An election about to be molested

"Civil society'' is a jaunty term that's a favorite of , er, civil society spokespersons. In Sinhala "civila samajaya'' is evocative to some people, say, as "sahodraya'' was in the time of the old left.

These days, or so say the globalization experts, civil society is supposed to takeover everything from running schools, to running vital sectors of the economy. In that sense, civil society becomes one of those nothing terms, jargon used in the vast lexicon of globalization to gradually hand over the running of countries to vested interests.

In Sri Lanka, this "civil society'' has been distinguished by its vagueness. Take the elections that are coming. All forces are moving to hijack these elections – and the transfer of around 60 police officers last week was the most flagrant transparent move made towards this end.

But yet, come election day, a few election watch groups are poised to face down these dacoits of the police. "Civil society'' as we know it is in hiding, perhaps preparing for the statement to be released when the election results have been declared and there is obvious fraud. 

In this way, one can see that "civil society'' in Sri Lanka is essentially an engineered civil society. It has persons who are paid operatives, who are essentially in it for the money. It's a poor country of course, and whatever the bandwagon it is, holding hands for peace, declaring war on coal power plants, there are thousands ready to get on it for the buckshee.

This is why there are no charismatic leaders in Sri Lankan civil society. A. T. Ariyaratne can win a Magsaysay award, but he is about as charismatic as a carrot. This is not to say that Ariyaratne is a paid operative, let's reserve comment on that. But, paid operatives are generally not charismatic, and Sri Lankan civil society is peopled by paid operatives whose job is essentially governed by one credo — take the money and run.

This is why even S. B. Dissanayake can become an advocate today for free and fair elections! The genuine plaintive cry of civil society is missing. There is no SMS campaign, as in the Philippines, amassing a public bulwark against the forces of state dacoitry.

If politics cannot throw up charismatic leaders on the one hand, it may be fair to ask how can civil society do it? In one way, the most "watchable'' face in the crew of crooks and candidates in politics today seems to be S. B. Dissanayake, and that's probably the best way of saying that our vibrant democracy has gone irredeemably mad.

If civil society would have thrown up charismatic leadership, it is unlikely that those such as S. B. Dissanayake would be calling the shots in the nation today.

This is an era that is being almost defined by people's perception of "what might have been.'' People, not just hand holding people, but all people talk of what might have been if there had been no war in this country. People talk of what might have been if there was no election rigging, if there were no power cuts, if there was no corruption.

Nobody says "what might have been'' if there was more charismatic leadership — Charisma is not a quantity that is talked about in this whole equation. Charisma is too abstruse - it is for the nut cases.

But, for a struggling third world country, as beset with problems as say, Mexico or Nepal or any pother place, charisma is one commodity that can do the difference.

Che Guvera was charismatic. Castro is undoubtedly the Clinton of the charismatic antipode to the West — - and he knows better uses for the Havana cigar than Clinton ever did.

But, Sri Lanka doesn't even need an ideological charismatic of the "woe is the West'' type of Guvera and Castro. Not that there are no merits in having these types, but the point to be made is entirely different here. We don't even have ordinary charismatics, except those from the churches who speak in tongues. Charisma is dead, both in civil society and in electoral politics, which is why those in it openly for the cash 

(parliamentarians) and those in it covertly for the cash ( civil society operatives) are unable to inspire the people after a cause.

That's perhaps the saddest thing about these elections — even sadder perhaps than the fact that around 50 people at least are going to lose their lives fighting the inevitable clashes of these polls. Civil society must find it's voice, but not from among the bars and the sushi clubs where the civil society leaders are holed up now — perhaps talking of S. B. Dissanayake with a tot of whiskey in hand. Civil society has to be inspired in the form of a man — one man, two men — perhaps a woman like Aung San Su Kyui of Burma — who can inspire the people and amass a critical mass of dissent to rise up against state dacoitry in these elections so that a clean verdict can be delivered.