There’s something in politics called “context”. Words are
defined and redefined endlessly, and as such how one word holds true for one
political “moment” may be quite different to how it’s defined in another.
Relevance factors in too, which is probably why countries have multiple
meanings for “ally” and “enemy”, those terms being defined according to
geopolitics and not to how saintly or beastly countries are in their dealings.
Nepotism is different. It’s timeless. Space-less. True,
context applies to it too. But for the most, it congeals into any form of
favouritism granted to any relative or friend while in power. Daham Sirisena,
who got lambasted for accompanying his father to the UN General Assembly last
week, should know this. As of now though, his response hasn’t really been satisfactory.
At all.
First of all, if the president’s family feels that they are
being targeted in a witch-hunt they are wrong. True, relentless criticism can
sometimes be equated with witch-hunts, but if Sirisena justified critique of
the Rajapaksas with the “free media” label before he came to power, then
getting that same weapon focussed on and against his family shouldn’t be cause
for complaint. The president himself, let’s not forget, confirmed this in his
July Declaration (in which he vowed never to let Mahinda Rajapaksa into power
again), where he said that he welcomes criticism (“In a democratic country,
criticism is essential”). No excuses here, then.
By allowing Daham Sirisena into the entourage that went to New
York, the Sirisena administration risked two things. One was the inevitable
comparison to the previous regime. True, commentators known for their
anything-but-impartial love for the incumbent and hatred towards the
predecessor tried to brush things off, saying (quite lamely) that his son did
nothing more than “accompany the father.”
The past however, these people should realise, is not
forgotten. Not that easily. Namal Rajapaksa and his brothers didn’t exactly get
into parliament or into power in one go. There were steps taken. Decisions
made. This isn’t to say they began their political journey by accompanying
their father to official functions. But it is true that (never mind how they
did it specifically) they did take baby steps (the pun’s intended) and hence
calculated their moves to get into power. Anyone who brushes THIS off must be
very, VERY stupid.
Daham (in his response on Facebook) seemed hurt. “I urge you
all not to compare me and my family with the past regimes as we are far
different from them,” he wrote, which obviously means that most of his critics
DID compare them to the Rajapaksas. Such a comparison would be wild to make,
but that’s only if you limit the comparison to the years 2010 to 2015. Take
into account Namal Rajapaksa’s political circumstances in 2005 (when Mahinda
was new to the presidency just as Sirisena is) and you’ll find that they were essentially
no different to Daham’s.
Secondly, by responding as he did Daham not
only put that proverbial foot in the mouth, but (worse) added fuel to fire by
doing so AFTER President Sirisena’s media team cropped him and his son out of a
photo of the Sri Lankan delegation at New York and hilariously photo-shopped it
on Facebook. Not surprisingly, that gave the message that the “response” was
little more than a face-saver (which also means, logically enough, that those
who sanctioned the “crop-out” either were stupid or, like their predecessors, thought
that people forget easily).
Moreover, what the response fails to take note of is the
point that no leader of a country takes his or her family to a session of the General
Assembly, not because of a law per se
but because of an unwritten norm established there. Yes, it was Mahinda
Rajapaksa who set a precedent by taking wife and child with him, but by
following it Sirisena’s message to the people is that classic line, “Same old!
Same old!”
Perhaps the people were used to this before. But the
response was the last straw. Even those who sympathised with the president were
incensed. Justifiably.
What’s done and dusted in done and dusted. There’s really no
point comparing Sirisena with Rajapaksa, come to think of it. But in one thing
Daham falls in line with his much vilified predecessor. He is faintly displaying
the same kind of response which Namal gave when he and his father were being
pilloried on the political stage, before and after they were toppled. That’s
bad. Doesn’t augur well.
There’s another thing. Namal was an elected MP. Daham is
not. True, taking Namal to the UN (or anywhere else, for that matter) was
considered “nepotism” back in the day, and by the same people who’ve gone dumb
over this present issue. But he at least had the “elected” excuse. What excuse
has Sirisena’s son got? He’s no minister, nor is he a government official!
Here’s the bottom line, hence.
Daham Sirisena committed an error. He was invited to a
delegation and had, like every citizen of this country, a right to attend.
That’s not the issue here though. The issue is that he was made (or made
himself?) a part of the official delegation that participated at the New York
summit. THAT’S what at stake here. THAT’S what being contended here, and hotly
so.
If the president’s son considers the “I was invited” excuse
reasonable enough to trivialise where he was (notwithstanding that he was at a function
where family members not being taken to is the norm, not the exception), he’s
mistaken. Sadly.
He needn’t apologise. He needn’t say “Sorry”. But he should
acknowledge error. As should the president himself.
Written for: The Nation INSIGHT, October 3 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment