Rights, democracy and an “incorrigible” common candidate

While President Rajapaksa left the issue of elections steaming hot on the plate without any forks or spoons for popular consumption, the main opposition the UNP has been left grinding their teeth, with Gen Fonseka, their prize catch, breaking away on his own, in deciding his reasons for retirement. He has apparently changed the agreed draft of his retirement letter, prepared in consultation with key players of the opposition alliance, before handing it over to the President’s Secretary.

As reported in the Sunday Times (of 15 Nov), what most of us had therefore been commenting on as Gen SF’s retirement papers are those drafted by these opposition power brokers and not that which was actually handed over. Gen SF had thus proved to the UNF and all those who want him to be the “common” candidate to abolish the executive presidency, that the final decision is with him and with no body else. (Gen. SF’s passion for power was analysed by me in a previous article). He showed he would not have all the niceties about media freedom and democracy, in sending out his own edited version of the letter to the President, requesting his retirement.

Despite what the opposition wanted, he the “Tiger wiping” General, stood by what he said earlier. The media is an “unpatriotic media”. (2008 Jan 02/Dinamina interview). So, he did not want to talk of “those who stage protests with unshaven beards, long hairs and wearing costumes like in fancy dress competitions (they) are not scribes who are clamouring for media freedom, but a gang of thugs.” His perception on democracy and that of media freedom is a “Sangakkarian” simple. “These so called media guys are not responsible to the people and they are not entitled to such media freedom.” (for more, -http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20080721_05)

He proved his consistency in being anti democratic and a ruthless decision maker, of his own making. For those who wish to see this country as one that re-emerges as a democratic country with an assurance for future development, as one that affords equal opportunity for all in a secular, inclusive State, the General proves he is no “common” candidate. Therefore the issue at hand is to move out of dichotomies – support war or be a traitor / support SF or you support MR – conventional petty thinking and search for a new alternative that would be valid for long term democracy and development.

Unfortunately the UNP as the major opposition that any would expect to come up with a futuristic programme for holistic development in a new democracy, with an alternative to the MR regime (that without doubt needs replacement) lives in shambles. Both organisationally and in intellectual thinking.

After successive defeats, it has fractured during the past few years to the extent the SLFP was, during 1990-92, when the brother and sister were washing their dirty linen in public and the mother was indifferent to all crisis, happy she ousted the party general secretary to install her pet in that seat. The UNP is now a similar “collective of conspiring groups” than a formally functioning party.

The JVP has lost their popular mass base to President Rajapaksa, they once thought they were leading from the Sinhala, “Unitary” State platform, campaigning for war against “separatist Tigers”. They are now left with their usual cadre based trade union and student fronts, battling their way out for a loud presence, on street protests and pickets.

Together the UNP and the JVP now have only one common aspiration and that is to save face if an election is thrust upon them. They are proving they are only interested in grabbing power and not in development programmes. As such, on their own they cannot face elections, as alternatives to this MR regime. Their strategy therefore is to work on the same Sinhala psyche that MR and his “Unitary” platform of Sinhala extremists developed for the war and is still considered the popular platform. They could only face that challenge now, through a Sinhala “common candidate” against Rajapaksa, if it is a presidential election.

This alliance nevertheless can not sit together on a common platform to feel strong, for long perceived antagonistic politics. The UNP as a political entity is yet uncertain what their development programme could be, other than talk proud of pioneering free economic policies three decades ago, in Sri Lanka. Wickramasinghe has also not talked about any new approaches in development even after the ‘global slump’ and seems still confident, he could revive the economy on World Bank / IMF economic packages.

This may hold true for a short period of time, once some sanity is brought to financial management, cut back on huge waste and corruption and with some investor confidence. Yet it is now proved, the “neo liberal” market policies have failed, equally badly as the former “Soviet”model. None holds hope for the future.

The JVP too has not deviated from its “old fashion” socialist thinking, although their ’71 insurgency veteran, Amarasinghe, vowed on a private TV discussion, they believe in a strong combination of a “private – public partnership”. This has nevertheless not rid them of their anti-capitalist, anti imperialist rhetoric and their old socialist mindset in cementing a rigidly regimented cadre.

While neither is certain what their parametres are in development politics, where these two divergent political entities could meet at least temporarily is, “for democracy” in principle. That democracy has also been wholly reduced to the slogan of abolishing the Executive Presidency, hyping it as the only malady in the country. Thus it is one slogan that could conveniently put together an alliance between the UNF and the JVP in search of their “common”  Sinhala candidate. For there is also some truth in it that makes the slogan somewhat marketable, for want of a better democratic governing system.

The type of executive presidency created by the Jayawardne leadership has provided total immunity to the person who sits with those powers, even after the person relinquishes the post. Jayawardne did not include any safeguards to even check constitutional arrogance of a president elect. That immunity is what makes the presidency an all powerful executive office.

Why Jayawardne wanted such a powerful, unquestionable executive presidency in  1978 and how he was able to reason it out, was on the basis that the parliamentary system with a Prime Minister had been ineffective and incapable in developing the country for 30 years since independence, under 05 comparatively capable Prime Ministers.

He therefore argued for a stronger national leadership with executive powers to achieve development that the parliament and the PM failed to deliver, even with change of governments in 1956, 1965 and then again in 1970 with a two thirds majority. Failed thereafter from 1972 with a republican constitution that reduced the bi-cameral parliament into a single chamber, thus claiming people’s sovereignty in full.

After that 30 year failure with a pro parliamentary system with a PM, the failure in developing this country as a conflict free, democratic country, continued during the next 30 years too, with Jayawardne’s executive presidency. His presidency turned the governing system into a new malady of power conflicts. It is not what it was told, it would be. With every change of person as elected President, except for Wijetunge the substitute, the presidency has become too savagely problematic with its attached immunity alone making the person irresponsible and arrogant to all constitutional and legal authority, other than with what he or she decides to abide by.

Thus today, while accepting that this is too powerful a presidency to allow Generals with a passion for authoritarian rule to sit on, getting back to a parliament with a PM heading it, would not be a new answer, having experienced that model as inefficient in delivering to the people.

After all these mistakes over 61 years, it is now common sense, that this country needs to see beyond dichotomies. This country now needs to talk alternatives with a comprehensive socio development programme and that does not include a “common” candidate of Sinhala popularity.

This society has to think of alternatives to re-democratise the governing structures and remove all immunity afforded to the presidency, thus holding the person elected to this high office constitutionally binding to answer to an independent high profile constitutional forum (or a similar provision). It should now be the understanding that just a powerful PM with a parliament is not what this country needs, but an intellectually strong national leadership which accepts and provides a provincial governing structure to the provinces. Provincial power even for the South that has been left out as a poor rural society all these 61 years, to decide on their own development and accommodate their local political aspirations within a single, national constitution.

This UNF leadership it is certain, is not heading that way. It lives in dichotomies and sees no third aspect in solutions. Sloganised and camouflaged programmes have always been fakes and they are never seriously discussed in society. President Rajapaksa’s hesitancy in deciding on an early presidential election at least provides the UNF with time for a social discourse on an alternate programme, if they so desire.

But if its power they want to grab at any cost, then even an incorrigible General out of uniform would not be tall enough, against a President who works for power on a popular Sinhala platform. Surmounting popular Sinhala sentiment that’s fashioned by unbridled State power under this executive presidency, from a similar Sinhala platform, is one that would never materialise. ‘Duplicates’ even in Panchikawatte is priced low.

This crisis can only be challenged by convincing the people on a rational social democratic programme for development. One that would bring about an economic development with State guidance and intervention on a market economy, with due consideration given to the now emerging Asian economies. For Sri Lanka, the model could be a more functional democracy than even India, if a serious discussion is begun. But all that needs more than a popular leader. Needs an intellectual leader, grown out of democratic politics.

Pity this thrice blessed country by Lord Buddha, that has three wheeler autos and rickety private buses displaying ‘stickers’ claiming this land belongs to “Gauthama Buddha”, but sadly lacking any credible leader for its future development. Over the last few decades, the society as a whole has degenerated in social values, conduct and intellect and lacks collective thinking that now, it could only produce leaders with neither hindsight nor foresight.

This society is one that can not therefore even feel comfortable saying “hindsight is better than foresight”.