| by Kath Noble
( October 25, 2012, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) When launching an
initiative in Sri Lanka, it is well known that one should be careful to call it
the opposite of what it really is. Worried about infighting? Then be sure to
include the word 'united' in the title. Concerned that the dubious public image
of the leaders may dissuade people from joining up? Then it is inspirational
concepts like 'freedom' that one needs to reference.
And so it is with the National Movement for Social Justice, whose
inaugural rally was held in Colombo last week.
 |
Whether or not one agrees with the analysis of those who took up arms against the State, there is no getting away from the fact that one of their arguments was that the State is irretrievably Sinhala Buddhist in nature. And there is no need to give them another reason to think so.
Sarath Fonseka's latest attempt to resurrect his political career was a
flop. Several hundred people came to listen to him speak. But he could not get
the support of any established political parties, which is after all what is
needed when it comes to winning elections. The organisers didn't bother to
invite the TNA, the JVP was united in ignoring the event, and even the UNP
reformists weren't keen on attending – Sajith Premadasa was convinced from the
start that it wasn't worth the struggle with Ranil Wickremasinghe, while Karu
Jayasuriya left it to the last minute to decide to drop out. Even the remnants
of the DNA, which Sarath Fonseka himself established, didn't all show up.
He was left with the United Bhikkhu Front and a few individuals like
Sarath N Silva, former Chief Justice, about whom the less said the better, plus
assorted NGOs.
As such, Sarath Fonseka proved once and for all that his role as the
'common candidate' in the 2010 presidential election campaign was a one-off. It
was an extraordinary contest at an extraordinary moment in the country's
history. Just a few months after the end of the generation-long war, the Army
Commander took on his Commander-in-Chief. He will not get another chance.
I am relieved, I must say.
Few people believed Sarath Fonseka's pledge to abolish the Executive
Presidency when he made it the first time around. Indeed, even he didn't seem
totally convinced, so busy as he was making promises.
I certainly didn't trust him to give up power. For why did he enter
politics? Because he was upset at Mahinda Rajapaksa's refusal to allow him to
further increase his empire as Army Commander. His plan for the post-war
expansion of the Army was rejected by the Government. Critical as I am of
Mahinda Rajapaksa, I believe that this decision indicates that he is not as bad
as Sarath Fonseka might have been.
While this may not be saying much, it is the choice that Sri Lanka was
faced with.
Also, justified or otherwise, Sarath Fonseka was commonly regarded as a
guy concerned more with ends than means. Even if this was necessary in the
circumstances, which is debatable, surely we can all agree that it is not a
desirable trait in a peacetime leader? In peacetime, there can be no discussion
about the acceptability of exceptions to the rule of law, although, as we have
seen in the last three years, they may still occur in abundance. (Mahinda
Rajapaksa is working hard to develop a similar reputation for himself.) But
although we do not know for sure who is responsible for many of the worst
crimes committed during the war, such as the various attacks on journalists
(now totally forgotten, unlike the attempted assassination of Sarath Fonseka,
one of the perpetrators of which was sentenced to 35 years rigorous
imprisonment this week), I don't think that there is any chance that Sarath
Fonseka is less guilty than Mahinda Rajapaksa.
Sarath Fonseka may have changed since then, having lost first an
election and then his liberty. But I still believe that there are many people
more suited to running the country than him.
I also believe that symbolism is important. Sri Lanka's president should
not be a military man.
Of course there is nothing wrong with people from other fields going
into politics after their retirement. Even there is nothing wrong with military
men going into politics. But the presidency is different. The president
represents the country, to its people and with the rest of the world. Sri Lanka
should be giving the impression that it is moving away from the military, not
drawing closer to it.
This is a sensitive time, and such matters should be handled
sensitively.
It is for the same reason that the proposal being advanced by various
people in the last month or so for the Ven Sobitha Thero, Chief Incumbent of
the Kotte Naga Vihara, to put himself forward as a 'common candidate' is also
undesirable.
Whether or not one agrees with the analysis of those who took up arms
against the State, there is no getting away from the fact that one of their
arguments was that the State is irretrievably Sinhala Buddhist in nature. And
there is no need to give them another reason to think so.
Also, if the Ven Sobitha Thero were to pledge to abolish the Executive
Presidency, many people would trust him.
I dare not suggest that they would be anything but wise to do so, which
is why I believe that the clergy should keep out of politics altogether.
The clergy are given special treatment in view of their office, and
rightly so. Religion is important to the vast majority of people in Sri Lanka,
and the leaders of the various faiths play an important role in their lives.
They should maintain their honoured position. But when the clergy become
politicians this is impossible. Either respect for them diminishes or the
democratic functioning of society is undermined. There cannot be any hesitation
about criticising elected representatives.
In any case, it is not the Executive President who can abolish the
Executive Presidency. That is the task of Parliament.
The real question for those who advocate a 'common candidate' is whether
or not they can trust the UNP.
I think that last week's rally gave us a good indication of the future,
and it is a future without the National Movement for Social Justice.
The UNP may be divided, but its various factions are clearly agreed on
one point – it will be putting up its own candidate for the next presidential
election. Ranil Wickremasinghe will of course try to make sure that it is him.
After all, he will only have been party leader for a mere 20 years by then! But
he won't have an easy time. Sajith Premadasa is perhaps starting to think that
he might make it, while Karu Jayasuriya undoubtedly hasn't given up hope
either.
Sarath Fonseka's role as the 'common candidate' in the 2010 presidential
election campaign was only possible because the UNP was sure that it could not
win, the vote taking place so soon after the war victory.
And such circumstances are unlikely to be repeated.
Rather than ignoring this reality, people interested in anything more
important than Sarath Fonseka's political career had better shift their focus
away from distractions like the National Movement for Social Justice and back
to where it is needed.
The established political parties need serious attention. Each one of
them is in chaos, with no clearly defined programme and leaders who should have
relinquished their positions long ago. They have split or they are in the
process of splitting. And with each split they get weaker, leaving Sri Lankan
democracy worse off. They should be looking inward, working out how to get
themselves and the country out of the mess they are in, not waiting for
outsiders to act.
They all have good names. They just need to remember what they mean.
Kath Noble's column may be accessed online at
http://kathnoble.wordpress.com. She may be contacted at kathnoble99@gmail.com.
 When launching an initiative in Sri Lanka, it is well known that ...){kind=link}