Themistocles in ancient Greece and our military leaders

By Maduranga Rathnayake

(November 22, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) One thing is clear; that is in modern constitutional democracies, Head of the State is also invariably the Commander-in-chief of the armed forces which pre-supposes that war, a military’s most important engagement, is foremost a political resolution. In other words, war or military engagement is a political decision. However, the war is waged on the ground by the Generals. What we sadly witness today is a non-appreciation of this reality. Our military leaders, now on individual crusades for owning the recent military achievements, reminds us of Themistocles, the most prominent military General in the ancient democratic Athens. Themistocles (524-459 B.C.), considered one of the greatest military strategists in the ancient world, made Greece a naval super power, defeated Persian invasions and ushered Greece to its golden age. However, one thing Themistocles could not foresee; that is Athenians would not tolerate his increasing arrogance after the victories. He would never have imagined that the very people who venerated him would one day “ostracise” him. A lesson for our Commanders and Generals.

Military and Politics

It is indeed a paradox. A military is not independent and rightly so. Political will overrides the military, for theoretically and to a greater extent practically, political will is people’s will. However, military Generals must be independent in the sense of not having political ambitions and at all times remaining professional. We already have regional precedents of military becoming more powerful than is necessary overriding the political will. In other words, military Generals, in or out of service, should not be political options for the people simply because it compromises the very basis of the military in a country.

Hero Search

The General Fonseka saga has already proved to be disastrous. His political intentions and the letter to President Rajapakse has caused an unwarranted “hero search” in the country. It is a tragicomedy to see people childishly splitting hair to find who the real hero or the bigger hero is. The damage is done; it, the saga, obscured an ideal opportunity to demonstrate humility and project and use the military achievements as a basis for reconciliation and reforms.

History repeats

We saw a similar situation years ago. Ven. Soma and his death; a situation where serendipitous popularity, driven by Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinism, was turned into an opportunistic political force. Ven. Soma undoubtedly touched the average Sinhala-Buddhist. And Ven. Soma’s sudden death at the peak of his campaign not only shocked Sinhala-Buddhists, but also it set an emotional ground to politically mobilise Sinhala-Buddhists on a religious line. The test was done at the parliamentary election that came thereafter. Buddhist monks took to the political stage, then took their seats in Parliament. It worked. Initially. What followed was a period of humiliation, betrayal and in-fighting. It certainly did not augur well for the Buddha Sasana. It is more or less the same thing, happening now. Popularity gained on the lives of thousands of military men and women.

Arrogance has its price

It would indeed be calamitous if General Fonseka ran for presidential elections. We will see a true rough-and-tumble campaign. It is a dangerous gamble. Popularity, more so in politics, is a double-edged sword. We saw how President Premadasa’s king concept ruined him, a man of great ability. This is where Themistocles went wrong too. Arrogance. Totally blinded by it.

-Sri Lanka Guardian