous in places, making it a captivating literary experience. Quite a few former Indian leaders wrote books, among them Abdul Kalam authored a ground-breaking vision document in 1998, offering a blueprint for India to ascend among the world’s top five economic powers by the year 2020.
Two years after his ouster from office by a people’s movement, former President Gotabaya has attempted to defend himself by attributing his political downfall to a “conspiracy” involving foreign parties. The frustrated electorate of Sri Lanka has made numerous misjudgements in their voting choices over the past 13 years. In 2010, they voted for a war-winning former army commander, albeit unsuccessfully. Five years later, they successfully voted for a significantly less conventional candidate to the high post. In 2019, they elected a non-political individual as their leader, believing he would bring competence to governance. They further solidified their support by granting his party a two-thirds majority in the following year.
Racist inclinations
In the book, Gotabaya extensively reveals his racist inclinations. His writings and statements within the book illuminate a pattern of discriminatory beliefs or actions towards certain ethnic or religious groups. These expressions of prejudice may manifest in various forms, such as derogatory remarks, biased policies, or exclusionary arrogance.
He began his term by taking positive steps, such as forbidding the display of his photograph in state institutions, reducing his security detail, and downsizing his motorcade from seven to three vehicles. He chose his private residence on the outskirts of the city as his primary residence. Furthermore, the designation of the plot as a ‘Protest site’ and its subsequent transformation into ‘Gota-Go-Gama’ by Aragalysts marked a significant moment in Sri Lanka’s political landscape. Then the Covid pandemic hit. As a former military officer, he swiftly mobilized his forces to successfully immunize the population.
Exploiting the two-thirds majority, he pushed through an amendment to the constitution aimed at enhancing the powers of the Executive Presidency. The expulsion of Gotabaya by Aragalysts was a grassroots uprising against perceived authoritarianism and oppression, challenging his leadership rather than being a racially motivated act by non-Sinhala-Buddhists, as he pathetically attempts to portray in his conspiracy theory. The Aragalysts comprised a diverse array of activists, intellectuals, and ordinary citizens, majority being Sinhala-Buddhists. They mobilized to challenge what they saw as a dangerous concentration of power in the hands of an individual deemed unfit to lead.
However, he fell into the trap laid by both the Opposition and his own ‘Viyathmaga D-rope’ associates, leading the country into various crises that severely impacted the economy. Despite advice from some members of his family and many competent advisors, he embraced the recommendations of some of the Viyathmaga ‘experts,’ including an abrupt ban on fertilizer use. Gotabaya’s proclamation that the transition to organic agriculture aligns with his election manifesto, ‘Vistas of Prosperity,’ is a fallacy. The manifesto says, the transition would take place within a decade and the expedition of organic fertilizer production does not justify the abrupt ban implemented by him.
Hurried solutions
His approach, as described under ‘Organic Fertilizer’, reflects an inclination to adopt ideas without thorough consideration of context or discussion. Whether prompted by external suggestions or personal conviction, he has been known to impose bans abruptly, without prior study or expert input. He tends to address issues with hurried solutions like importing organic fertilizer, even at the expense of declining Dollar reserves.
This decision, along with others influenced by fiscal and economic advisors, resulted in significant harm and contributed to the country’s financial instability, verging on bankruptcy.
The military man’s downfall wasn’t orchestrated through some intricate conspiracy but rather emerged from a complex interplay of factors. His leadership was marred by an arrogant communication style and a domineering approach that exacerbated existing tensions. Instead of fostering open dialogue and collaboration, he often dismissed opposing viewpoints with disdain, alienating those who dared to challenge his decisions. This autocratic conduct not only stifled dissent but also hindered the constructive exchange of ideas necessary for effective governance.
Furthermore, Gotabaya’s apparent ignorance of certain issues, coupled with his overbearing arrogance, created a deadly combination that eroded public trust and confidence.
Lack of understanding
Despite his claims of competence, his actions consistently betrayed a lack of understanding of key issues and a disregard for expert advice. Ultimately, this irrationality, arrogance, and incompetence proved to be intolerable for the people. Their patience wore thin as they witnessed the consequences of Gotabaya’s flawed leadership in long queues for fuel, gas and medicines. While some may have initially supported him in the hope of positive change, the reality of his governance fell short of expectations. Consequently, his removal from power was a reflection of the collective disillusionment and frustration felt by the united sovereign citizens.
Gotabaya asserts that a multitude of factors contributed to the unified opposition against him from the Tamil, Muslims and Catholics communities. The former President believes he was ousted from power by non-Sinhala Buddhist extremists. This perspective suggests a perception of being targeted by groups outside the dominant Sinhala Buddhist demographic, implying a narrative of external threats and persecution. He suggests that this opposition may have been fueled by the apprehension that his continued tenure would further empower the Sinhala Buddhist majority at the expense of minority interests. This narrative underscores the importance of addressing deep-rooted grievances and fostering inclusive governance to build trust and unity across ethnic and religious lines. It highlights the need for political leadership that prioritizes the concerns and aspirations of all communities, working towards a more equitable and harmonious society.
In reality, Gotabaya’s ousting from the presidency was a result of the unarmed citizenry mobilizing ‘people’s power’, fueled by a collective sense of dissatisfaction with his leadership. Had Gotabaya possessed wisdom, he would have recognized that Sri Lanka is not a military base but a democratic country, wherein the citizens hold sovereignty. If one delves into the issues raised by Gotabaya in his “conspiracy theory,” it becomes evident that the people elected President lacked even a fundamental understanding of statecraft. Despite being elected by a substantial majority of voters, amounting to sixty-nine lakhs, Gotabaya’s actions and statements betray a lack of rational vision and strategic judgement necessary for effective governance. His narrative may overlook the broader socio-political dynamics and grievances that led to his removal from power. It may downplay or ignore legitimate concerns and criticisms raised by diverse segments of the population, including those from minority communities, regarding his governance, policies, and leadership style.
It is essential to engage in constructive dialogue and address the underlying issues that contribute to social and political discord in order to build a more inclusive and harmonious society.
kksperera1@gmail.com
