~
Do you agree that the concept of hereditary governance is a concept that has led to failure in Sri Lanka? because I see that many leadership thrones that fall to their descendants do not necessarily bring a better situation. This kind of era should no longer happen.
It depends on what kind of governance we're talking about.
The one where the brothers are changing roles from president to prime minister and letting their "brilliant" sons in place while they flee the country is rotten to the core.
On the other hand, I find a case for monarchies, at least in Europe where they have limited to zero power they are filling the position of the president, so there is no need for a useless election, if a party has 60% they will get both president and parliament and prime minister so the separation of power is a joke.
But strictly to the matters at hand, there shouldn't be any hereditary kind of governance anywhere, there are cases where the son of a politician was far better than his father, and actually helped the country a lot but that still doesn't matter he was the best choice.
What if Sri Lanka adopts Bitcoin, because inflation is so high and bloated the solution is to use alternative payments outside of policies related to centralized institutions.
If Sri Lanka adopts gold, dollars, diamonds, bitcoin, dogecoin, it will be the same.
For you to adopt something you first need that currency, which you can't buy because you're bankrupt, so you have to print more useless money to buy a foreign asset with a price in $ all the while driving inflation up and rendering your currency worthless, by the time you manage to get enough hard currency ($,
BTC, gold) in the country you're as poor as the definition of poverty allows.
One should look at the Weimar Republic for this, the country had to pay a debt in $, they needed $ but they didn't have any so they had to print money to get $, what happened, is in the history books. Sri Lanka or any other country on the verge of collapse will follow the same path if it tries this move.