“Election manifestos are not worth the paper they are written on”

By Nilantha Ilangamuwa

(January 11, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) “I think that President Rajapaksha has a fair chance of being re-elected, but I would not bet any money on that,” R. Swaminathan , President & DG of the International Institute of Security and Safety Management (New Delhi); and a Trustee of the Catalyst Trust (Chennai), said an exclusive interview with Sri Lanka Guardian.

R. Swaminathan joined Indian Police Service in 1954 also served for nearly 33 years in central intelligence and security organizations. He was retired in 1990 as Special Secretary, DG (Security), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt of India. He has been actively associated with a few think-tanks since his retirement from service; and has published a number of papers on different issues related to national security and international relations.

Excerpts of the Interview,

Q : One political commentator has called the forthcoming presidential election in Sri Lanka as “gratitude vs. change.” What do you think about the present political climate Sri Lanka seven months after LTTE’s crack down?

A : Unfortunately, I have not seen that commentary and so am not aware of the reasons supporting such a conclusion. “Gratitude” is acceptable, but no real change is being offered by anyone. Both Mahinda Rajapaksha and Sarath Fonseca are trying to claim credit for themselves for the military victory over the LTTE. It should not be forgotten that the military defeat of the LTTE was the result of excellent team effort by the Sri Lankan Security Forces, no doubt supported by the political leadership of the President and the military leadership of the General. Neither the President nor the General can claim or get exclusive credit.

The major problem that Sri Lanka has is the festering Tamil ethnic issue. Neither candidate has (as far as I know) offered any meaningful way of tackling and solving it. If their past policy statements are any guide, both would only exacerbate the issue. As far as the Tamil ethnic issue is concerned, the difference between the two candidates is the proverbial difference between tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee.

Q : President Rajapaksha called another Presidential Election after he spent millions of money in the local government polls in last two years. Yes his party gained remarkable victory in those mini polls, and it influenced him to call Presidential election two years before the end of his first term. Do you think Rajapaksha will win the election?

A : The assumption that the President called for the Presidential Election two years before its due date because of his party’s victory in the local elections may be a valid one. However, my personal opinion is that there is another significant reason, i.e. the President did not want to take the risk of holding the Presidential Election soon after the Parliamentary Election. If the composition of the new parliament is not favorable to his alliance, it may adversely affect his prospects in the Presidential Election. The Sri Lankan voters are unlikely to forget that the last experiment in “cohabitation” was not very successful.
I think that President Rajapaksha has a fair chance of being re-elected, but I would not bet any money on that.

Q : The whole world has discussed the historical victory against the LTTE, which was called most ruthless terrorist organization in the World. But within few months entire situation has changed and now many powerful organizations have claimed possible War Crimes in Sri Lanka during the Last battle. Do you think Sri Lanka and her present regime failed in managing victory?

A : Those alleging possible War Crimes in the last phase of Eelam War IV have just now recognized what many other watchers of the Sri Lankan scene knew all along. Many analysts and commentators (including me) had described the LTTE as the most ruthless terrorist organization in the World. At the same time, many of us also recognized and wrote about the ruthless (bordering on brutal) methods adopted by the Sri Lankan Government in fighting the LTTE. There were gross violations of human rights, not only of those who were part of or were supporting the LTTE, but also of innocent civilians. Severe collateral damages to civilian life and property and to the infrastructure were unrecorded and unreported. Sri Lankan Government has been one of the very few governments in this world which has indulged in aerial bombardment on its own soil and against its own citizens.

I have said often (as have many others) that the elimination of the military capabilities of the LTTE was not a total victory over that organization or over the Tamil agitators. The victory will be complete only when a generally acceptable political solution is evolved, but there is no serious effort in that direction. In short, the present regime (of which Gen. Fonseca was a part till recently) did not achieve a full victory despite all the spin put on the military defeat of the LTTE.

Q : If their possible war crime is proved what will happen to the Regime and the Forces in Sri Lanka due to International and local law?

A : War Crime Tribunals have been part of post-World-War-II developments. They were, in a way, part of an attempt to assuage the guilt feelings over not having done anything when the Holocaust was taking place in Nazi Germany. Based on past experience of the present International Tribunal, nothing much more than a lot of noise is likely to happen.

As regards local laws, we have to remember that both the major candidates would be amongst the accused parties. Hence, irrespective of the identity of the victor, no action may result.

Q : It’s very clear President Rajapaksha has used the War to build his political image among the people, while there are many allegations of very bad governance against him within state institutions. What do you think of Rajapaksha leadership in Sri Lanka?

A : President Rajapaksha, during the last election, had promised to eliminate LTTE terrorism and he kept that promise. There is nothing wrong in his trying to get political advantage out of that.

I would prefer not to comment on “governance”, as it is essentially an internal matter of Sri Lanka. I am certain that the opposing candidates will try to educate the public and that the voters may make informed decisions.

Q : In his manifesto, main opposition who is common party candidate and former Chief of Sri Lanka army who lead to remarkable victory against the Tamil Tiger rebel, pledged to restore democracy, eradicate waste and corruption, remove taxes on essential food items and introduces welfare measures for the needy. Meanwhile main Tamil political parties back to Sarath Fonseka. What do you think General Fonseka’s political motivation and that is possible change in the future?

A : It is a global phenomenon that candidates for office make all kinds of promises before an election, without really meaning to carry them out; and often being aware that they cannot deliver on the promises. As one cynic said, “Election manifestos are not worth the paper they are written on”. There is hardly any mechanism to hold the successful candidate responsible for all the promises made. Let us wait and see what the next President actually delivers.

Many commentators had said that Prabhakaran had helped Rajapaksha to get elected the last time, by making the Tamil voters (in LTTE controlled areas) boycott the elections. This was based on the assessment that the Tamils would have overwhelmingly voted for Ranil Wickramasinghe. Even if that assessment is still valid, I feel that all potential pro-Ranil voters may not necessarily vote for Gen. Fonseca. The Tamil political parties have already marginalized themselves by their acts of omission and commission.

Fonseka’s motivation for entering politics and contesting for the presidency probably stemmed from his frustration at being gradually sidelined by the President; and from the hope that he could encash his “war hero” image. If he is elected as President, it is very unlikely that he would be able to make any major changes towards good governance for all Sri Lankans. The experience in India has been that artificial (that is, not based on policy convergence) coalitions spend more time and effort on staying in power than on governance.