Those who still
cling to the myth that those opposing the ruler are the lily-white angels they
cut themselves out to be are, to put it mildly, as far removed from the
realities of power politics as they can ever get. When you’re not in power, it’s
natural to lead a grand parade against abuse of power. The forgetting game, of
course, begins when power is grabbed. The problem is that in this game the
winners are the abusers and the losers us.
Sarath N. Silva
is raising hell. There is talk going around town that the president can’t seek another
term in office. The 18th Amendment supposedly cannot and will not
allow a president bound by a pre-amendment constitution to call for
another election. In other words, those seeking election must, out of
(political) necessity, be “freshers.” The former Chief Justice has threatened
to go out, to file petitions, and to appeal against Mahinda Rajapaksa seeking
another term. All do-good, high-and-mighty threats.
There is also
talk that the 18th Amendment was not done “in good faith.” The
problem with interpretations is that there can be more than one. Sarath N. Silva,
with all due respect, has just magically come across one among many. Similarly,
other interpretations can be handed back and forth, and I suspect we are in for
an “interpretation fistfight” in the weeks to come. Election fever has its
symptoms and where Sri Lankan elections are concerned there’s just no shortage
of them. Silva has lit the fuse. The machinery will work to its end, and when
all is done and dusted it won’t be too hard to figure out who really “lost.”
Us.
Sarath N. Silva
has an axe to grind. No two words about it. So, for that matter, does pretty
much everyone else crying out for a common candidate these days. I won’t say
the president doesn’t deserve most of the things said against him but it doesn’t
take a (political) rocket scientist to add two to two and figure out what is
behind the backs of those clamouring against him. Strangely enough, going by
this man’s logic, not even Chandrika Kumaratunge can seek another term. One
wonders why the woman who blurts out invective after invective against the
president in every event she’s invited to has decided to stay shut over Silva’s
“crusade.” Telling. Very telling.
Perusing
amendments has its pitfalls, though. It’s not easy to read into amendments and statutes. You can go and buy one for 12 rupees, but having read
it then and there it won’t take long to realize that the only thing you understand
in it is the price. People like Silva should realise this more than anyone
else. History has its share of lessons. If we are to go by “constitutional
debacles” whether based on amendment or entire document it would do well to
peruse the 1978 Constitution. The problem of interpretation crops up here as
well, though, and while I concede the 1978 Constitution institutionalised
democracy (on paper that is), I also have to agree that we’re yet to come up
with a better alternative.
But if Silva
thinks the 18th Amendment is the biggest debacle of them all, he’s
sadly mistaken. Thing is, opportunities come and go. Those in power rarely
avail themselves of open doors. He should know this more than anyone else. “I
don’t mix my personal likes and dislikes with my work,” says the man whose
association with Chandrika Kumaratunge is so well documented that all
statements made to the contrary can only amount to doublespeak. Predictably, he whitewashes
J. R. and Chandrika. All fine and well. "Physician, heal thyself," did I hear someone
say?
There is more to
amendments than catches the eye. Interpretations can be made to suit any
viewpoint, so long as the interpretation serves the purpose of bettering the
viewpoint. The problem is that the public never get to “see” anomalies in
amendments so long as the language endemic to them remains as far removed from
ordinary language as legal argot will allow. Curiously, those clamouring
against the president have not discounted one thing: the possibility of defeat
in the event of them opposing him. For all the hue and cry over the “common
candidate” fiasco, there is one salient point to be picked out: fear. Let me
explain.
No-one backs a
winner, unless the winner happens to be favourable to the backer’s agenda.
Everyone backs a loser, unless (of course) the loser turns out to be a winner.
That’s the A, B, and C of common candidate politics. The problem is everyone’s
clamouring for the common candidate post, but no-one wants to. As ridiculously
oxymoronic as this may sound, they want the job but don’t want it. Why? “Political
death knells,” did someone say? Well, yes.
Mahinda
Rajapaksa is not a paragon of virtue. Anyone who tries to whitewash the man is
as ridiculously self-deluding as opposition whitewashers. The people love him.
Those who hate him still vote for him. Post-election time, one comes to hear
silent curses by the opposition piled on those who voted for him. There is
ample reason for all this. The man has charisma.
Forgotten by
those who bemoan his popularity is the fact that he walks with the exact sort
of people they don’t. To put in colloquially, he is an “apé miniha” (our man).
This may be part of an elaborate PR-exercise, but at the end of the day no
politician can go by without these exercises. I can think of only one person
who played the political game till the very end selflessly for no personal
gain: Pieter Keuneman. One can say that the country needs more Keunemans and
less power-aspirers but the reality is (à la Machiavelli) that politicians rise
from one ambition to the other.
I am amused
whenever I see politicians (in the opposition camp, of course) eloquently talk
about the programs they’ll push forward for the betterment of the country
should they come to power. That’s part of the political exercise. Promises are
meant to be made and kept, those opposing the regime will scream. Sillies. The
truth is that promises are more often made than kept. Those denouncing
regime-promises would do well to reflect on their own promises “made and un-kept.”
I am thinking of Chandrika here but for all I care this goes for Ranil too.
Part of this
political exercise, of course, is to present own version of statistic and
event. There are those who claim that statistics pertaining to the economy have
been and are being doctored. They are right. Harsha de Silva has in effect
debunked the government’s claim that household real income grew by more than
7.5% annually over the past six years. According to Harsha, it grew by a mere 0.5%. Now there’s a huge (and
unforgivable) discrepancy between these two figures. Doctoring is part of government
prerogative, however. Harsha’s own party, it needs be said, know this, “hush-hush”
though they are over this aspect to their past.
There is a
section in the UNP that is going out and campaigning against government “white
elephants.” There was a high-profile debacle when Eraj Fernando was seen with a
gun when certain UNP parliamentarians were attacked. Who attacked them? We don’t
know. The UNP says “government thugs.” Government says “anti-UNP’ers.” This is
a classic Rashomon situation and like in Akira Kurosawa’s film, the truth will
never be known.
Laying that
aside, the likes of Harsha de Silva and Ajith Perera (two parliamentarians I
have come to respect for their honesty and political astuteness) are doing a
productive job with their party. It would do well for Ranil and his band to
take note of this, without (as he usually does) footnoting them. Unveiling a
Facebook page will do little in the way of challenging the incumbent.
Ranil should
also know by now that foreign support will get him nowhere, until and unless he
can challenge the “apé miniha” status Rajapaksa has been showered with. I
remember reading somewhere that S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike was repeatedly called
a “vachalaya” by those who (in a way) opposed the sort of democracy and
populism he embraced. I am not a big fan of astrology but H. L. D. Mahindapala
has pointed out that the stars operative in 1956, when the battle was between
Kotelawala and Bandaranaike, were present in 2005, when the battle was between
(who else?) Ranil and Mahinda. This should be enough to raise some eyebrows.
I am just
getting started here. For all the hullabaloos the UNP is raising, people don’t
forget easily. They know that party hasn’t exactly lived up-to what they (the
party that is) are expecting of the regime. Dictatorship? Rigged referendum?
White elephants? Selling the country? Infringement of media freedom? You can’t
really say those denouncing the regime get a 10/10 assessment over these questions.
Bloodied hands clean blood. That’s the way with politics. That’s one of the
less benevolent aspects to democracy as well. Metaphors aside, the electoral
process is as rigged and corrupt as it’s ever going to get. Those who stay away
from the polling booth on Election Day, going by my logic, are the wisest in
the land. They are a minority, however. And no, that minority does not include
me.
Let’s analyse
some facts here. The 2013 election, for some at least, saw a crumbling away
on the part of UPFA support. Forgotten here is the fact that even with this
crumbling away the UNP managed to scrounge up (there is no better phrase for
it) 28 seats as opposed to the UPFA’s 77 and the TNA’s 30. Footnoting this, of
course, is the fact that the TNA scrounged up those seats from its usual vote
base (the Tamil) whereas the UNP was unable to better it even with more than one
ethnic community at its beck and call. Controversial and open to debate as TNA’s
policies are, that party is to be commended for this.
Common candidate
dramas are fiascos, plainly and simply. There is no point in backing a loser,
unless the aim is to hide one’s un-winnability. But there are just so many
losers other losers can back. There comes a time when “common
candidacy” becomes obsolete. Not because those contesting realise its futility,
but because no-one’s there to take the loser’s mantle. The sooner everyone realises this the better.
One can argue that the
UNP went down the slope when J. R. was made leader of the UNP in 1973, but for the sake of argument let’s lay
aside the fact that the reason for the party’s present dilemma is owing to
this. Let’s also forget that Ranil (with or without an “official” FB page to
his name) has as much chance of winning as a snow-ball has in hell.
Let’s forget all
this. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the UNP is really feeling the
pulse of the people. Let’s think that they are part of this common candidate
fiasco because they care. Let’s skip and erase history and think that Ranil
Wickremasinghe really did put country before self when he sold everything to
Big Business (because, let’s face it, “Regaining Sri Lanka” remains as
oxymoronic a policy paper as it ever was). Even in this (unlikely)
context, there’s a lot more that needs to be done. There are floors to be
mopped and pasts to be erased. The UNP will not be able to do this, unless
there is a radical overhaul of the present leadership.
Tissa Attanayake
is the cunning fox in all this. For all his soothing public statements
everyone knows he is behind the attempts made at getting Sajith Premadasa into
the UNP's higher echelons. Problem is, Premadasa wants to abolish the Leadership
Council. Laudable though that goal is, it still remains a mystery why
Attanayake wants to get in someone who wants to abolish a top leadership rung
he is part (and part-parcel) of. No two points for guessing who’s backing who
and why. There’s power politics at play here. It is the UNP’s (tragic) lack of
accountability which stands in the way to victory at the ballot box. Dictators
within party confines are the last people for whom intelligent voters would
exercise their franchise, after all.
It is
significant that no other party has publicly endorsed Sarath Silva’s “threat.”
Not the UNP, not the JVP, not the TNA, and certainly not Chandrika. It would be
safe to say the latter won’t speak one word in favour of her former political kinsman’s
proposal, but this still doesn’t resolve why others haven’t come forth.
Wijedasa Rajapakshe and Sunil Watagala admittedly have come in support of it,
but the point here is that neither Ranil Wickremasinghe nor Anura Kumara
Dissanayake has. Perhaps they are still hanging onto the “podhu apekshaka”
paradise they’ve been living in since 2010. Perhaps I am wrong and they will endorse Silva's proposal in the days to come.
In any case, it would do well
for them to take note of Silva’s proposal, because if there’s any way to thaw the ice in the regime, it’s through the simple maxim that laws are not retrospective.
According to the former CJ, the provisions of the 18th Amendment
remove the legal bar to the amount of times an incumbent can seek office. It
doesn’t apply to Rajapaksa because he came to power before the passing of the
Amendment.
This is as
powerful an anti-regime argument as you are ever going to get. Not heeding to it
can spell out repercussions for everyone obsessing about overthrowing the
incumbent. Enmities remain, even when the enemy’s enemy is to be combated.
Perhaps this is why those advocating regime overthrow have not thrown a second
glance at Silva’s declaration, at least not yet. After all, in their eyes, it
was the former CJ who sent Chandrika packing and brought Mahinda in. Maybe he
hasn’t been forgiven for that. I don’t know.
What I do know is this: love him or hate him, Mahinda
Rajapaksa’s still here. Unless anomalies within party politics are laid aside,
this country’s going to be opposition-less. That’s sobering. Very sobering.
No comments:
Post a Comment