Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

20 May  2019

The Value of  My  Vote

The Australian election outcomes as far as I am concerned were satisfactory – in the sense  - our electorate is represented by the party preferred by me. When I was active in Australian Administration, the national leader also mattered. Not so any more. Hence so long as the system works for me – I am satisfied. If it does not, I will express it at the following elections, by voting against that person and party at the top. By doing so, I tell myself that I am their opposition. This helps me preserve my ‘democratic rights’. The last minute lobbying confirms that the leaders seek to ‘influence’ the voter away from her/his inner truth. A voter who is so influenced – has no roots in democracy. A fellow member of Facebook raised the following question on the eve of the elections:

[Whoever wins this election tomorrow will they sustain through a full term without a leadership challenge until the next election? ]

My response was: [Bob Hawk was a survivor. One who has his true blessings will survive]

I believe that we need the blessings of our Common Elders in that issue to be supported to maintain that heritage.

This morning, I was directed to Professor David Kumar’s Colombo Telegraph  article ‘Is Choice Limited To Heartless Gota, Hopeless Ranil & Clueless Sira?’ opened as follows:

[Sun Tzu say: “If you know enemy and know yourself, no need fear hundred battles. If you know yourself but not enemy, for every victory you suffer one defeat. If you know neither enemy nor yourself, you succumb in every battle.”]

The title of the article gives one the message that all three leaders are the opposition of Professor David Kumar. Hence so long as Professor Kumar knows himself – there is no need to fear ongoing battles. If Professor Kumar knows himself but not the above mentioned leaders – then for every right prediction he would suffer one defeat. That is the parallel of ‘Time will tell’ in  autocracy. If Professor Kumar knows neither himself nor the opposition he has presented – then he would lose as a voter in every election.

In essence, we need to know ourselves so as to position ourselves either on the side of a leader or as the leader’s opposition. I believe that it is through our truth that we can know the other side. Those driven merely by outcomes – do not have this ability. Out of the above three – Mr Sirisena to my mind fits that category. The problem with that kind of person is that they are incapable of developing reliable  structures.  This has already been proven in the case of Mr Sirisena. Those who vote for him will get their share of that incapacity which often leads to mental disorders. There are many such voters in Vaddukoddai which did not sacrifice enough to sustain the Vaddukoddai Resolution structure. Sacrifice is essential to develop reliable structures. Structures facilitate positions, relationships and duties. When one performs one’s duties one is protected by the power of the sacrifice based on which such structures happened. One who does her/his duty – has the power to return to sender / leader and thus confirms the saying ‘If you know your enemy and know yourself, no need fear hundred battles’.

Since we have greater insight into Mr Gotabhaya as a citizen without portfolio, we would vote for him if we are users of ‘citizenships’ – as if they were trading commodities. Dual citizens affect both their nations and need double the commitment to respect common ownership. Those who vote for Mr Gotabhaya would also gamble with citizenships – especially in a new country. They would vote for neither Sri Lankan citizenship nor global citizenship.

Ranil is the closest  example of ‘If you know your enemy and know yourself, no need fear hundred battles’. Like Bob Hawk and now Morrison, he has staying power. He is the best facilitator of democracy that we have gotten to know thus far. Those who voter for Ranil will vote for non-violent  democratic political system.

Professor Kumar concludes as follows:

[A plural, democratic, modern and progressive philosophy cannot be stimulated in the country unless the Chapter on Buddhism is repealed by assertion of secularism and all differential or unbalanced references to language are removed.]

Only a very small minority refer to the Constitution. Out of those who do – a large majority do so for academic purposes and not because they believe in Democracy. A leader who repeals – would be committing political suicide. If ‘Buddhism foremost’ had been followed – Sri Lanka would not have been democratic but would have been in harmony with itself – as shown by Buddha. That article in the constitution confirms the truth – that we are autocratic. Even the academic pundits who seek to recommend that it be repealed are highly likely to be autocratic by getting the ‘right’ ticks with the Western world.

The parallel of the above in the Tamil community is the saying ‘LTTE  are heroes’. Given that the LTTE was dictatorial we know that they do not represent democracy, leave alone supporting democracy. But they are the weapon that Tamils have against Buddhist supremacy which would naturally invoke the equal and opposite in a community that is independent of Buddhists. But the good thing about it is – that the likes of LTTE keep the likes of ISIS away from Sri Lanka. Likewise, the Muslim parallel of LTTE – would keep Christian extremists like the Christchurch bomber away from Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka’s military capability has been extended to global level due to the LTTE and therefore Tamils. Let us stop using the Administrative tool of ‘right and wrong’ for grades and instead use the ownership power of knowing the connection between cause and effect. That is the karmic force that leads to true balance of powers in our mind.

My vote is for Ranil due to his non-violent sustaining power. Ranil facilitated many of us to participate through the lawful pathway  in the Constitutional Crisis and identify with its success. That was true and real example of self-governance.