Preventing Rajapaksa’s speech in London condemnable

| by N.S.Venkataraman

( June 10, 2012, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) All votaries of democracy who cherish freedom of thoughts and speech would have been disappointed to know that President Rajapaksa’s proposed speech in London was cancelled due to protest from some people.

One of the cardinal principles of democracy and freedom is that everyone should have the right to state his views and argue for his case. Any intolerant attitude towards others and unwillingness to hear the other point of view is an undemocratic practice.

There are many critics who criticize President Rajapaksa for what they call his authoritarian rule and his denying freedom to the media and his arbitrary arrest of the political opponents. The critics of Rajapaksa who call him undemocratic have themselves behaved in very undemocratic manner by protesting against his proposed speech in London and demonstrating in front of the hotel where he stayed and ensuring that the meeting would be called off by extending threats of disruption. This is an unacceptable practice and certainly this would have helped President Rajapaksa in gaining the sympathy of several people.

All said and done, the fact remains that President Rajapksa is the duly elected President of Sri Lanka and must be given the due respect and consideration for the post of President that he holds. There is no place for personal hatred and animosity in healthy politics and even if one person would be guilty of practicing hatred, it would not mean that his opponent should return in the same coin. Why should Rajapaksa be prevented from speaking ? Who gains by this counter productive opposition and method of obstruction ? Why not his opponent allow him to speak , listen to him and put the necessary questions to him after his talk and argue with him in terms of principles and policies ?

On the other hand, when President Rajapaksa was prevented from speaking in London, it leads to suspicion that his political opponents were afraid that he may have some very sound arguments and point of view , which can not be rebutted by them. To this extent , the opponents of President Rajapksa who stopped his speech in London have made themselves look small and even giving an impression that they could be people who believe in undemocratic methods and even in violent agitations. By unwittingly creating such an image of themselves, they are losing the case against the Sri Lankan President.

In several countries, there have been genuine concern about the reports that liberty has been curtailed in Sri Lanka causing huge sufferings to the people during ethnic war and there is political unrest in Sri Lanka even today. Most of such world opinion is formed by people reading the press reports and seeing the media coverage and very few people really have the opportunity to investigate the scenario for themselves. When the speech of President Rajapaksa was prevented by holding an agitation and which has gained huge international publicity, many distant observers and viewers would tend to think that President Rajapaksa’s methods of governance might not have been undemocratic since his opponents have shown no quality of democratic culture themselves.