Election War and its bloody battles

“There are only a few days left for the people to decide their choice. To say it is will be a close race is probably an understatement; if we go by the virulent passions the election has unexpectedly generated it has all the makings of a bloody fight.”
………………………………………….

By Col R Hariharan

(January 24, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) Both President Rajapaksa and General Fonseka appear to be following the strategy of ‘indirect approach’ in their “electoral war.” Sir Basil Liddell Hart, one of the great military thinkers of 20th century propounded this key military concept as early as 1929. In his famous work The Decisive Wars of History he explained the indirect approach as seeking “a strategic situation so advantageous that if it does not of itself produce the decision, its continuation by battle is guaranteed to do so".

Adopted in the election campaign, perhaps unwittingly, this strategy can produce a host of problems not only during the election but in the aftermath also. Unfortunately, violence and thuggery adopted as weapons of electoral war in Sri Lanka will have a bitter aftermath of the election. And that could be a destabilizing development impacting the parliamentary poll due to be held after electing the new president

The transformation of democratic election into a war is the last thing Sri Lanka needs as it has to rebuild itself first. But it has become a war; that is the impression one gets while reading the latest media note of the Centre from Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV) of Sri Lanka. It shows a definite trend of targeted violence using weapons of war against supporters of the opposition candidate across the country. Already at least four people have been killed.

Nothing illustrates the situation better than the “bomb” attack on the house of Tiran Alles, one time friend of the President and now the Secretary and National Organizer of the SLFP Mahajana Wing rooting for General Sarath Fonseka. Although the bomb did not harm either Alles or his family, it caused “severe” damage to his vehicle and house.” Alles had been hounded in the past also.

The attack came just a day after Mangala Samaraweera, the leader of the SLFP (Mahajana), alleged that the Rajapaksa regime had hatched a plot to assassinate Alles. His allegation appears to have come truer than the predictions of astrologers swarming around politicians.

And attack on Alles was not the only one. Opposition UNP’s Southern Provincial Councilor Gayan Sanjeewa was shot at while traveling in a car and he believed that it was an attempt on his life. Two UNP workers were injured.

A few days back a grenade was thrown near the house of a supporter of Sri Lanka Muslim Council (SLMC) Buhari Mohommed Mubharak in Ottamavadi in Eastern Province. In another shooting incident the UNP North Central Provincial Councilor Prasanna Mahindarathne was targeted. He alleged that miscreants of ruling alliance had fired as many as 30 shots on his home and car in Kalundegama on January 22. According to him, soldiers of nearby army training camp have identified the bullets as those used only by the police.

Significantly, all these acts of violence against the opposition have happened in the last few days.

Of course, other less violent but equally undemocratic misuse of the state machinery including the media had been going on for sometime. Senior government officials have been making partisan statements in favour of the President. In fact the Supreme Court had to intervene to order the state and private media to obey election commissioner's guidelines on such misuse.

The Election Commissioner Dayananda Dissanayake had appointed a Competent Authority to oversee the conduct of state media during election campaigning following complaints from the opposition parties. But their utter disregard for his representative vexed the Election Commissioner so much that he withdrew the officer. He has also announced that he would not be available to conduct the parliamentary election that is to follow the presidential poll.

The increasing incidents of violence and lawless conduct and the tendency of authorities to ignore such aberrations have triggered fears of large scale violence among people as the day of election (January 26, 2010) approaches. There could also be obstruction of voting on the Election Day by lawless elements.

In a joint statement, civil society representatives have called upon both the President and General Fonseka “to jointly issue a statement for a cessation of violence and restoration of law and order with regard to the current election campaign. The government needs to immediately implement this call.” They have also drawn attention to an issue not usually expressed in public - politics of revenge - “the fear that they will become victims of the politics of revenge if they choose to go with the side that does not win.” This factor also might result in people abstaining from voting. Stuffing of ballot boxes is a real possibility in case people abstain from voting.

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has expressed concern at the violence during the run-up to the election. He has appealed to all parties to refrain from violence and to avoid provocative acts. As the U.S. ambassador to Sri Lanka Patricia Butenis has cautioned a violent election is sure to tarnish Sri Lanka’s international image. But are the rival candidates in the mood to care for international image?

Unfortunately South Asian elections are increasingly determined by “coercive persuasion” using extreme tactics. But what is happening in Sri Lanka’s pre-election scene of violence and lawlessness, and intimidation and misuse of state apparatus has been unprecedented. As Rajapaksa is in office and in a better position to restore public order and governance, it has affected his reputation more than his rival. By default, the General - never known as a champion of liberalism - is suddenly being looked upon by many to change in a complex mess of authoritarianism, corruption, lawlessness and poor governance that Sri Lanka has become.

Only six months back many people had hailed the President as the great king (maharajanani) for winning the war; but many among them see him as seemingly helpless leader to restore good governance in a period of peace. Why is this? Although poll predictions are far from accurate a recent pre-election poll has predicted a healthy lead for Fonseka. Is this triggering nervous act of violence? Or is it the desire to put the fear of god in the minds of opposition supporters? Whatever be the cause, there is no doubt that each and every act of violence against the opposition brings down the President’s image little by little.

There are only a few days left for the people to decide their choice. To say it is will be a close race is probably an understatement; if we go by the virulent passions the election has unexpectedly generated it has all the makings of a bloody fight. One can only hope the winner would succeed in canalizing this passion into constructive energy to restore confidence in the government and amity between the various ethnic groups. And that is going to be a tall order for either candidate if the election run up is any guide.

(Col. R Hariharan, a retired Military Intelligence specialist on South Asia, served as the head of intelligence of the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka 1987-90.He is associated with the South Asia Analysis Group and the Chennai Centre for China Studies. Blog: www.colhariharan.org E-mail: colhari@yahoo.com)