Erosion of faith in democracy

By Jehan Perera

(February 16, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) It was reasonable to expect the aftermath of the Presidential election to usher in a period of political stability.The large majority of votes secured by President Mahinda Rajapaksa was impressive on its face and promised benevolence in his decisions after the elections. His unchallenged command over the levers of state power, made it unlikely that there could be any viable opposition to his rule. But the evidence of presidential insecurity had already manifested itself in the dramatic events that unfolded even as the votes were being counted. This was the surrounding of the hotel in which his chief opponent and former army commander, General Sarath Fonseka, had set up temporary office along with other leaders of the opposition coalition that had backed him.

The next step in the unfolding political drama was the crude arrest of General Fonseka by the very soldiers he once led in the army. The manner of his arrest was lacking in any grace or finesse, which has unfortunately and most distressingly become the hallmark of government rule in Sri Lanka at this time. The overturned furniture and torn lapel of a soldier on the floor testify to the brute nature of the struggle. The arrest was bluntly described as disgraceful by the leaders of the political parties he was meeting with at that time. They had watched him helpless and in fear themselves, too afraid to intervene, as their colleague was literally dragged away into waiting military vehicles.

At the time of the arrest, General Fonseka and the opposition leaders had been discussing the possibility of extending the political alliance they had forged for the Presidential election, and extending it to include the forthcoming General Elections on April 8 as well. The incarceration of General Fonseka within a military camp without access to his political colleagues will be a severe blow to the fledgling alliance. Their failure to win the Presidential election was itself a major setback, but now the loss of General Fonseka and with it his striking qualities of leadership can be a death blow to an effective opposition. The government is now well poised to attain its proclaimed objective of a 2/3 majority at the forthcoming General Elections.

It appears that the government is seeking to prove that General Fonseka was part of a vast conspiracy that involves foreign powers, and included the assassination of the President and his family, and staging a coup along with a section of the military and the opposition JVP. Statements by government spokespersons suggest that the government is building up a case against General Fonseka in a systematic manner. Although opposition leader Ranil Wickremesinghe met with President Rajapaksa to intervene on behalf of the captive, the response appeared to be lukewarm. There was no presidential largesse that even permitted the opposition leader to meet with the defeated presidential candidate who is in solitary confinement.

SKILLFUL WEAVING

The government’s case appears to rest on a series of factual observations that will be skillfully woven together in the days ahead to build a conspiracy. If the recent past is any guide to the future, the government will utilize the state media to the fullest to induce the voters to once again place their trust in the safer hands of those who rule over them at present than to take a risk with the unknown, especially those who are charged with heinous crimes. Some elements of the case against General Fonseka include the fact that during his tenure as army commander, he promoted army officers on a criteria of merit that he defined, and not on the more objective one of seniority, which enabled him to promote his favourites to positions of importance.

There are now media reports that the JVP itself may enter into the conspiracy theory being developed by the government on the grounds that General Fonseka, both as army commander and as presidential candidate maintained a close relationship with them. The JVP has publicly expressed fears that its leadership may soon be arrested. During the height of the war when casualties were high the JVP was given permission to go into army camps and give morale boosting talks. Even at that time there was apprehension about the infiltration of the JVP, which is a cadre-based left party, into the military and that this would give the JVP inordinate influence beyond its voter base in the political decision making processes of the country.

There is a possibility that the government may link these several facts together into an account of a conspiracy to illegally topple the government. Responding to opposition leader Ranil Wickremesinghe’s plea on behalf of General Fonseka, President Rajapaksa is reported to have said that he will have to prove himself innocent before the courts of law. Once again Sri Lanka will have to rely upon its courts to be the last bastion of justice. A similar phenomenon took place during the period of President Ranasinghe Premadasa in the early 1990s, when the government became feared for its injustice, and the courts became the last refuge of those who were being persecuted.

However, even as the legal process goes forward only a court order might be able to stop the government propagandists and state controlled media from going on the offensive, as occurred to the severe disadvantage of the opposition during the Presidential election. While the legal process is dragged on, the propaganda organs of the government may well spread the story of conspiracy and seek to influence the people’s vote at the General Election, which is less than two months away. According to government spokespersons their goal at the forthcoming general elections is to accomplish what many have said is impossible, and to obtain a 2/ 3majority notwithstanding the proportional scheme of electoral representation which so far has been a protection against that danger.

TWIN GOALS

By obtaining a very large majority at the Parliamentary polls the government may believe that it will confirm the authenticity of the large majority obtained by President Rajapaksa at the Presidential election and lay to rest the allegations of rigging at the Presidential Elections. Many opposition supporters continue to believe that rigging at the Presidential election deprived General Fonseka of his victory. This has caused a deep polarization and sense of anger within society and has also caused some doubts to arise in the international community regarding the legitimacy of the President’s victory. The problem for the government is that another big election victory by questionable means will not cause those doubts to go away.

On the other hand, a 2/3 majority in Parliament would enable the government to change the constitution at its will. It can change the constitution in any way it thinks fit, even without the support of the opposition political parties, including those representing the majority of the ethnic minorities. Such a unilateral changing of the constitution will accentuate the partisan and ethnic divisions in society. This was also the case in the unilateral promulgation of the new constitutions of 1972 and 1978, both of which increased the level of conflict in society and set the stage for the violent LTTE and JVP insurrections that followed. In the present case the potential for any unilateral constitutional changes to be perceived as being illegitimate will be greater if the manner in which the elections are won are themselves seen to be illegitimate.

The question of political legitimacy takes on urgency due to the constraints being placed upon dissent and the intimidation of the opposition. A healthy opposition is critical to a functioning democracy, providing an alternative voice and acting as a check on those in power. Although the opposition did not secure a victory in the most recent elections, it is clear that this alliance of political parties was able to speak to the needs of at least 40 percent of the country’s electorate and the great majority of ethnic minority voters. The arrest of the opposition candidate, the intimidation of opposition supporters and the violent attacks on opposition public rallies that followed their defeat will thus have grave consequences for democratic participation in the future. This is even more alarming considering how the erosion of faith in the democratic process has transformed itself into violence in the past.

Over the past weekend, I took part in a seminar in Trincomalee in the east coast on the role of media in facing the current challenges. The group that met, many of them regional correspondents of national media institutions, felt themselves to be powerless in the face of the crisis. There was fear to publicly express themselves, not knowing who would report to whom. There was concern about freedom of expression in the face of the disappearance of one journalist and the arrest of another without charges for several weeks. But one participant in the seminar made the role of this small gathering seem relevant when he said that in other countries too, though perhaps in a different century, there had been small groups that kept alive the ideals of democracy in their thoughts and ideas, and it is those values that prevailed in those countries in the end.