Victory
for Blair, defeat for democracy!
It was as predicted in the opinion polls. Labour coasted to an easy
win. So Tony Blair remains at No. 10, setting a record for the Labour Party.
He is the first Labour leader to be assured of a full second term. One
cannot grudge Mr. Blair his victory. After all he won with a majority of
167 seats holding on, more or less, to the one he gained in 1997.
While Mr. Blair and his party stalwarts rejoice, Conservative Party
leader William Hague threw in the towel and resigned from the leadership.
While he, like Achilles, sulks in his tent somewhere, the Tories face the
major task of finding a new leader who can pull the party up by its boots-straps
and rebuild it. That is a formidable task.
Mr. Blair has his own house cleaning to do and he has already started
demoting some cabinet ministers and promoting others. He has also finally
plucked up enough courage to get rid of the Minister for Europe, Keith
Vaz, who had become an utter embarrassment.
Keith Vaz's reputation has been sullied time and again by allegations
about influence peddling, not declaring certain monies and properties to
the Parliamentary Commissioner dealing with the conduct of MPs, trying
to obstruct the commissioner's inquiries and trying to influence the granting
of British passports for the wealthy Indian family, the Hinduja brothers,
already facing charges in India over the long standing Bofors arms deal,
and other matters.
Mr. Vaz, the only Asian to hold a ministerial position, claimed that
he was a leader, if not the leader, of Britain's Asian community, an insult
not all Asians were ready to stomach as letters to the media showed.
Having unloaded such unnecessary and tainted political ballast, Mr.
Blair is preparing to fulfill his promises regarding the revamping of Britain's
public services, particularly health, which are said to be the worst in
Europe.
During the month-long campaign, Mr. Blair pleaded with the electorate
to give him another 10 years to restore Britain's former prestige as a
caring society.
The danger is if Mr. Blair thinks he has indeed been given a 10 year
mandate, he might well postpone much-needed necessary reforms for another
four to five years, and then come begging again for the vote. In fact this
election has been a bitter blow for democracy. It is democracy that has
lost.
Mr. Blair and his Labour Party spin doctors-new ones are likely to surface
this time round- can claim that the party's massive majority is a public
endorsement of New Labour policies.
A majority, yes. Nobody would deny that Labour has managed to save many
of its marginal seats and create history by winning a second full term.
But Labour should not run away with the idea that the British public
has given it a ringing endorsement.
After his election Mr. Blair referred to this "remarkable and historic
victory" as a "mandate for reform". The prime minister might
have reform on his mind. In fact he had reform on his mind before the 1997
election too, though some of those reforms now lie by the wayside, like
the later promise of an "ethical foreign policy".
Before one year had passed the promised foreign policy turned out to
be more mythical than ethical.
To say that he received a "mandate" is to stretch political
truth to its limits. It is true that the Labour Party won the election
with a huge majority. In that sense Mr. Blair received a mandate. The people
preferred the Labour Party to the Tories.
But therein is the unfortunate distortion in politics that arises from
a disproportionate electoral system.
The total electorate was over 44 million. Of that less than 60 per cent
voted at the June 7 election. A massive 41 per cent of the electorate decided
to stay at home or whatever and did not vote.
The 59.2 per cent that did vote was almost 12 per cent lower than in
1997 and the lowest since 1918.
Even the 1918 election is not a fair comparison because 100 MPs were
unopposed in that election and therefore there was no need to vote in those
constituencies. For a turnout lower than this year, one needs to go as
far back as 1885, the first time that all male Britons- male mind you-had
the right to vote.
So only by harking back to the beginning of limited adult franchise
in Britain can one find a lower voter turnout.
I cannot think of a single election in Sri Lanka since independence
when the voter turnout was so low. If I remember correctly even at the
1989 election when the JVP was riding high and threatening to disrupt the
polling by shooting the first voters and the election officials, the Sri
Lankan voters showed more interest and courage than the British did on
June 7.
From the 60 per cent or so who voted, the Labour Party secured only
a little under 11 million votes. In effect it got only around 25 per cent
of the votes cast.
Surely it would take a bladder full of gall for any person to claim
a "remarkable" victory on the basis of a 25 per cent support.
It might be good enough for the United States, that great democracy
and sole super power, to have elected presidents who cannot garner 40 per
cent of the total eligible poll.
But to think that Britain is now going the American way is hardly a
pleasant thought for those who had kept faith that the democratic system
would prevail.
Currently the British people are simply disillusioned with politics
and others are angry that politicians have let them down. They don't trust
politicians to do the best by the people. One only needs to look round
the world to understand why.
Majestic disaster
The lack of proper documentation
on breeding habits, feeding patterns and general behaviour of elephants
at Uda Walawe could very well spell the end of the road for this species,
environmentalist Srilal Miththapala warns.
By Kumudini Hettiarachchi
Is Uda Walawe an elephant time-bomb wait- ing to go off? Is the social
strata among the elephants changing? Most crucial of all — are the herds
roaming this national park eating themselves out of their
habitat?
These are the issues which nature lover and elephant watcher for over
a decade, Srilal Miththapala is concerned with, having been a regular visitor
to Uda Walawe long before human hordes began to invade it.
Uda Walawe Park, of course, has been in the news in recent weeks following
the killing of a tracker reportedly by an elephant in must and its subsequent
closure to visitors. "There seems to be more to this incident than
meets the eye. Only the three parties who were witness to the incident
are privy to the right information. Unfortunately, the poor tracker is
no more. The elephant, now dubbed a killer, cannot talk and we hear only
the side of the visitors," says Mr. Miththapala.
He explains that 'madha kipuna' elephants (those in must, when they
become sexually active) are aggressive when in captivity because they are
kept tethered and thus restrained. But the free-roaming elephants, like
those in Uda Walawe, can give vent to their feelings and are generally
not that aggressive. He recalls, a meeting with such an elephant.While
he was at the park a few years ago, an experienced tracker had urged him
to hurry to a certain spot if he wanted to see an elephant in must. They
went quite close to it and saw the secretions pouring from the glands near
the elephant's ears. They could also get the animal's odour.
"When I asked the tracker how he knew that the elephant was in
must, he told me that it was from the way it walked, aggressively and arrogantly.
That's the lesson there. The trackers' observations are important and they
should be asked to enter in a log what they see whenever they spot the
elephants," stresses Mr. Miththapala.
But the tragedy is that no one — especially the authorities — has taken
the trouble to document the behaviour of these elephants, which are unique
to Sri Lanka, being a sub-species not found anywhere else in the world.
Uda Walawe is a classic example. There is no proper park management.
No census of elephants has been taken. Their behavioural patterns have
not been recorded. Neither waterholes nor roads are maintained. Trackers
lack motivation because all the income from the park including the service
charge goes into the government kitty.
The sheer numbers visiting the Park, sometimes as many as 25 vehicles
a day, including large coaches, are bound to cause tension and put pressure
on the elephants. Many are the problems there. There are no rules, there
is no code of conduct for trackers and also no proper training for trackers.
"Animals should have the right of way. The elephants are the residents,
we are the intruders," says Mr. Miththapala.
And trackers are a valuable asset in documenting the behavioural changes
of the elephants, which Mr. Miththapala, a keen elephant watcher, has seen.
A decade ago, when he visited the park the vegetation was richer. "Of
course, during the different seasons, dry and wet, the vegetation changes.
I'm not referring to that," he explains. The elephant population has
also grown, and feeding patterns have changed. Why? he does not know.
Elephants themselves seem to be degrading their own habitat. "Elephants
have foraged in the teak plantation at the entrance to Uda Walawe to such
an extent that they have destroyed it. I have seen them pulling down the
tender shoots of the teak trees. However, the dietary changes of the elephants
have not been monitored. There has been no analysis. I just jot down the
things I see as a nature lover, I am no expert."
Habitat degradation is also caused by the heavy growth of lantana (gandapana),
which is of no use to any animal, with only birds feeding on the berries.
There are eight to 10 herds in the Park. They move in and out. A beautiful
tusker had been sighted on and off. Now it is seen no more. The trackers
could have easily monitored it. In other countries, especially Africa,
individual herds are tracked and documented, he says.
There are also indications that the elephant social strata are changing.
"Now more and more young fellows are seen on their own. It is a practice
among elephants that young bulls are chased out of the herd to prevent
in-breeding. Once they come of age, and become sexually mature, they join
another herd."
Do such changes indicate the end of the road for these majestic beasts?
The lack of interest on the part of the authorities, may well be the beginning
of the end for the Sri Lankan elephant.
Muzzling the rabies threat
By Harendra Alwis
The threat of rabies, though largely underplayed
in Sri Lanka continues to take a high toll. Last year alone, it claimed
115 lives. Rabies is a zoonotic disease, which means that it is transmitted
from animals to human beings. It is caused by a virus that could infect
any warm-blooded creature and humans have never been an exception.
According to Dr. Chandani Galwaduge of the Central Province Health Department,
a human who is bitten by a dog, monkey or cat potentially could carry the
virus. Yet if the wound is thoroughly washed with soap and the patient
rushed to hospital and vaccinated against rabies, there is a good chance
that he or she could survive. But the virus can stay 'under cover' for
up to 90 days within a human being. It only travels through the nervous
system, so if the bite is deep or in a critical place like the head, palm
or heel, a few hours is all it takes to get to the brain of the victim
and cause fatal damage.
Patients are now given the 'Verotab' vaccine which is more effective
than the "21 injection scheme" that was used in the past. According
to Dr. Galwaduge, the government spends more than Rs. 29 million rupees
on anti-rabies treatment annually.
In Sri Lanka, dogs are the main carriers of this virus and the control
of rabies thus mainly involves controlling the population of strays. The
process of preventing rabies, according to veterinarian Dr. S. R. Jayasinghe
of the Kandy Municipal Council, involves four steps. It is necessary for
dogs to be vaccinated annually against rabies, to make sure that they don't
get infected and become carriers of the disease. For this to be successful,
at least 80 percent of the total dog population of the country has to be
vaccinated annually, but this is a target that is rarely attempted, let
alone met.
The second step according to Dr. Jayasinghe is the prevention of unwanted
births to control the dog population. This is done through sterilization
of both male and female dogs. This simple surgical procedure, that takes
15 to 30 minutes on an average, costs Rs. 200/= per dog. The cost has greatly
inhibited this practice among the low income pet owners, and controlling
the stray dog population has become increasingly difficult as a result.
Public protest over inhumane methods of killing have also increasingly
been spotlighted. Dr. Jayasinghe claims that a 'painless' injection is
used to kill these dogs, but Dr. Eileen Pethiyagoda, a consultant physician
and a pharmacologist disagrees. She says that the chemical 'Strychnine'
(pronounced stri-ch-ni) that is used here kills the dog by making its gut
muscles contract, a very painful process. Outside the Central Province,
more brutal methods are allegedly being employed to destroy stray dogs
apart from the use of 'Strychnine'. The methods allegedly employed are
suffocation with carbon monoxide gas (and sometimes even kerosene fumes
as it is much cheaper) and electrocution. It could take well over five
hours for the dogs to suffocate and die under kerosene fumes.
Comments Dr. Pethiyagoda, these "hit and run" methods of killing
dogs have brought us to a "no win situation" in the battle against
rabies. Dr. Pethiyagoda says that since dogs are territorial animals, they
do not let other dogs enter their territory. If a stray dog is removed
from a certain area, another will soon occupy the vacant spot, thus making
it impossible to eradicate a certain stray dog population by simply killing
the dogs. So the only effective way of controlling the stray dog population
is to sterilize them so that they will not be able to breed and to vaccinate
them against rabies.
Secretary to the Governor of the Central Province, H. M. Samathilake
says the law permits local authorities to catch stray dogs and destroy
them after three days if they are not reclaimed by their owners. Lacking
funds to carry out sterilization camps, the municipalities and local government
bodies resort to killing these animals as a means of controlling the risks
they pose to the community.
To dogs with love
The Kandy Association for Commu- nity Protection through Animal Welfare
(KACPAW), a group of animal lovers in Kandy have dedicated themselves to
animal welfare, mainly the plight of dogs since their inception in 1999.
They are engaged in rabies prevention activities through humane methods
of controlling the stray dog population. KACPAW members believe that sterilization
and rabies vaccination is an alternative and more effective method of rabies
control. They have conducted sterilization clinics with the Faculty of
Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science at the University of Peradeniya
and the Kandy Municipal Council with the patronage of the Governor of the
Central Province.
About 600 dogs have been vaccinated under these projects. It has been
calculated that a couple of dogs could potentially breed and multiply into
a population of 67,000 in three years. This makes it feasible to assume
that it will be more economical to sterilize the dogs than to kill all
of them in the long run. With this in mind, KACPAW has initiated its 'flagship'
"Red Collar" project, in the Central Province where dogs are
caught, vaccinated against rabies (and sometimes sterilized) and a Red
Collar is put on them as a mark of identification. The Kandy Municipal
Council and the local authorities have agreed not to destroy dogs who wear
this Red Collar.
Secretary of KACPAW, Champa Fernando told The Sunday Times that educating
the public is of prime importance, if rabies is to be brought under control.
Her organization rejects the "merciless and inhumane methods of killing
stray dogs", and runs a dog pound where a limited number of dogs are
vaccinated and kept. KACPAW could be contacted on 08-223378
|