Recently, we have seen the media extensively cover the asset declarations of Presidential candidates. Simultaneously, there is also significant coverage of the promises made by various candidates regarding their potential presidency.
These two factors provide an opportunity for the country’s political parties and their candidates to clarify their true stance on system change following the Presidential election. This system change, which was widely discussed during the Aragalaya protests, will help reveal the genuine intentions of the candidates regarding potential reforms.
The CIABOC recently released information on their website where the public can access the asset declarations of Presidential candidates. As a result, both journalists and many other persons appear to have visited these sites to review the available information. Some newspapers have obtained and published detailed information about the Presidential candidates, including their monthly income, loans, cash on hand, and amounts lent. Details regarding the assets and gold holdings of the candidates’ spouses have also been made public.
I hope readers will recall the recent discussions about the Presidential elections and the submission of asset declarations. Previously, media reports highlighted how some candidates failed to submit their asset declarations during the parliamentary elections.
Given this context, it raises the question: why are all candidates now submitting and making their asset declarations public?
During the Aragalaya protests, there were widespread discussions about the need for a system change, with various interpretations of what this change should entail. As a result, it is anticipated that many of the policy statements in this year’s Presidential election will include proposals on how to implement such system changes.
Certain sectors
Despite this, I believe the Presidential election will reveal information about system changes in certain sectors before the election takes place. While various rules regarding the submission of asset declarations for Presidential, general, Provincial Council, and local Government elections have been published, there was a lack of consistent compliance with these requirements.
The reason for this discrepancy is that candidates have historically found ways to circumvent laws and regulations regarding asset declarations.
However, a significant change has occurred in this Presidential election: all candidates have submitted their asset declarations alongside their nominations. Previously, these declarations were sealed and kept confidential, limiting public access. Now, the public has the opportunity to view these documents, providing greater transparency.
This is an example of how system changes should be implemented. Today, we are witnessing a notable shift in a matter that has been widely discussed in society. The Government under President Ranil Wickremesinghe introduced these changes, focusing on passing new anti-corruption laws and revising asset declaration regulations.
Previously, politicians and Government officials were required to submit asset declarations, but the penalty for non-compliance was a fine of less than Rs. 5,000. This low penalty apparently led some to choose paying the fine over submitting their declarations. To address this issue, the Government has developed an agenda for implementing a robust anti-corruption policy and has received Cabinet approval for it.
By rigorously enforcing an anti-corruption policy, the Government has introduced a new system that effectively combats corruption. This represents what system change is truly about. Under this new framework, even President Ranil Wickremesinghe is required to submit his asset declarations alongside other candidates. A method for making these asset statements public has been established. This level of transparency and accountability is unprecedented.
Despite these advancements, observing the platforms of this year’s Presidential election will reveal whether the main candidates are genuinely prepared for system change.
Slander
The election campaign has featured a mix of promises to the public, malicious accusations or slander against other candidates, and allegations of illegal acts or bribes. These factors will help determine the candidates’ true commitment to meaningful reform.
Even parties that have advocated for system change appear to struggle with moving away from the old, traditional electoral system. For instance, a party that has garnered support from the country’s youth with promises of systemic change seems unable to implement those changes effectively.
This highlights the challenges in transitioning to a new system despite the promises made. The party has promised to provide Rs. 15 000 to the poor, reduce VAT on food and drink, and lower fuel and electricity bills.
Certain election monitoring organisations have labelled the government’s appointment of two new State Ministers and the decision to increase public servant salaries starting January 2025, based on an expert committee’s recommendations, as illegal actions. The Election Commission has decided to halt the increased pension payments to pensioners from September and resume them in October.
If such actions are deemed inappropriate in the context of elections, then distributing Rs. 150,000 to everyone and reducing taxes could also be viewed as illegal activities. This situation highlights how certain parties cling to traditional methods and their struggle to implement meaningful change.
This issue is not confined to just the party I mentioned. I highlighted that party’s policies because many young people are hopeful that it will drive systemic change. However, it appears that the other main political parties are also reluctant to move away from the current situation.
Another major party, which is well-positioned to win the Presidency, seems poised to offer a series of promises to the public rather than committing to real change. It appears that while the party promises jobs, salary increases, and land, it also extends its commitments to specific provinces. Despite these assurances, it seems that none of the mentioned parties are truly prepared to effect a systemic change in the country.
At the same time, while some in our society advocate for systemic change, there are concerns about whether they fully understand what such a change entails. For instance, Ranil Wickremesinghe has long emphasised the importance of agricultural modernisation, believing that the sector cannot progress without it.
He used examples like chewing gum and bracelets to illustrate how modernisation could transform the lives of farmers, but many did not grasp his point and instead ridiculed him. Similarly, his emphasis on developing Wi-Fi to improve communication in remote areas was also mocked by some. Despite his efforts to highlight the importance of agricultural modernisation, his ideas were not well understood or taken seriously by the public.
He has made modernisation his primary goal, but those who have not embraced modernisation often struggle to understand it. Parties that have not modernised remain entrenched in traditional tribalism. For example, one party that promotes university innovation has entirely banned political activities from other parties within universities.
It seems that some people are willing to support tribal parties in the hope of achieving system change, despite not recognising the difference between modernisation and tribalism. This lack of distinction can undermine efforts to bring about genuine reform.
