Candid Candidate Assessment 1 - Mahinda Rajapaksa, his negatives

By Rajpal Abeynayake

(January 05, Colombo,Sri Lanka Guardian) Yes, we have to talk about the Fonseka candidacy, but before that we have to get to grips with the Rajapaksa incumbency. The incumbent, Percy Mahinda Rajapaksa has a record. The people have to vote on that record. The challenger has a record; but not in power, not as incumbent, in any substantial political office.

Electing Fonseka is therefore more a matter of taking a chance, and there are demerits in that. But those can wait to be looked at on another day.

First, we need to talk about the man in power.

He finished off the LTTE and ushered in peace. There is no doubt about it, and if people are asked to vote in gratitude, I have no doubt that Mahinda Rajapaksa would be the winner by leagues.

But gratitude belongs to another realm. An errant father would earn out gratitude, even if he embarrasses us in later life, for the simple reason that he brought us into this world, educated us, and gave us a future.

His transgression would not make us strike him off the census or voter’s list as the Head of the Household.

But gratitude doesn’t belong in the political realm. Mahinda Rajapaksa as all other presidents was elected to do the job of ushering in peace, and though all previous presidents could not do it, he did.

People are grateful, but that does not mean that he necessarily needs to be handed the country for that effort.

As I keep telling friends, if gratitude is the criteria, parliament can vote for him eight palaces, the best cases of whisky weekly if he is so inclined, and prescribe for him a ex king’s life replete with luxury —- though he would not be provided seven virgins a week, as some Islamic suicide bombers are pledged.

Short of the seven virgins, I mean, the country can vote a scrumptious life for him in retirement, and I would call that ample gratitude.

Consolidate that peace

The voters would therefore mull over the voting question based on Mahinda Rajapaksa’s performance, and his suitability based on that performance for the task at hand.
Gratitude is not in the equation.

The task at hand is not war. The task at hand, however grateful we are to him for ushering in the peace, is to consolidate that peace — to win the peace, to win the economy, and to win in terms of ushering-in prosperity, security, and good governance in times of tranquillity and resurgence.

Is Mahinda Rajapaksa upto it considering his performance in the four years in these said areas, as the incumbent?

Is it worth taking a chance on a rival whose record in these areas generally cannot be measured, because he has never been incumbent, and we are compelled to take him only at his word about his election promises?

The ratiocination between Mahinda Rajapaksa and his rival’s attributes can be kept for a later date, in these columns, but to me Mahinda Rajapaksa’s incumbency - - when you take the war out of it - - is underscored by its most striking quality, that of utter cynicism that’s the hallmark of this president’s contemporary political project.

There is utter cynicism in thinking that Mervyn Silva can be allowed to run around, intimidating and assaulting people, while the president tolerates that and enjoys Silva’s company as the Temple Tress court jester. There is utter cynicism in thinking that spending billions on a useless airline such as Mihin Air, is all in a day’s work.
There is utter cynicism in inviting public servants for meals at Temple Tress, and then rationalising that anybody who is invited to a home is given a meal as per the ancient Sinhala customs and traditions. There is utter cynicism in thinking that the sheer illegality of thus feasting public servants is somehow not important.

There is utter cynicism in thinking that a proliferation of Rajapaksas in all areas of administration, should somehow be allowed because it is all in a day’s work.

But there is more.

There was cynicism of an incredible degree in thinking that somehow the long duration incarceration of Tamil IDPs was a non-issue until elections were around the corner, and minority votes were required.

This level of cynicism seems pathological, and incurable.

There is diabolical cynicism in thinking that by ignoring the 17th amendment which is part of the constitution he has sworn to uphold, this piece of legislation could be wished away.

There is utter cynicism in thinking that now that there is peace in the north and the east, the full implementation of the 13th amendment is an irritation that needs not be tolerated, though the 13th amendment is part of the same constitution also.

Those who say that Mahinda Rajapaksa’s administration is not corrupt or is not guilty of widespread nepotism and family bandism, say that the projection of Rajapaksa as a dynasty-minded plutocrat is flawed, because it’s wildly exaggerated.

Nobody would deny the exaggerations which come as part of the territory in any kind of politics, but does an exaggerated caricature make the cartoon character unrecognisable? A cartoonist may exaggerate the length of the president’s nose, but put a saatakya around his neck and any nondescript artist can get that caricature right, isn’t it?
The opposition’s allegations of corruption may be exaggerated, but has the government refuted the core submission by the opposition and sections of the media that the regime is corrupt, and is guilty of unpardonable nepotism and family bandisim?

On that question, Mahinda Rajapaksa’s response has been so utterly cynical too.

He insists on the opposition proving corruption allegations against him in seven days.
It is said he has declared his assets to the Elections Commissioner, but he should have forwrded a copty to the press. Well and good if he has filed a copy with the commissioner; the press we are sure will get their hands on it.. But he can counter any corruption allegations, by requiring as a matter of ethics, an assets declaration to the public of all Ministers including those in his own family. That too after all, is required annually by law.

He is wearing his arrogance on his sleeve and contempt for process as a badge, and that’s what you call utter incredible cynicism, the most sickening hallmark of the Rajapaksa administration when you take the war out of the equation in his four years of helmsmanship.

I think he would have to pay for this cynicism, because it’s too late to undo the damage now - when he doesn’t seem to be able to get out of the corner he has painted himself into, at this stage of the game.

As said in the preceding paragraphs, whether this would mean that he would win the election or not is another matter — and it depends on whether Rajapaskas negatives are offset by the new opposition candidate’s negatives in the big picture.

But even if he wins, the President’s cynicism would cut into his majority, and there are no two ways about that.

But this utter cynicism of the regime is endemic to its existence.

Those who say that corruption allegations are exaggerated would only have to ask his Ministers to publicly and with a copy to the media, declare their assets. After all, this is a requirement for all Ministers, by law.

If he does so, his ministers do not have to issue deafening challenges to the opposition to prove corruption allegations within seven days.

But in the absence of such a morally imperative refutation against charges directed at the administration, those who see the utter cynicism of the Rajapaksa method of governance would say - - if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck.

If the government seems to be so utterly cynical, oblivious to the bad governance graft and nepotism that it has perpetrated, there surely must be something that is wrong with it at its core, that would make the people consider before they vote - and ruminate before they give President Mahinda Rajapaksa a free pass just because he won the war for us.