Change We must!

By Gamini Weerakoon

(January 17, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Sri Lankan politicians no doubt need gods. But whether some gods need politicians is indeed subject to debate. If not, why do these mighty divine powers entertain characters that we know are absolute rogues, in shrines, temples and houses of prayer?

We simply cannot object to these bilateral relationships between man/woman and gods.

They come within the ambit of fundamental human rights or perhaps divine rights as well. Our fundamental objection to this relationship is that of exposing the public to some unseemly sights. For example, this recent presidential campaign has resulted in the press and TV exhibiting horrendous pictures of bare-bodied politicians with their pendulous breasts and disgustingly protruding pot bellies paying obeisance to the gods. If these rites are strictly private affairs, we are not concerned. But why should men, women and children be subject to such indecent public exposure? Do the politicos get any political mileage from this exhibitionism or is it meant to convey their devotion and piety?

Switch off your TV

However nothing can be done about it and the Sri Lankan nation is now reaching the crescendo of their hysterical screams. Switch on any TV channel during prime time and you can see and hear it all. We switch off. We even throw our once favourite paper into the dust bin — better if there was a loony bin.

It would be advisable if voters switch off and ponder how the electorate is reacting to this low political drama on display. We stated three weeks ago that voters have already made up their minds on the candidates. The ultimate outcome will now depend on two factors according to many analysts (1) Which way the Tamils vote and (2) Whether apathetic UNPers go to the polls.

How will Tamils vote

Tamil citizens, regarding whom little or no concern was exhibited after Ranil Wickremesinghe and party handed over the reins of power, are now being drowned in copious crocodile tears. Candidates are claiming that only they can save the Tamil people. This is almost coming close to Velupillai Pirapaharan’s claim that he is the sole representative of the Tamils! The TNA which comprises mainly of former TULF MPs , whose party in the 1977 elections won all the seats in the north and east, have now opted to back Sarath Fonseka. This is a heavy blow to Mahinda Rajapaksa but to what extent will the Tamils respond to the TULF call? If a large majority of Tamil voters, estimated at close to two million, back Fonseka, Rajapaksa is sunk.

Rajapaksa’s record

What can Rajapaksa claim to have done for Tamils during his four year tenure? Apart from ‘liberating’ the Tamils from LTTE terrorism, there is precious little to show. And not all Tamils will view ‘liberation’ in the same light as Rajapaksa does. Also, what progress has Rajapaksa made on solving the ‘grievances of Tamils,’ apart from the All Party Conference which Prof. Tissa Vitharana was entrusted with? (He could not progress much without the backing of Rajapaksa, who became a follower rather than a leader in finding a solution.) Only Rajapaksa’s promises of ‘Spring for the East’ and ‘West’ are there on paper for Tamils.

Does Fonseka have potential?

Will Tamils be keen on voting for Fonseka, who led the armed forces in wiping out the LTTE? Most Tamils had some sort of affinity to the LTTE, if not a past commitment. Fonseka too has not spelled out what he can offer Tamils.

Rajapaksa with all his salaams paid to Tamils and communal amity stands badly exposed when he, his party and his allies went into a knee-jerk reaction when the TNA announced that they were backing Fonseka, crying out ‘Secret Pact’ (Hora Givisumak) with the LTTE. It resulted in that despondent deja vu brought back from the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam Agreement era and cries of Menna rata bedanda hadannawo! As for the apathetic UNP voters who kept out of the provincial council polls, thereby conferring huge majorities for the UPFA, some extra ‘juntu’ must be put in by UNP leaders to make them go to the polls. They must be told that they would be electing a candidate they would have opposed by not voting for their party. You can vote against the candidate even though you may not like the candidate you are voting for, they could be told.

Vote for Change

‘Change we must’ is not an ‘Obamaism’ that Fonseka has copied from America, as alleged in some quarters. Sri Lanka has voted for change in many elections: 1956, 1958, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1977, 1994 and 2005. A fair set of questions to be posed for Rajapaksa is: Would he openly flout the provisions of the constitution; Would he implement the 17th Amendment and appoint the four independent commissions for the police, public service, judiciary and elections; Would law and order in the country prevail and criminals be brought to book, particularly those who had killed journalists; Would a Right to Information Act be enacted in order to query the allegedly colossal scale of bribery and corruption that has taken place; Would the Executive Presidency be abolished as he promised at the previous elections; Would he reduce his Cabinet of 100 and more ministers to around 25 and would he stop appointment of friends and relations to key positions in government and instead resort to recruitment from the public service?

Despite all the propaganda being carried out in the state media we have not come across such main pledges given. Will he stop the massive abuse of state power and demonstrate it in the current election campaign?

The main criticisms levelled against Fonseka are that his manifesto is all too brief and he has not offered his proposals to outstanding problems. As we pointed out in our column last Sunday, verbose election manifestos are hoaxes which the masses do not read and forget all too soon. Mahinda Rajapaksa claims he has kept 98 per cent of his election pledges but we find it hard to point out those promises he claims to have kept. The only achievement has been ending the war on terrorism but as we pointed out last week, this was not stated in his election manifesto — Mahinda Chinthanaya — which spoke of negotiations and even holding talks with Pirapaharan!

Be it Fonseka or Rajapaksa on January 26, an intelligent far-seeing voter will realise that the status quo cannot remain and that change must come.

The words of Abraham Lincoln would perhaps serve as a guiding light in making the decision on January 26.

“I am not bound to win but I am proud to be true; I am not bound to succeed but I am bound to live by the light I have; I must stand by anybody that is right and part with him when he is wrong.”