Sunday Times 2
Challenging a supremacist
Months of speculation, political manoeuvring and gamesmanship have ended with Maithripala Sirisena emerging as the common presidential candidate. An implosion at the very centre of the UPFA has produced an unlikely challenge, to the incumbent’s self-assumed ownership of the most vital public office in the country.
Let me quote myself (OF TRAITORS AND PATRIOTS – ISLAND , 02/08/10);
“Since the conclusion of the Eelam conflict, there has been the steady development of a personality cult, the deification of President Rajapaksa, hand -in -hand with the demonization of all his opponents. The office of the President has been consumed by the man and the man has become the office. Rajapaksa and aligned forces represent patriotism and all forms of dissent become equivalent to betrayal of the country. It is a milieu in which democratic norms cannot survive for long and, invariably, precede a descent in to totalitarianism.”
To my mind, the conduct of governance in this country since the above was written, totally justify the apprehensions I then entertained.
The governance of this country is in the hands of one family, with fringe benefits for its relatives, friends and hangers-on. The judiciary is pliant, the armed forces submissive, the Police compliant and the public administration partisan. The will of the ruler and, through him, that of the family and their cohorts supersede both the law and public interest. What we have in this country, self- proclaimed by the regime as the “Miracle of Asia”, is in reality, the sovereignty of one family.
President Rajapaksa
The official response to Sirisena’s candidacy reinforces my view that the present incumbent sincerely believes that he is ruling by divine right and not by the peoples’ will. Sirisena’s announcement has been greeted, by the President and his spokesmen, with derision, suspicion, amusement, amazement, anger and pity. “How dare he dispute my inviolable right to this position?” is the message. Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s analysis of this situation, delivered through the “Jana Handa” programme on November 24, was both precise and comprehensive. Unsurprisingly, this new development is proclaimed to be a conspiracy, supported by unnamed NGOs, foreign missions and the Diaspora; the usual suspects are being paraded again. When a citizen presenting himself before the people for election to a public office, is seen as a conspirator or a traitor, the sanity of the opponents comes in to serious question.
Sirisena’s defection, literally a ‘Revolt in the Temple’, is a consequence of the style of Rajapaksa governance since 2005; the empowerment and enrichment of the family and cohorts and the corresponding disempowerment of the government machine proper. This regime has channeled its energies and resources in to certain key areas; massive infrastructure projects, mega urban development initiatives in association with foreign business moguls, the enlargement of the defence budget despite the elimination of all possible internal threats to national security, combined with the suppression of dissent and the subjugation — I use the latter word with intent and calculation — of all minorities.
It has built a sea port with limited access, an airport where no planes land unless by coercion and it runs two airline, the combined annual losses of which are equivalent to the gross national product of a small country; it is engaged in highly controversial urban and city development projects which focuses on gaming and the dredging of the sea to build a port city. Against the massive expenditure on such projects, with absolutely no trickle-down benefits to the greater mass of the country’s citizens, initiatives to improve education, health and agriculture remain marginal. Its human rights record is abysmal and a warped foreign relations policy, articulated largely by family connected incompetents, has succeeded in isolating Sri Lanka internationally.
Mahinda Rajapaksa provided the political leadership which made a major contribution to the defeat of the LTTE and the ending of a 30-year conflict. It is an achievement for which he must, and will, always be remembered. But, is gratitude for that one act reason enough for the country to overlook the excesses of two terms? Does that gratitude provide an increasingly autocratic and undemocratic leader the licence to treat a country as a personal fiefdom? And, more importantly, does the style of governance of the preceding decade offer hope of a change in policy that a Rajapaksa third term is in the best interests of the country?
Within the next four weeks the voters need to consider their options in the above context. The voters need to understand that a Rajapaksa third term will see the fruition of the ongoing Rajapaksa project; the assurance of dynastic succession and extension of family rule through the elimination of all forms of democratic opposition.
The combined opposition, still lacking in cohesion and strategic direction, has a long road to travel in a very short space of time. The JVP, despite Anura Kumara Dissnayake’s participation in Sirisena’s first major TV conference, has stopped short of underwriting Sirisena’s candidacy but is unequivocal in calling for Rajapaksa’s ouster. While, islandwide, the JVP vote base does not exceed 5 per cent, its highly disciplined political machine working against Rajapaksa at grassroots level, could contribute to a mood swing in favour of the challenger. As for the LSSP endorsement of the Rajapaksa candidacy, given its limited influence with the voting population, it is unlikely to make an appreciable contribution. The voters of Polonnaruwa and adjoining regions where most people live off the land, may be inclined to favour Sirisena, given the present regime’s relatively low contribution to the agricultural sector. The politically active segments of the Buddhist clergy, who wield a nationwide influence totally out of proportion with their practical contribution to governance, could make an appreciable difference on behalf of the candidate of their choice. The alignment of the tyrannically racist BBS with the incumbent, would reinforce the general perception that its hate-mongering strategies are government sanctioned and may push the Muslims closer to the challenger.
The Tamils and Muslims of the North and the East, perhaps 800,000 in number, demonstrated their total antipathy to the present regime at the last Provincial Council election and, since then, have not been provided sufficient reason to suffer a change of heart or mind. The restoration of gold ornaments to a couple of thousand Tamil citizens is seen for what it actually is; a transparently cheap political gimmick.
The TNA, too, must announce its stance without equivocating; trying to introduce conditions which the largely Sinhala/Buddhist vote base may find threatening would be inimical to its own interests. The Tamil polity must realise that demands originally backed by terrorism are unsustainable in peacetime. The Tamils of the central and adjoining provinces, consisting mostly of plantation workers, generally follow the diktats of the respective trade unions and are likely to be split evenly between the two contestants. The results of the recent Uva provincial elections would be a reasonably accurate pointer to the voting in those areas.
The critical factor in this election would be the weight of the UNP thrust in the campaign. The fragmented leadership of this party needs, in unison, to convince its 40 per cent vote base that it must go with the challenger. If more UPFA parliamentarians were to cross over in the weeks leading up to the election and participate vigorously in the challenger’s campaign, it is likely to drive a wedge in to the largely Sinhala- Buddhist platform which Rajapaksa so confidently straddles. For a variety of reasons, CBK and RW are politicians who have lost credibility with their respective vote bases. The undecided voter will question the wisdom of, or the need, for the restoration of either of them through a Sirisena presidency. The only reason for such voters to go with Sirisena would be an overriding antipathy to the Rajapaksa regime which, admittedly, has provided sufficient cause to alienate most right thinking people.
If all factors favourable to the challenger were to converge and create a timely critical mass, the incumbent will have both the time and the opportunity to contemplate, with regret, the regime’s indifference to the genuine grievances of the minorities, its total disregard for law and order and the Constitution, the empowerment of the first family, cronies, drug trafficking politicians, the criminalisation of the political machine, the impunity and lack of public accountability of the politically powerful and its disdainful dismissal of allegations of massive corruption in public spending.
There is yet another tantalising issue. Those accustomed to the use of unrestrained power do not surrender it with good grace. Even if he wins, Sirisena will have to wrest the executive authority from the holder; if he loses, he needs to bear in mind the fates that befell General Sarath Fonseka and Shirani Bandaranayake.
In this situation, what is important is to demonstrate to a ruler accustomed to absolute power, is the reality of public dissent. If the new scenario strengthens the opposition, even in a Rajapaksa third term, it may compel him to consider the need to re-introduce constitutional and judicial checks and balances which, automatically, will restore accountability for his own actions. What the all powerful incumbent needs to understand is that while he may own, and perhaps control, the present, the future belongs to history. No individual ruler, however Machiavellian, has ever been able to hold on to power permanently. Historical examples are too numerous to be quoted here.
Permit me to quote myself again (IMPUNITY AND CIVIC IRRESPONSIBILITY-ISLAND – 25/11/11);
“By both explicit and implicit endorsement of public misconduct and unlawful acts of its representatives, the regime has demonstrated absolute contempt for the society which it pretends to govern. The impotent public has, infrequently, reacted in the only way available to them, in mindless and futile outrage, such as attacks on police stations and other symbols of authority; spontaneous responses to criminal acts by the very institutions entrusted with their protection, which are not uncommon reactions in societies manacled by despotic rule……….The Arab Spring is unlikely to dawn in this country, yet. But equally strange things have happened here, events which cast their shadows long before their actual occurrence …….When the majority becomes convinced that they have been wronged and the only solution is to violently compel the rulers to sit up and take notice, its wrath will be less easy to appease than that of the minority”.
It is a terrible pity and a great shame, that his own compatriots should align themselves with his opponents, to strategise the downfall of the one man who could have, had he conducted himself as a genuine leader of all communities and not as a supremacist, been enshrined in history as, arguably, Sri Lanka’s finest leader since Independence. That lost opportunity cannot be regained.