Columns

The British wanted change—as did Sri Lanka’s Aragalaya protest movement two years ago—and they got change. When the public went to vote last Thursday, the intent was quite clear. Get rid of the rascals who had held power for 14 years.

It was not so much that the British public saw Labour as its saviour. It was more that they wanted the Conservative Party out, the party that is a member of the International Democracy Union, a gathering of the rightist parties of which our own United National Party is a member. Its leaders meet to rub shoulders when and where they can.

Interestingly, while in some other European countries, political power appears to be veering to the right, in the UK, it has turned in a different direction.

That is because Labour was the only solution for the voters who wanted to kick the Tories out, whatever the consequences, and they had no other party that had the national reach to win an election.

Moreover, the 14-year stint in power, which saw prime ministers come and go, splits in the party, and scandals that really rocked the Conservatives, were quite enough for the public to take a risk, as high prices, rising living costs, increasing taxes lined up, and failing public services such as the once internationally recognised National Health Service (NHS) all contributed heavily to the growing public disgust at the ruling Tories.

Labour might not have all the answers to the UK’s problems, but it was a risk the public was ready to take.

In fact, there are factors that led to the call for basic change that seem akin to what has been happening in Sri Lanka in recent years.

There is one big difference, though. Britain went through peaceful democratic change and transferred power gracefully, while in Sri Lanka, every trick in the book and more have been resorted to to undermine the democratic rights of the people and deny them their fundamental right of universal franchise, under which both men and women were given the right to vote at the same time (a right they won well before independence).

And when it was done, it was done without recrimination and with the acceptance that it was the democratic right of the people to elect who they wanted through the vote, not skulduggery, the use of official force, executive power or pressure on the judiciary.

This is a lesson for Sri Lankan politicians. But they don’t learn lessons, do they, especially when it comes to bribery, corruption and fattening themselves? The other day in parliament, I heard President Ranil Wickremesinghe say something like, “Do you want me to break the Bank of England?”

Well, I don’t think he will be able to get near enough to be able to break into it. But then maybe some of his party colleagues and others he knows might be able to tell him stories about scams in some of our own banks, like the Central Bank, particularly if he stops over in Singapore on his world tours.

Perhaps he should print the following lines from Rishi Sunak, who just resigned as prime minister, but before doing so, he said this outside the steps of No. 10 Downing Street, his official residence, until the voters turned him out.

“I have given this job my all, but you have sent a clear signal that the government of the United Kingdom must change. And yours is the only judgement that matters.”

That last sentence should be printed in capital letters and distributed to the members of the UNP, his cabinet, and the members of parliament.

For therein lies an important moral and political lesson that should really be etched in the minds of all, especially those who believe the voice of the people could be silenced, buried under water cannons and tear gas, and ended forever under autocratic jackboots.

It might also be a good reminder to Sri Lanka’s governing inner circle, who seem to labour under the delusion that theirs is the ultimate word and the public should dance to their music, and anybody who is out of step should be sent to a dance school run by Yukthiya.

Only a couple of weeks ago, the UNP’s general secretary, Range Bandara, came up with the preposterous notion that the president’s term of office should be extended by at least two years. If he had it tested, would he think that the people of Sri Lanka are fed up with the present administration, which has robbed them of their jobs and income and reduced their living standards so low that 25 percent of the population at last count was living below the poverty line?

Surely, if such a notion had to be approved at a national referendum, does Range Bandara think the public would have voted for it? If that is what the UNP thinks, then it is silly. If a referendum to extend the term for two years could be won, then why not contest the presidential election itself and earn a five-year term instead of two?

Surely those who vote to extend a term for two years at a referendum would do the same at an election that would keep Ranil Wickremesinghe in office for a longer term, which is what those who benefit from such a full term would pray for—to harvest more business deals and corrupt government tenders and then not pay their taxes.

“I have heard your anger and your disappointment, and I take responsibility for the loss,” Sunak said outside Downing Street.

Would you find losing Sri Lankan leaders accepting responsibility for the mess they have made of the country’s economy or for all the bribery and corruption that went on under their watch? Or would they be heard blaming their political opponents for carrying out one-sided and deliberately distorted election campaigns to mislead the voting public?

At least here, in a country that practises the democratic norms we had been accustomed to in our younger days, we hear nothing of such wild accusations and insults hurled from political platforms.

Talking about how proud he is of his achievements during the short time he held office, Sunak said, “I believe this country is safer, stronger, and more secure than it was 20 months ago. It is more prosperous, fairer, and resilient than it was in 2010.”

We are accustomed to hearing far more bombast and hyperbole about personal accomplishments and how the nation was saved from our leaders in and out of the Diyawanna Oya’s temporary abode.

However much one could attach some truth to Sunak’s words, the British public did not accept that they are better off today than they were in the last 14 years.

It would appear that in our country like no other, the fear of those who now hold office and some of those who did and are responsible for pushing Sri Lanka into the abyss is to test whether the public accepts the official version of their “significant achievements” or would reject them as more untruths and do as the British voter did.

Perhaps our politicians need to look back and learn what happened to the Conservative Party, particularly under Boris Johnson, whose scandalous conduct as prime minister, especially during those COVID months when parties were held at Downing Street in which he played a part but tried to hide the truth from an inquiry, was sufficient to drive a deep wedge of public hate into the Conservative guts.

Had some of our diplomats had a better understanding of British politics and followed the developments, they would have known to be in close contact with the opposition Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats.

Instead, they were misled or were politically ignorant to see the writing on the wall, as this column had indicated some time ago. Politically savvy people are what we need because, in today’s world, it is not superficial economics and personal attachments that are required but more understanding and a broader knowledge of the political surroundings and the ability to report back to the government.

That would help Sri Lanka’s leaders to make the correct policy decisions and not just cling to decrepit old friends and party faithfuls.

(Neville de Silva is a veteran
Sri Lankan journalist who was Assistant Editor of the Hong Kong Standard and worked for Gemini News Service in London. Later, he was Deputy Chief-of-Mission in Bangkok and Deputy High Commissioner in London.)