"A very British coup" is a TV film by Mick Jackson based on a novel by Chris Mullin. It is about what happens when Harry Perkins, a third-generation socialist from a working class and trade unionist background, referred to as a communist by his detractors, is elected Britain's Prime Minister. He argues for nuclear disarmament and open government. US interests combine with the old boys' network to try and defeat Perkins with spies, tabloids and tapes; in other words all the ingredients that would make for a very British coup.
In the end, instead of resigning, as expected by the establishment, Perkins comes on television to announce that he is dissolving parliament. He admits without any hesitation that yes, he did have an affair with a woman, that is was short and memorable but that he believes that the people should decide who should rule them, someone who is upfront about what he wants for the people or those who would pull all kinds of strings and engage in back-door deals to retain their hold on people's lives and futures. In the final scene, Perkins is shown getting ready to go out and cast his vote, chirpy to the extreme. The result is left for the viewer to imagine.
President Mahinda Rajapaksa is not a Harry Perkins, although
there are certain similarities. What is
pertinent about the film script is the challenge Perkins throws at his
people. The relevance comes in the form
of various external moves ostensibly seeking ‘truth’ about the military
offensive against terrorism, viz the
machinations that seek a mandate to investigate alleged ‘war crimes’, quite in
contravention of the UN Charter and clearly prompted by malice. The report so biased, so full of conjecture
dressed up as fact, so intellectually dishonest, so morally reprehensible, so full
of contradictions, so replete with ridiculous extrapolations and insane
exaggerations and so dependent on the claims made by highly unreliable sources
that ‘truth’ and ‘reconciliation’ appear to have only rhetorical value and
nothing more.
Kalana Senaratne (‘Revisiting accountability’ in ‘The
Island’) and Bernard Goonetilleke (interview with www.asiantribune.com) have clearly pointed
out the illegality, malice and limitations of both the panel appointed by the
UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon. The
target is of course the current political leadership, although the process of
vilification will scar the image of the nation and directly and indirectly
impact the wellbeing of all Sri Lankans.
The US Ambassador, Patricia Butenis recently hosted a party,
inviting several key apologists for the LTTE bearing unconcealed hatred for the
regime and with a considerable curriculum vitae in matters pertaining to
regime-change attempts as well as efforts to whitewash the LTTE of crimes
against humanity and of course to save the top leadership in the final days of
the conflict. The agenda was simple:
how to use the above ‘report’ to extract an outcome in Sri Lanka they can cheer
about. No mention at all of the obvious
problems of the report (as outlined above).
It all points to malice and worse, the likelihood that the said document
was either authored by these individuals under Butenis’ supervision (Wikileaks
has revealed how the lady desperately tried to get Tamil politicians to demand
an international investigation) or that the entire group (headed/facilitated by
Butenis) comprise the main sources for the report.
All this adds up to two significant threats to democracy in
Sri Lanka. First of all, even if Mahinda
Rajapaksa was the worst tyrant to ever walk this beautiful land, he needs to be
removed by the people of Sri Lanka and for the wellbeing of the nation, not by
any external power and certainly not to serve their ends, be it strategic,
economic or political interests or pure, to exact revenge for having had preferred
outcome in the conflict thwarted or to boost egos. Knowing well that it is a long road from here
to the Haig and one with many ifs and buts to contend with, knowing well that a
‘Libya’ will be secured in Sri Lanka only with the greatest difficulty, these
moves clearly seek to destabilize the country.
Image-tarnish can impact economy, as would sanctions. The hope, probably, is that these will
generate and boost dissent, cut into regime-popularity, pick up the opposition
etc., and eventually effect political transformation.
This is an error. Sri
Lanka does not have oil (as far as we can tell). Sri Lanka elects and
elects-out leaders regularly or has the opportunity to do so. For all the flaws of Sri Lanka’s democracy,
few will say that by and large the will of the people have not prevailed. The opposition is extremely weak, not on
account of repression, but its own errors, manifest buttressing of the LTTE,
directly and indirectly at critical times and a marked and scandalous readiness
to go along with the political machinations designed by people like Butenis and
of course her predecessor Robert O Blake.
These are not booming times but no one is starving or suffering
deprivations that might provoke food riots.
This gives rise to the second threat to democracy. The obvious and unadulterated malice on the
part of these external actors and their principal local lackeys, all known to
be pro-LTTE or virulently anti-Sinhala and anti-Buddhist not to mention engaged
in all kinds of shady financial deals, rather than weakening the regime (as
envisaged) in fact strengthens Mahinda Rajapaksa and the Government. Many, if not all, who sides with Rajapaksa
either out of gratitude for giving political leadership to the successful
vanquishing of terrorism or because they considered him a consolation prize
given the horrifying nature of the alternative, would readily back the regime
against these moves. Ousting Rajapaksa
on account of failing to deliver on things such as transparency and
accountability would be considered, rightly I believe, of secondary import to
the need to block the meddling, interventionist moves of Butenis, Ki-moon, Navi
Pillai et al and their rogue-friends in Sri Lanka such as Paikiasothy
Saravanamuttu and Jehan Perera.
Politicians never fail to seize such opportunities. They will say ‘country’ when in fact they are
aware that ‘saving country’ includes ‘saving self’. It only erases the political space to talk
about good governance, accountability and transparency, not to mention the
horrendous flaws of the overall system that cloud proper and meaningful
representation. People can and very well
might rally around the President simply because they would feel that he alone
is best equipped to ensure that we have a country with some semblance of
sovereignty. They would feel that the
alternative is slavery to foreign agenda and loss of nation. Without nation,
they might conclude, the whole gamut of issues pertaining to democracy (such as
representation, accountability, transparency etc.) makes absolutely no
sense.
All this is severely
eroding the space to exercise citizenship.
Ki-moon, Pillai, Butenis, Susan Rice and others, will not lose any sleep
over these matters. They have and will turn a blind eye to the crimes against
humanity perpetrated by friends, will cheer military juntas, dictators and
cruel monarchs as long as they happen to be on the right side of the political
divide. Sri Lanka can hang, along with
or without Mahinda Rajapaksa for all they care.
The question is, do we care?
They can live with Sri Lanka slipping into anarchy. Can we, though?
1 comments:
" The report so biased, so full of conjecture dressed up as fact, so intellectually dishonest, so morally reprehensible, so full of contradictions, so replete with ridiculous extrapolations and insane exaggerations and so dependent on the claims made by highly unreliable sources that ‘truth’ and ‘reconciliation’ appear to have only rhetorical value and nothing more. "
If this was indeed the case it could easily be dismissed after an investigation.
More than any report, the GoSL behaviour, of obfuscation, prevarication, denial and doublespeak only lends credibility to the report.
Post a Comment