A wake up call to main opposition

By Victor Ivan

In a democratic political system, democracy will not collapse simply because a ruling party follows an anti-democratic policy. It will collapse only if the opposition follows a timid line of action and does not resolutely rise up against that policy. If on the other hand, the opposition rises successfully against an anti-democratic programme implemented by the government, that will lead to a revival of democracy.

However, instead of rising resolutely and successfully against the anti-democratic programme of the PA government, what the UNP does is to follow a policy of making feeble and futile remarks. Such a policy, instead of defeating the anti-democratic policies of the PA will strengthen them and confirm them, and thereby greatly debilitate the foundation of the democratic political system.

At the last parliamentary election, the UNP expected to win without even setting in motion every wheel of their party machinery and fully activating the party. After the election neither of the parties was in a position to form a government on its own. It had been a very close contest and success depended on which party would be able to put its nose beyond the line before the other. PA utilised state power and employed violence and corruption to the maximum in some electoral districts, though not in all, and managed to scrape through to power.

Instead of opposing what had happened, the UNP adopted the timid attitude of "Let bygones be bygones and let us try to prevent a recurrence. "A recurrence can be prevented in the future not by permitting what has happened to get stabilised but by doing the best to prevent such stabilisation. In South Africa the whites and the blacks reached a consensus not by forgetting about all mistakes of the past but by setting up a commission to find the truth about brutalities that had occurred involving both parties. The old mistakes must be inquired into without leaving them to pass into oblivion, not for the purpose of continuing hatred but because no genuine consensus can be reached for the future without such an inquiry.

Although the Commissioner of Elections failed to maintain a strict policy suited to the volume of electoral malpractices that had occurred in announcing election results, he himself admitted that the election that had been held was neither free nor fair. Religious leaders too made the same statement in a manner that had never happened before. Paffrel which was one of the two national election observation organisations said that the elections in 22 electoral divisions of (Galagedara, Harispaththuwa, Paatha Dumbara, Udu Dumbara, Teldeniya, Hewaheta, Yatinuwara, Udunuwara, Nawalapitiya, Kalawewa, Kekirawa, Aanamaduwa, Nattandiya, Aranayaka, Rambukkana, Katana, Minuwangoda, Hanguranketa, Walapane, Hiriyale, Nikaweratiya and Wariyapola) were extremely corrupt and that their results should be declared null and void. "The Centre for Observing Electoral Violence" declared that the election at 17 electoral divisions were utterly corrupt and not only called for their annulment but sought to prosecute the Election Commissioner for failure to annul those results. The observation team from the European Union had also stated in its report that the condition in 2% of the polling booths in the island were extremely bad and that the conditions in 8.3% polling booths were bad. In the Kandy district the ratio which falls within the 'extremely bad' category is 7.7%, while that falling into the bad category is 19.2%.

The concern that religious leaders and national and foreign election observation institutions have about electoral malpractices does not appear to be shared by the UNP. Although the UNP has an obligation to go to courts in addition to stage powerful public protests against the electoral malpractices that had occurred, even its institution of legal action appears to have been done because others too have done it, and not due to any conviction.

Timid talk about the necessity of setting up 4 commissions alone cannot lead to a revival of the democratic political system which is in decay. Any attempt in that direction has to be made on the basis of action on the malpractices that had occurred at the last election. The demand for 4 commissions might have gained a great credibility if a demand had also been made for a reasonable and acceptable inquiry into electoral malpractices that had occurred at the last election.

However, any such demand would have been strong only if there was powerful public action backing it. However, the UNP did not turn its demands into a powerful public movement going beyond deceptive speech at leadership level.

The UNP had an obligation to make a strong challenge before courts against the elections in divisions where they were extremely corrupt, whatever the decision of the courts would be. However, due to some reason or other, the UNP showed no interest even in such a course of action. This conduct of the UNP entirely similar to the conduct of the SLFP at the results of the 1982 Referendum. "The Lost Generation" written by Prins Gunasekara contains some less known facts about going to courts against the results of the 1982 Referendum. Accordingly Felix Dias Bandaranaike wanted to go to courts against its result and held discussions with Prins Gunasekara on the matter.

Felix's view was that the records kept by election officers, even without additional evidence, would be adequate to prove the case. Felix wanted to make SLFP leader Mrs. Bandaranaike the petitioner to give an authoritative appearance to the petition and discuss the matter with her. Ms. Bandaranaike wholeheartedly agreed to be the petitioner.

But after the petition was prepared due to some mysterious reason she refused to become the petitioner. As a result of that Rohana Wijeweera had to be made the petitioner. Prins Gunasekara states that Ms. Bandaranaike's refusal at the last moment to be the petitioner (in a petition that had the potential to annul the result of the referendum that led to the extension by 6 years, the term of that parliament where the UNP had a 5/6 majority) was a mystery to Felix. Such mysterious reasons might have emanated from the UNP's conduct too.

President Kumaratunga appointed to the post of Chief Justice a person who had been an accused before the Supreme Court, at a time where there were several cases filed against five cabinet ministers. Although it may not be necessary to understand the purpose behind Mr. Silva's appointment, it is difficult to understand why the UNP followed a policy of silence in regard to that appointment. It is also difficult to understand why the UNP followed a policy of assent when she appointed to the post of Elections Commissioner a person outside the Elections Department at a time when she herself was a contestant at that presidential election.

Two other matters that are difficult to understand are why the UNP didn't go to courts when, subsequently, there was acceptable evidence that a large number of bogus ballot papers printed in an outside press had been used at the presidential election and all the ballot papers used at the election were in the Election Commissioner's custody, and why the results in electoral divisions where the elections were extremely corrupt (at the parliamentary election) were not challenged.

Every ruling party which came to power after 1977 used various subtle ways to control the opposition. It may perhaps have been such a reason that compelled Ms. Bandaranaike to refuse at the last moment to be the petitioner against the '82 Referendum. Perhaps similar reasons might have influenced the timid conduct now evident in the UNP.

The writer is the editor of the Ravaya

Inside the glass house

Editorial/ Opinion Contents