Two broad issues – Sinhala Buddhist nationalism and economic prosperity-- frame the present campaign to elect a president, the same two issues that loomed large in the fateful election half a century ago. The first issue of course has an "economic" element, and the second a "cultural" one, but it is clear from the rhetoric of the two main campaigns that these are secondary and indeed trivial to the main preoccupation of each. So, the voter has a clear choice: he or she can vote either for culture and national identity on the one hand, or for a better standard of living on the other. In 1956 the representatives of the nationalist rural elite replaced the cosmopolitan western oriented elite as wielders of power. This change did nothing to alter the fate of the common people despite loud claims of a "people’s government". Indeed it is perfectly clear to any impartial observer that the common man is worse off today than he was in 1956, and since then, the country as a whole has deteriorated precipitously.

The country’s problems are numerous but they all emanate from one broad underlying factor, the disintegration of the foundations of social order. A solution to this problem requires systematic effort. Far from pledging to take on that effort, neither of the two major candidates seems to realise even the existence of such a problem. The ordinary responsible citizen however is well aware of it as reflected in the almost daily correspondence in the readers’ columns of the newspapers, and in ordinary conversation.

This problem is most clearly manifest in ill governance, which both major parties have been perpetuating, especially since 1956. Ill governance is rooted in the politicization of the major institutions of government and society, such as the public service, the judiciary, the police, the electoral process, the education system, the universities, the media, religion and art. In short, interference by politicians with the fair and efficient working of practically every state institution for the private benefit of themselves and their kith and kin, has not only disabled these institutions, but has led to the destruction of the moral fabric that underlies the social order. The ethnic problem as well as the failure to find a solution for it is part of this general malaise. The task of national reconstruction cannot be fully accomplished without a pervasive and effective depoliticization of these institutions, and giving them the chance to function efficiently and professionally.

Yet, a beginning can be made, and the most effective first step in that direction is the achievement of some degree of economic prosperity. It is the denial of opportunities for economic advancement that led to the radicalisation of the Tamil movement, which reminds us of the fundamentally economic nature of the ethnic problem. So are many other problems: they are wholly or mostly economic. If we succeed in making the country economically sound, a foundation would have been laid for the achievement of a healthy society.

The process of economic growth needs peace, and it is important that the country elects a candidate who is likely to achieve a stable and lasting peace. Here both President Chandrika Kumaratunga and opposition leader Ranil Wickremasinghe have shown vision and statesmanship. Ranil Wickremesinghe, in particular, deserves credit for the existing ceasefire which has saved hundreds, perhaps thousands, of lives.

Critics will point out the unabated killing sprees but we must look at the positive side: many more would have been killed if not for the ceasefire. Ranil Wickremesinghe can be relied upon to continue the process he started, and it is encouraging that he plans to enlist the advice and support of President Kumaratunga in that effort.

Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapakse has his own plans, no doubt sincere, to bring peace. The problem with his proposals is their utter simplemindedness and innocence of any realism. As reported in the press, Mahinda Rajapakse imagines direct face to face negotiations with the LTTE leader Prabhakaran, with his house open to the latter and vice versa. There is little problem in this position: the Prime Minister assumes that Prabhakaran will accept the invitation smilingly. Besides, Mahinda Rajapakse is burdened with bedfellows like the JVP and the JHU, who naively dream of an ‘ekiya’ (unitary) state which never existed in the entire history of our country except under British rule. The Prime Minister is silent on how he can reconcile his position with that of the JVP and the JHU. If elected, he will be dependent on these two hardline parties, and the only outcome that can follow is war. With war breaking out, the LTTE with its highly efficient propaganda machine, will regain the recognition of the international community it partially lost during the past several years, and will successfully portray itself as the champion of a minority oppressed by a hegemonic majority.

The economic policies, like all other policies, of a JVP/JHU/SLFP coalition are cast in a nationalist mode. Rationally viewed, this is to tag on a negative and distractive element into the sphere of the economic. This does not mean that the economy is independent of other social institutions.

Far from being so, it is integrated with the rest of the social order, and a rational view of economic development involves precisely taking this fact into full account. Indeed, not doing so has been the main weakness of economic planning in Sri Lanka, as in many other developing countries.

But the "social" is not the same as "national". There is nothing called national economics, contrary to the propaganda of the nationalists and their economists. "National economics" is nothing more than one more attempt to by the theoreticians of nationalist elite to keep the "children of 56" in ignorance, so that they can use the latter to gain their hegemonic ends. Misleading the youth is the most heinous crime that this theoretician elite has committed, and continues to commit. It is a crime equalled only by the oppression of the biological parents of these same youth by the rural elite whose spokesmen and urban representatives this theoretician elite is.

One aspect of "the social" in economic development in our society today is the need to accept the idea of a welfare safety net for the poor, and to ameliorate the problems of health, education, housing and transport for the general population, two considerations ignored by the previous Ranil Wickremesinghe government. It is this grave omission more than anything else that led to its defeat at the last parliamentary elections. I believe that the Ranil Wickremesinghe government ignored these important matters largely if not solely because of its extreme capitalistic and market orientation, and the related ideology that conceptualised the economic in abstract and doctrinaire terms. In a developmental context like that of Sri Lanka today, a safety net for the poor, and the amelioration of the living conditions for the general population, should not be considered negatively as a "handout" as neo-liberal capitalist ideology does, but as a positive input into the process of economic and social development that would more than compensate for this with drastic reduction, if not total elimination, of social unrest, and the creation of a healthy and contented workforce, both conducive to greater productivity and growth.

A Mahinda Rajapakse government saddled with the JVP and the JHU can only lead the country to war and economic ruin. This is not to say that a Ranil Wickremesinghe government is going to be perfect. But his manifesto at least mentions good governance, and his party seems to have learnt some lessons from it recent defeat.