The Elections and Our base instincts

By Shanie
Courtesy: The Island

"Recently, I was stopped at this checkpoint just outside Colombo. It was about 8 pm and I was in a three wheeler. Perusing my identity document, the security person queried in Sinhala: ‘Are you Tamil?’ Taken aback by this query, I paused a little before saying ‘yes’."- Sivamohan Sumathy

(January 16, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Professor Sivamohan Sumathy is an ethnic Tamil and teaches English at the University of Peradeniya. She was recalling the above incident in an article she published recently. (Click here to article) Nearly all ethnic minorities would have had the same question that was asked of Professor Sumathy posed to them as well at the numerous check points that continue to dot the landscape throughout the country. The young sentry at the checkpoint can be forgiven for his insensitivity. His mindset and such questions which would seem perfectly natural to him have been conditioned in him by what he reads and hears from those who have framed his mind –– the media and his village and national leaders who care more for parochial gain rather than the national interest. These are the opinion makers who have erected checkpoints and roadblocks in our path to national reconciliation and peace.

The forthcoming election has similarly brought out the worst in many of us. The defeat of the LTTE presented our country with an opportunity to turn away from communalism and narrow nationalism. But the mood as well as the rhetoric of triumphalism that was deliberately created was the first sign that post-war national reconciliation was not a priority for the administration. Apart from empty words meant to silence critics both at home and abroad, nothing was done on the ground to satisfy minority rights. Instead, the mood of triumphalism was encouraged for political gain. It was this that caused the President to call the Presidential Election two years ahead of schedule. With the mood prevailing in the country and the Opposition in disarray, his strategists thought that an election at that stage would be a stroll in the park for the incumbent President. But these strategists also felt that the then Army Commander Sarath Fonseka was ambitious and could prove an irritant to the political head of state. The way to marginalise him would be to place him in a position sans any powers. But Fonseka was astute enough to see through these plans. Encouraged separately by a disjointed Opposition, Fonseka decided to throw his hat into the ring to take on the incumbent President. By doing so, he united the entire Opposition and made the Rajapakse plans go awry. Over the last few weeks, the Fonseka campaign has gathered momentum. Not only has it united the Opposition but, for the first time, government supporters are switching to support Fonseka. This may be a sign of people reading the popular mood but it is still not possible to say with any degree of confidence as to which of the two main contenders has the edge at this stage.

It is this sudden surge of popularity for Fonseka that seems to have made the Rajapakse campaign sadly resort to whipping up nationalist feelings. Allegations of a international conspiracy and secret agreements with Tamils are being recklessly made with no evidence provided. Fonseka is being asked to reveal the contents of a secret pact which he has said does not exist! The Weerawansas and the Bogollagamas who make these allegations should produce such documents if they want the public to believe their charges. If not, we can only assume it is false; intended only for unethical political propaganda. Mahinda Rajapakse, by not disassociating himself with such propaganda, becomes a party to a resurrection of racism as an election tool, something from which the SLFP under Chandrika Kumaratunga had moved away.

Manifestos and Programmes of Action

Both Mahinda Rajapakse and Sarath Fonseka have released their political manifestos. Both fall short of the specific programmes of action to which the Citizen’s Movement for Good Governance had wanted all candidates to subscribe. It is true that manifestos normally are more statements of vision than clear expressions of specific programmes. Yet, manifestos give some indication of not only the mind of the candidates but also the direction they would take in the event of being elected.

To restore good governance in the country, it is imperative that the new President, the cabinet and the new Parliament to be elected by April 2010 address four main concerns facing the country: (a) stabilising the economy of the country to bring about a reduction in the cost of living and tackling issues of poverty, (b) bringing about national reconciliation and resolving the national question with justice and equality for all communities; restoring the rule of law by ensuring a Police, Public and Judicial Services free of political pressures and the disarming of nondescript armed groups in various parts of the country and (d) controlling the rampant corruption that is eating into the energies of our people.

On the first issue of stabilising the economy of the country, both candidates have not revealed any specific programmes of action. Giving relief to producers and consumers are only short term efforts to meet the cost of living. We need a workable plan to develop the domestic economy of the country at various levels, in the short, medium and long terms. Successive governments have failed us in this regard. Though perhaps it was only the Dudley Senanayake government of the 1960s that followed up on a vision to develop the traditional agricultural strength of our people. The Services sector is another area which has potential but remains undeveloped. Our foreign exchange earnings have in the past been built around the export of tea, garments and a labour force, both skilled and unskilled. The Services sector can be developed to add to our foreign exchange earnings. The obtaining of foreign employment by our people is something volatile and humiliating and should be discouraged in the long term. Our economy should be developed to retain this labour force within the country. Our continued export of tea and garments is vital. The withdrawal of GSP+ facility will hurt us and the President to be elected and the new cabinet must take immediate steps to ensure that we retain this facility. Instead of making unsubstantiated allegations of conspiracies (which convinces no one), we should set about responsibly addressing the concerns of the EU so that we can save our garment industry from collapse.

Both candidates are again understandably short of specifics when it comes to issues of national reconciliation and a solution to our National Question. The incumbent President had many opportunities to address this during the past four years and he seems to have squandered such opportunities. An all party committee under Tissa Vitarana’s leadership was set up but after three years, the committee’s report remains pigeon-holed, not even earning a mention. It appears that the appointment of the APRC was only a time-buying exercise. So also seems to have been the appointment of a Public Commission of Inquiry to inquire into various extra-judicial killings. The work of the Udalagama Commission has now come to an end but the interim report submitted by it again remains pigeon-holed. As the Citizen’s Movement for Good Governance demanded, all such Commissions were paid from state funds and their reports must be published. It is vital for national reconciliation that the APRC report be published and steps taken to bring about constitutional amendments on the basis of a consensus solution to the National Question.

Sarath Fonseka has rightly stated that his first act on assumption of duties would be to appoint the Constitutional Council and so activate the independent Commissions that would ensure better governance. Mahinda Rajapakse has failed in his constitutional duty in this regard. Politicisation of key institutions and services has been the curse that has led to the breakdown of law and order. We need to move away from the culture of lawlessness and impunity that has corrupted our law-enforcing bodies. A senior and one of the better respected ministers in the government, Dinesh Gunawardene is on record as having stated that the 17th Amendment is now "defunct". The only meaning that can be attached to this shocking statement is that the government believes that they have no need to observe the Constitution in its entirety and they can declare that some part of the Constitution as being defunct. It is no wonder that there is a flagrant violation of the rule of law in our country, if even ministers like Dinesh Gunawardene can make such statements, Sarath Fonseka’s pledge to implement the 17th Amendment is therefore certainly a welcome one.

Corruption is fast becoming endemic in our country. Persons with political patronage who were nobodies yesterday appear to have acquired assets far in excess of their known incomes. Both candidates have pledged to eliminate corruption but the incumbent President has failed to tackle this problem over the past four years.

The last minute attempt to sling mud at Fonseka by reference to a company which his son-in-law heads cannot be convincing in the absence of any kind of evidence. The government has the opportunity to provide this evidence but has made no effort to produce them in courts or anywhere else. One of the demands of the Citizen’s Movement for Good Governance is that candidates contesting elections should submit a declaration of their assets. Sarath Fonseka appears to the only leading candidate to have done so.

We have another ten days to go before the election. There is still time for all candidates to both pledge themselves to a programme of action on the basis of the questionnaire of the Citizen’s Movement for Good Governance as also to ensure a free and fair poll by co-operating with the Commissioner of Elections and desisting from acts of violence.