I’ve thought more about the argument you’ve raised, on the importance of indicating that we, the citizens, are in charge. I initially felt that it was a very powerful argument – similar in nature to reinforcement learning if you will. However, the more I think of it, the more I realize that some vital factors are being overlooked.

You’ve indicated that we should indicate our displeasure at bad governance. Sounds reasonable. How then, should we indicate our appreciation of good governance? Is that not a factor? In the past 30 years, MR is the only president to have had the backbone to finish the war with the LTTE. The end of the war may have saved countless lives in the long run, removed the long standing excuse for failure to address other critical issues and given our country a real chance to develop. Would you agree with that?

So how should we indicate our appreciation to the incumbent for at least partially solving *the* major hurdle to further development of this country? Or should we be conveying the idea that, it’s ok to not solve our major problems, just hang around, wait for your turn and don’t be too greedy when it’s your chance to plunder.

And this is precisely the issue with RW. Take a look at this video to see what I mean.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNm4YlQiefo

Is this the kind of invertebrate behaviour we should be rewarding? In the process of punishing MR, are we not encouraging these unprincipled individuals to keep taking the public for a ride by manufacturing candidates of dubious utility to compete on their behalf?

My point is this, this issue isn’t as clean and black and white as we would like it to be. This is a deeply disappointing and catastrophic situation. After 30 years, we have a golden chance to bring about reconciliation, to propel our country into a real phase of development. Yet, here we are, staring in disbelief at this bleak and pathetic state of affairs. The incumbent has severe flaws, I don’t disagree. The opposition is arguably even more useless. and I’m having a really hard time seeing a silver lining in the cloud.

The main candidates and their supporters/spokespersons are misleading the public by talking about putting an ‘X’ on the ballot paper – thus depriving people of their legal right to indicate a preference between up to three candidates. It is a shame that the Elections Department and Elections Commissioner have not done more to make sure that the public are aware of how they should be voting – using ‘1’, ‘2’, and ‘3’ NOT an ‘X’.

You have covered many bases but I am not sure whether the average SL voter living away from urban areas have the capacity to evaluate and analyse the options/consequences before them. These voters are easily manipulated by a few promises and skewed propaganda for the bigger issues like corruption, nepotism, viable development policies and safeguarding democratic principles have little impact on their lives.

I wonder if any surveys have been done to gauge people’s attitude towards democracy and military rule?? I would not be surprised if a significant segment do not consider military rule to be a bad idea. If what we have right now is what we can realistically hope for in a “democracy”; can you really condemn a person for not having strong feelings against military rule?

An interesting post and you present some strong arguments. I was especially impressed by your closing point: “such a leader deserves a firm call for a reality check from the power-wielders: the citizenry.”

I think all of us would dearly like to give MR a reality check. It is clear that there are significant issues with the man and his government. However, in the process of giving him a reality check, how do you intend to ensure that it will not be us who end up receiving one?

Highly credible analysts, including Dayan J., have commented on the likelihood of SF going for military rule. One commentator on this forum, Travelling Academic, put it quite nicely by saying that “the only way of herding his cats, should he win, is martial law”. In such a scenario, there will be no democracy left to speak of and perhaps, no more elections to punish our leaders with.

That is the issue you have sidestepped in its entirety and dismissed as mere speculation. Such reasoning is clearly flawed. When electing any leader, we must make some estimate of that leader’s ability to deliver on those promises, the likely path that the leader is going to take etc.

You have speculated on the path that MR will take, such as with the 13th, which may be quite likely, but you do no such speculation on the path that SF will take, hoping that he will hold true to his promises.

This is what worries me personally. I doubt that anyone, other than the traditional and essentially pointless fixed vote block + assorted loons, would be particularly unwilling to get rid of MR and teach him a good lesson on who’s boss, if there was a credible alternative.

This is also precisely what we lack. Due to the absence of a credible opposition leader, they must now artificially create an untested, unpredictable and potentially dangerous “hero”, and we must now uncritically go along with such an appalling choice. Had SF not come into the fray and wooed the nationalist vote block, would we even be having this conversation on who’s going to win?

This is why you must address that issue if you are to make a credible case for SF. Otherwise, we will be leaping, in righteous indignation against MR, from the frying pan into the fire. It’s bad enough that we only have a travesty of democracy. I don’t want to see a complete absence of one in the process of teaching the incumbent a lesson.