Columns
Is Maithri being used?
View(s):
The presidential election campaign has moved into high gear with both the Government and opposition engaged in a hectic schedule of public rallies across the country. A high degree of public interest is evident, going by the crowds that pack the venues of both camps, come rain or shine. All of this points to a high-stakes contest that will be closely fought, with a real battle for the minds of voters.
The crossover circus reached fiasco proportions this week when a prospective candidate, a UPFA municipal councilor, turned up at a briefing arranged by the opposition and then began deriding his hosts and pledging undying support for the president. A ‘set-up’ in all likelihood, the incident demonstrates to the hapless public just how cynical the numbers game has become. Each time new crossovers are acquired, regardless of their status in the political hierarchy – be they party general secretaries, provincial councilors of pradeshiya sabha members – they are paraded like exhibits at media briefings. They then benefit from disproportionate levels of media exposure that they could never have dreamed of enjoying had they remained in their original camps. ‘Crossover fatigue’ has set in and the public are thoroughly weary of this routine.
Rajapaksa manifesto
President Mahinda Rajapaksa launched his election manifesto, ‘Mahinda Chinthana – Lova Dinana Maga’ (Path to win the world) on Tuesday, the same day that opposition candidate Maithripala Sirisena and UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe addressed the Colombo business community at the Cinnamon Lakeside hotel. The president’s manifesto, a more comprehensive document than that of the opposition released earlier, covered a gamut of subjects. While most of it seemed carefully prepared, Chapter 2 may have been a recent add-on in reply to the opposition manifesto that dwelt on ending corruption and reforming the executive presidency.
In this section Rajapaksa pledges to introduce a brand new constitution within a year through the setting up of a constituent assembly. The question in the minds of voters would be, why were these changes not introduced earlier? If the UPFA Government did not have the inclination to address issues relating to the executive presidency, the electoral system and good governance while it had a two thirds parliamentary majority, what reason is there to think it will do so after the election — when that majority may be either lost or in the balance? The announcement of a National Audit Commission to address irregularities in the public sector is not reassuring either, against the backdrop of difficulties experienced by COPE in getting its recommendations implemented. Similarly, assurances on safeguarding the minorities will be judged in the light of how the government handled recent incidents in Aluthgama.
Sirisena or Wickremesinghe?
The Government’s manifesto, however, comes out loud and clear in its commitment to national security, the unitary state and determination to protect the country from the ‘imperial jackboot.’ Here Rajapaksa is on terra firma, having done what no other leader could do, namely, ending the war against a deadly enemy and standing firm against external forces bent on reversing that victory. This also happens to be the area in which Sirisena’s manifesto (and campaign) is weakest.
As the opposition campaign progresses it becomes increasingly clear that its project is not so much about making Sirisena head of state, but bringing Ranil Wickremesinghe to power. This was evident at the Sirisena/Wickremesinghe meeting with business leaders on Tuesday. According to media reports when a question was asked on ‘the role of Mr. Sirisena after 100 days,’ it was Wickremesinghe who responded. His reply was vague and imprecise, to the effect that there will be a ‘fourth branch of government’ (in addition to the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary) called ‘good governance.’ This will be the president’s branch, and the president will be ‘an umpire,’ he reportedly said. Responding to a question on ‘external policy’ at the forum, again it was Wickremesinghe who replied, on behalf of Sirisena as it were, saying “Maithripala Sirisena is committed to …” etc.
Contradictory statements
The question arises as to who makes policy decisions in the opposition camp. Is Maithripala’s profile as a son-of-the-soil, with a clean political record and reputation for integrity — in other words a worthy presidential candidate — being used in order to install Wickremesinghe as a prime minister to whom executive (decision making) powers will be transferred after 100 days?
Wickremesinghe’s statements are not always in sync with those of others in his coalition. For example earlier on in the campaign, opposition spokespersons said that the government’s development program will not be disrupted if Sirisena wins. But at the business forum when asked whether the John Keells’ Waterfront project (one of the ‘integrated development’ projects involving casinos) and Port City project will be cancelled without an objective evaluation process, Wickremesinghe’s reply reportedly was “we are about change, not continuity” (He is also on record elsewhere saying the Port City will be ‘scrapped.’)
Damaging allegations
Responding to a question on the war crimes allegations Wickremesinghe asserted these should be dealt with through local jurisdiction and suggested a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. But JHU coalition partner Champika Ranawaka (elsewhere) has trashed Cyril Ramaphosa and the South African initiative as a ‘conspiracy of the Tamil diaspora.’
The contradictory statements coming out of the SLFP-UNP-JHU camp give rise to doubts about its internal cohesion. The gaps in its policy documents have paved the way for damaging allegations of secret pacts (‘hora givisum’). If the opposition wants to allay fears that inevitably arise in the wake of such accusations (true or false), the coalition needs to speak with one voice. It needs to take an unequivocal stance on key issues such as the unitary state, the 13th amendment, the US-UK led HRC resolutions and OHCHR war crimes inquiry. It must say how it will marshal foreign policy in response to an ongoing ‘cold war’ prosecuted by the pro-LTTE diaspora, whose interest in destabilizing the country converges with western geo-strategic objectives in the region. If the opposition remains silent on these important points it would appear that it has not given thought to them, or worse still, is incapable of doing so.