There are parties and there are coalitions. We’ve seen both rise and fall, falter and
prosper. There are party candidates and
there are common candidates. We’ve seen both types and both have tasted success
and failure.
Common fronts were not uncommon in the period before J R
Jayewardene came up with the Second Republican Constitution in 1978 with
proportional representation, executive presidency and a lot of other things
that are part and parcel of what’s now called ‘the democracy deficit’ in the
country. The UNP itself was a coalition,
as was the MEP that ousted it in 1956. There
were no-contest pacts. There were official ‘fronts’ too. The UNP and SLFP of course remained key
factors in electoral politics after the 1978 constitution ‘kicked-in’,
electorally, but both parties have needed props be it a general or presidential
election.
The last ‘pure’ party candidate of any consequence was
Ranasinghe Premadasa, but even he needed the convoluted support of the JVP in
that the destabilization and vote-and-die threats mouthed by that party
affected Premadasa less than it did his principal opponent. He even had Ossie Abeygoonesekera ripping off
a fair number of opposition votes – Ossie would join the UNP soon after the
presidential election of 1988.
Since then, be in parliamentary or presidential, winning
elections have been about getting the coalition right. In the case of parliamentary elections, the
proportional representation system has made coalitions logical. In presidential elections, given the obvious
benefits enjoyed by an incumbent who contests, it is the opposition that has to
think of candidate-suitability in terms of cobbling together a coalition. Mahinda Rajapaksa, in 2005, didn’t have the
open endorsement of his party leader. He
obtained the support of the nationalists and the left parties. Wickremesinghe had minority parties on his
side, as did Sarath Fonseka in 2010.
We are in 2014 and this political moment is full of
coalition talk. The focus is on fielding
‘a common candidate’ against Mahinda Rajapaksa.
It is in this context that the validity of ‘party’ (as opposed to
coalition) has to be examined. More specifically, the suitability of
particular candidates in particular coalitions, have to be assessed.
There’s talk that the Bodu Bala Sena might field a
candidate. As of now it seems more
rhetoric than anything else. As in the case of single (and small) political
entities winning is not the issue – robbing votes is. In the case of the BBS, one would say
‘insignificant’ at this point. Of greater interest are the moves by Ven
Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera, the insistence on common program first rather than
candidate name, whether or not the JVP would support a UNPer posing as ‘common
candidate’ etc.
In 2010 it was easy.
The incumbent was strong and losing face was the priority for both the
UNP and JVP. They played Sarath Fonseka
for a sucker quite successfully. Today, many in the opposition believe that the
right candidate is in with more than an outside chance. Ranil Wickremesinghe cannot be faulted for
believing that his time has come, finally.
The JVP, however, has stated that it would not back him. If the opposition is really keen on winning
then this is hardly the time to harden positions. The focus on program is positive but
announcing candidacy is unhealthy.
Mahinda Rajapaksa was as common a candidate as one could get
on the other side of the political equation.
He was a member of the SLFP but we haven’t heard that party’s name much
in the past 20 years. That coalition was
about program and personality, but not about party name or symbol. There’s a lesson to be learned there,
obviously. Fixations on either make for
fissure and not unity. Rajapaksa was
fresh. So was Chandrika Kumaratunga.
Wickremesinghe has a handicap in that area.
Thus, even though it makes sense for the common candidate to
be from the UNP in the event that the opposition cannot come up with a credible
name outside of ‘party circles’, others in the party have to be considered too
while keeping in mind that the supporting cast can have reasonable reservations
about name and symbol. Fonseka’s failure showed up the immense
disadvantages of a party-less person when taking on an incumbent who still has
considerable mass appeal despite regime-fatigue, lawlessness, unpardonable
wastage and perceptions of dynastic preoccupations.
As things stand, the familiar bickering, reiteration of
preferred position, too many people and groups pulling in too many directions
do not produce a positive picture of the process. It is not a knot that is easily untangled
admittedly. As pointed out, the wiser
thing at this stage would be to focus on program. Dropping fixations about party name and
symbols would help. Stating the
non-negotiable has to come much later if at all.
0 comments:
Post a Comment