By Vishwamithra –

“A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true.” ~ Socrates

The National People’s Power (NPP) needs to refine their messaging; if they are advocating for a system change, they need to define the system that they want to change; and they also need to define the contours of the system they are getting ready to replace the old system with. They simply cannot underestimate the wisdom and intelligence of the masses. They are much more suspicious and doubtful about politicians now. That is indeed owing to the Aragalaya-22 and its intense pronunciations and declarations. Remember, they chased one President away, for that matter, from the shores of the country!

Pronunciations and declarations apart, mere optics of a political slogan will not carry votes to the polling booth on the election day. To motivate and inspire the voter to vote for a very profound and fundamental issue like a system change requires much more than a slogan or some pontificating from atop a platform. The real and only challenge the NPP is confronted with today has nothing to do with  their oratorical skills; nor is it a dearth of men and women attending their mammoth rallies. Rallies and speaking skills are very much in display today. It’s the substance and its veracity and its authenticity that the masses must be convinced of.

System change, in fact, challenges any savant today in that, failure of a 76-year old set of governing methods and economic principles and their enactments could be questioned from top to bottom and all lateral ways. But a more profound analysis might direct one’s finger towards those who were engaged in the very workings of that failed system. Then the question emerges whether it was the system or those who were deeply involved in the system from the beginning to the end; whether the real problem lay in the personalities and their idiosyncrasies that defined, created and eventually shaped  the system that they were in charge.

Yet again, when one pays attention in exclusion to the individuals without any reference to the systems that they were so deeply engrossed in, one might miss the whole point because such a pursuit after the men and women who actually man the various epicenters of the system, would certainly end up in an unpleasant exchange of verbal and written garbage against one another. Critique of personalities is so much easier than an unbiased peep into the systems that sustain the systems. Vituperative politics totally devoid of provable facts and figures tends to shade the real emblematic paradigm of a given issue. Politician after politician, whether inside the walls of Parliament or outside on the platform, have resorted to this destructive aspect of critical thinking process.

Being utterly ignorant of the immediate necessities and intrinsically bent on going after the opponents for lack of hard and cruel facts, our politicians, more often than not, sought refuge under the umbrella of criticism and debased the very sanctity of a noble profession like politics. Such cynical approach by most of our politicians has really desecrated the very soil that they tread on. It is a real tragedy. And it is in the context of this tragic circumstance a system change is being demanded by our youth.

The youth of today sees that there is something radically wrong and they argue amongst themselves, debate and even question their parents and when they get no credible answer, they tend to ponder as to the legitimacy and validity of the machineries that have produced this enormously self-destructive and incorrigibly back-spinning societal dynamic. They see the results and effects of a set of government and non-government machineries that have continuously contributed to this financially bankrupt, culturally empty and politically corrupt social paradigm. That paradigm is called the system.

Those who have not had the training or erudition of a college professor, might not be able to articulate the nuances and inscrutable designs of a given social paradigm; but they see all the signals and aftereffects of that system that has failed the country. It is not only the present-day young generation that this system or the collection of those sociopolitical, cultural and economic forces have brought to the edge of patience and the brink of disaster. The nation’s leaders and their very credibility as decent human beings and her future as one that could be held out with at least a modicum of comforts for the middleclass and lower middleclass segments of the country are in question today. The youth, when they cannot see and experience the actual spinning of the various forces that run a country, begin to wonder whether the existing apparatus is working. And to their dismay, they discover it is not so.

When such consummately ironical dynamic embraces the country, those who govern first look for excuses and thereafter for someone to blame the crisis for. But this time the youth obviously have already decided that it is not only the systems that govern our economy and the whole sociopolitical life, but also those who have been responsible as elected leaders who should be held to account for the debacle.

Then the task for those who desire to come for power is exponentially tougher. This is what the NPP must bear in mind. They need to define in more specific terms as to what that system is which they want to replace. Without bantering on the ill-effects of that system, a more clearly identified and defined set or one single system that they want to oust and do away with. If such a system consists of various institutions that exclusively cater for the degeneration of our governance behavior, then they must identify them; what precisely has caused the decline of our cultural and socioeconomic paradigm; if its source is our constitution, then they must say so and identify them by chapter, article and verse which is at the root of our national decline. Not only the punditry and some clever journalists would seek answer to them, a fair segment of the masses too shall demand such clear, sharp and clever answers from the NPP.

If the above is achieved, then comes the more challenging part: the replacement. What constitutes the replacement system. How does that system or systems that are supposed to replace the old look like? How does one establish such a system? It is merely an amendment to our present constitution? Is it a totally a new constitution with a totally new inner core and an outer veneer that would not only appear and appeal as somewhat satisfactory but in real sense of the word brand new and completely fresh outcome of fresh thinking. What new institutions are being planned to be established in order to curtail, if not eradicate corruption. How could the country’s GDP be maintained and make it grow and in what measure? What institutions can handle the education issue which is at the root of all our problems relating to societal intercourse and self-confidence of our student population? A philosophical analysis and an erudite explanation of a country’s issues and how such issues could be resolved without causing great hardship to the most vulnerable segments of our population.

Rudimentary offer of piecemeal solutions to some burning problems will not do. If the NPP gets caught up in such an unprofessional presentation of piecemeal solutions, the masses will recognize it as piecemeal and turn the other way and opt for the continuation of the status quo. The NPP might not accept this line of argument, but taken in the context of the current voter base, it is more than tough to argue against it. Masses would always seek refuge in the known devil than the unknown angel!

Change of a system is more than a slogan. It is a change that contains within itself not only the resolving measures of the current issue, it is taking a wholly new path without knowing what awaits at the end. The youth usually would get immediately attracted towards the concept of change with a strong and unyielding sense of romanticism. That doggedness keeps them bound to the ideal they choose without much questioning and deep inquiry. But the country is not only our youth. True, it is the youth that always lends a leading role to any change, but a journey begun on a foggy morning might ultimately lead to the other side of nowhere.

In the organization sphere, have the foot-soldiers of the NPP been trained in the art and science of door-to-door canvassing and also, in the manner and shape of holding pocket-meetings, have they  been adequately supplied with the substance and material that needs to be imparted into the minds of the voter? From now on, it’s a continuing story of campaign, campaign and campaign. No rest for the tired and weary. What structures are there within the NPP that could handle door-to-door canvasing? In the traditional parties such as the UNP, SJB and SLPP, there are party branches, at least they say so. Is there an alternative structure or a sub-structure within the party that the NPP leadership can satisfy itself that they could delegate it to these sub-structures and get involved in more macro activities such as policy-drafting, mass rallies etc.

System change is no mean task; nor is it a mere slogan. It is a giant step towards a new beginning. If you have any doubts, then don’t venture into it and make a whole new mess. Because the new system might look like and, in fact, be a worse alternative.

*The writer can be contacted at vishwamithra1984@gmail.com