#Aragalayaleft?

‘Left’ in internet parlance refers, apparently, to an individual who has withdrawn from a group, for example one on WhatsApp created for like-minded people or those who share some common attribute (for example being a member of a particular sports team or a political collective). It can also be used, by extension, to refer to something that was but is no more. It is in this sense that we need to discuss the proposition, ‘#aragalayaleft?’ In other words, what happened to the agitation/protests or the ‘aragalaya?’ Is it still on? Is it done? Does it exist in the trappings and not substance? Such are the issues that we discuss here.

Outside of the diehards, it is clearly apparent that the aragalaya is not what it was or what it was meant to be or what its adherents made it out to be. GGG (Gotagotama) still exists, but few would insist that the spirit pervading the territory in the month of April and the first weeks of May is intact.

Perhaps this is partly because ‘aragalaya’ is associated with a mis-written address. After all, the anxiety, fear, anger etc., that spilled out of the household and workplace didn’t flow all the way to the GGG from all parts of the country. GGG was seen or understood as a proxy or focal point, yes. People from all parts of the country did go there and many camped out for a few days or more, yes. However, for obvious reasons GGG could not hold all the agitators nor all agitation. The agitation still exists of course. The root causes haven’t been sorted out.

On the other hand, after the May 9th incident and its aftermath, several factors came into play. First and foremost the Prime Minister tendered his resignation. The aragalists, having focused on an individual and a family, found the political rug pulled from under their feet. True, some did talk of system-change, but that was almost an afterthought or footnote. Revenge for perceived wrongs dominated the aragala discourse and the voices of those who say personality and party as expressions of system-failure were drowned in the cheers and jeers calling out for blood and beheading. It was clear that the anger was directed towards a political family/clan. It is clear that Mahinda Rajapaksa symbolised this family/clan and all the ills associated with it. When they announced #mahindaleft it was a hefty consolation prize.

Then there was the systematic violence in response to the attack on GGG by goons who set off from Temple Trees. The aragalists and the aragalaya lost much ground then and there. It is one thing to fight in self-defence and quite another to systematically target enemies, engage in arson and looting, perpetrating thuggery and murder. What was lost at that point was the moral high ground: those who engaged in such activity did so in the name of the aragalaya, called themselves aragalists and there was hardly a whimper of protest from those in the aragalaya who did not condone such acts.

More seriously, the non-political claims of the aragalaya (as in ‘not belonging to or being led by established political parties/organizations’) were proven to be idle boasts. There were JVP thugs at GGG; Sajith Premadasa was attacked, Anura Kumara Dissanayake was not. Sunil Handunnetti openly condoned arson, looting, thuggery and murder. Lalkantha did not justify it, but he acknowledged that the JVP called all party units in all parts of the country out on to the streets immediately after the attack on GGG. It’s not hard to connect the dots.

Was the JVP the heart, so to speak, of GGG? Many would say ‘no’ or ‘no way’ and they wouldn’t be lying. However, there was and there still is a JVP presence in GGG, a village they claim, but one now wrapped in fading and faded colours (little is left of the initial enthusiasm, the overflowing of love, camaraderie and a collective desire to recreate a nation of different and more wholesome colours).

Who stole the colours of GGG, then? Who robbed the perfumes? As mentioned above, part of the explanation has to be the fact that the agitation was directed at personalities and not systems. Part of it is the dilemma of any spontaneous uprising made of multiple voices — when it comes to synthesising all interests into cogent, pragmatic demands, there’s dissonance. What came out was pretty bland — mostly regurgitation of old and tired slogans, calls for the obvious and demands for constitutional amendments that clearly indicated absolute ignorance of constitutional content and process.

Part of it is the vile (yes, vile) intentions of the JVP. The JVP initially pooh-poohed the Aragalaya (‘We are not interested in fatherless agitation,’ they said). They were arrogant (‘We will give the leadership that the Aragalaya needs,’ they said). The JVP tried to make political profit out of the aragalaya; Harini Amarasuriya was aghast that Ranil Wickremesinghe, the sole UNP MP, was made Prime Minister but saw nothing wrong in the leader of her party wanting to be President (first PM subject to Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s resignation and then using the inside track to the Executive Presidency), even though his party polled just 3%. And for reasons best known to them perhaps deliberately or unwittingly, the JVP showered body-blows on the aragalaya, robbing it of its integrity and moral superiority by indulging in violence.  

Of course change is not an overnight phenomenon. Neither is it fair to demand that aragalists deliver paradise here and now. Sugath Kulatunga in an FB post generously suggests, ‘probably the aragalaya is a learning process.’ That it certainly is and this is why hope should not be retired. Setbacks are scripted into any revolutionary process. Debacles are also inevitable. However, advancement is predicated among other things on identifying and insuring the struggle against the most pernicious type of enemy, he/she who comes wearing the uniform of agitation, waving agitational banners and assuming he/she has some kind of right to lead. In this instance, the JVP is the most prominent of this tribe.

Kulatunga’s generosity came with some home truths which warrant retelling:

‘System-change is the current buzzword or a mantra chanted by many people including intellectuals. The Galle Face Aragalaya also claims that the struggle is for a systems change. But their 8 demands do not spell systems change. The changes they demand are within the prevailing system. For instance if Gota goes there will be another President. Others like an interim government and amendments to the Constitution are within the current system. Fair and independent elections are provided in the present law. A systems change focuses on the causes, rather than the symptoms. A definition of system change explains that it encompasses taking a holistic (or ‘systemic’) view of required transformations in the policies, practices, power dynamics, social norms or mindsets that underlie the societal issue at stake. Aragalaya demands are neither radical nor revolutionary. They concern only on some adjustments in the prevailing system and do not address the underlying social issues.’

The JVP is not for system-change. Neither is the IMF for that matter. In fact the JVP and the IMF are integral parts of the system (that clearly requires transformation). Maybe the aragalaya will save itself from such fake aragalists. The true aragalaya is never evicted or buried. It finds different addresses, learns from errors, becomes more circumspect and emerges even more radiant and strong. That aragalaya is no longer resident in GGG. It has left. In essence. 

Related Articles:

Personalities and systems

The 'aragalists' and the challenge of re-mapping Sri Lanka

Tomorrow, tomorrow and so forth...

A season of (il)legitimacies 

The brink and beyond

Spontaneity and its discontents 

ලෙයට ලෙය වෙනුවට ආලය

පුද්ගල චරිත මතුවේ, නිර්පාක්ෂික හැව ගැලැවේ, අරගලය ඉදිරියටම....

The BASL Proposals: A review

 

 
malindadocs@gmail.com

[Malinda Seneviratne is the Director/CEO of the Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian Research and Training Institute. These are his personal views.]

Read more

Which candidate will bell the Islamic Fundamentalist Cat?

Promises are cheap, plans expensive. Promises easy, plans take time to formulate and a certain basic level of intelligence to articulate. Promises don’t add up to vision, plans do. Some candidates promise, others plan. I need not elaborate. 

Let’s flag some issues.  

The economy. We have one of the worst growth rates in the region; only Afghanistan lags behind Sri Lanka. For all the talk of a debt inherited by the Yahapalana Government (of which Sajith Premadasa is a minister), the quantum of new debt had nothing to do with the past.

National security. Easter Sunday showed the mess we are in. It’s a product of an insane revenge-drive that constituted of a comprehensive witch hunt against intelligence and security officers assumed to be loyal to the previous regime and an equally insane misconception that ‘reconciliation’ is about dismantling the security apparatus. That’s Yahapalana thinking for you (and Sajith Premadasa is a minister in the Yahapalana Government). 

Reconciliation. That’s a term which in practice had a rider: ‘pseudo’. It was all about hurting one way or another the majority community. It was not about inclusive nationalism, as it ought to have been. That again is a Yahapalana thing and yes, Sajith Premadasa is a minister in the Yahapalana Government.  

There’s more, but let’s focus on issues related to religion, secularism and national integrity.  Now these have been constant themes of this regime and those who supported it. The focus of course has been the removal of the special status of Buddhism (Article 9), which has anyway been negated by Articles 10 and 14. However, for all talk of secularism, there’s been dead silence by the vociferous secularist lobby on customary laws pertaining to religion. The caveat ‘other than the marriages of Muslims’ in the Marriages (General) Ordinance No 19 of 1907 made more specific by the the Muslim Marriage  and Divorce Act No 13 of 1951 and the Marriages and Divorce (Kandyan) Act No 44 of 1952 have not caught attention. Strangely.  

If religion, as the likes of Mangala Samaraweera frequently claim, is a personal matter and not the business of the state, if the route to modernity involves a separation of state and religion and if a secular state is a non-negotiable when it comes to an integrated Sri Lanka that has reconciled community-based differences, then these things should be done away with. Surely?  

And yet, the entire debate in ‘civil society’ (can we call it a ‘Civil Society gaaya’ following Thenuwara’s pet peeve, the so-called ‘Ranaviru gaaya’?) has been about reforming and not repealing these archaic statues that stand in the way of everything they swear by (secularism, national integration and reconciliation). Why? 

Rev Athureliye Rathana Thero tabled three bills to repeal the aforementioned Acts. It hasn’t been taken up. It hasn’t generated any comment from the secularists. Child marriages, selective sanctioning of polygamy and so-called customary dress codes (Niqab and Burqa) are absolutely at odds with the kind of modernity that these ladies and gentlemen advocate for Sri Lanka.  

A dress is a dress in whatever form. Even nudity can be described as a dress-preference. We have norms which do not sanction nudity but we can’t have laws that sanction dress-form. We can have norms though and in certain cases even laws. If a masked man enters a bank, would not the employees feel uneasy? Do they have to ‘grin and bear’ because ‘that’s his/her dress-preference’? 

In an age that is marked by insecurity, in a country where the single most bloody act by adherents of a particular religion targeting non-believers was the Easter Sunday attacks, in a country that has seen 30 years of terrorism, we all have to pay a price for personal and community security. Vigilance. Laws that could be seen as infringements on personal freedom. For example. 

Banning the niqab and burqa are relatively minor infringements but most importantly warranted by particularly terrifying circumstances. Please note that even though these new ‘customs’ are a direct product of the spread of Waha’abism and even though it is this religious sect that has given rise to Islamic extremism, it is not the religious association that makes such a ban logical. It’s a national security issue.  

Of course, none of the terrorists involved in the Easter Sunday attacks wore niqab or burqa, but that’s not relevant here. The issue is concealment of identity.  If anyone wears anything that indicates ‘I can see you but you cannot see me,’ then that kind of attitude has no place in civilized society. It does not make for free and equal person-to-person interaction. It could work in a circle where everyone wears such garments, not elsewhere. 

Why should we have religious holidays in a secular state? If it’s a personal matter, then people can affirm their ‘personal religious preferences’ on their own time. Why should certain people be allowed time-off for prayers? Why should there be different leave-options for women of a particular religious community on account of childbirth or widowhood? That’s taking religion and custom way too far. Sure, they can take time off, but institutions need not be forced to pay for the religion-time of their employees. Perhaps we could consider 'religious leave' as a category similar to 'medical leave' or 'casual leave'. Every employee could be guaranteed a certain number of days which could even be broken into hours so that, for example, devout Muslims could go to Mosque for a certain period of time on a Friday.  

We don't do that kind of thing, do we? That would be religious intolerance right? No, wrong. You can't have the cake and eat you. You can't ride two horses with one backside. Either go with the 'One Country, One Law Thesis' or quit griping about religion and its relationship with the state. 

It is for these reasons that the Bills that Rev Rathana Thero has tabled are very important pieces in resolving the conundrum of integrity and reconciliation. 

Right now, in the thick of presidential campaigns, in the war of promises bettering the promises of others, the clear front-runner Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the optimistic hopeful Sajith Premadasa, the more-pale-pink-than-red candidate Anura Kumara Dissanayake, the choice of the less-political-but-indignant Mahesh Senanayake and the destined-to-be also-rans have maintained a dead silence on these issues.  

They are playing cheap politics with a serious national issue. Sweeping these under the carpet of expedience may help win the day but they are creating conditions for the entire nation to trip on them sooner or later. 

At what price, ‘The Muslim Vote’? That’s the question that remains unanswered. My personal view is that Muslims have traditionally voted for the UNP.  Sajith Premadasa taking a principled stand on this issue will not cause any dents.  Those Muslims who have supported the Rajapaksas tend to be the more liberal elements of that community. They are not for a ‘One Sri Lanka with Ethnic/Religious Enclaves’. Gotabaya Rajapaksa taking a principled stand will not irk them. 

Regardless of the impact on votes, it is good when candidates are principled rather than populist. Does Sajith have the what-nots? Does Gota? How about the others? Let us see.

malindasenevi@gmail.com.

Read more

Cheating Sinhalese in proposal and Tamils through outcome

JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake has made two statements regarding reconciliation via constitutional reform.  Firstly, he has said that a referendum on a new constitution should not be approached the way the Presidential Election was fought.  In that election, the Northern and Eastern Provinces overwhelmingly voted for President Sirisena, who was the default candidate of the United National Party and as such was backed to the hilt by the coalition led by that party.  

What Anura K is saying, then, is that in this instance voters should not back a UNP-drafted proposal.  In other words, as far as the JVP is concerned, this is not something to do with Mahinda  Rajapaksa and indeed is a larger issue that has little to do with regimes, regime-change, good governance and what not.  

The signal is that the JVP is opposed to the new constitution or at least those sections that refer to devolution.  Why the JVP cannot openly oppose the secrecy shrouding the process or detail the relevant articles to which they only hint that they object, is anyone’s guess.  

The second contention is that in the event that the new constitution is rejected at a referendum, the cry for ethnic-based devolution should be abandoned.  This provides a clue.  The draft new constitution clearly includes articles that go beyond the 13th Amendment in terms of devolving power to the provinces.  This is not surprising since the chief architects of the process, Jayampathi Wickramaratne, representing a party that would not win a single seat in Parliament in a first past the post system, is ideologically committed to such devolution.  Add to that the ideological preferences of Mangala Samaraweera and Chandrika Kumaratunga, and the intellectual sloth and political naivete of the UNP and we cannot expect anything else.  

That said, there is a serious political problem in Anura K’s second wish.  Why should defeat result in a dropping of a demand?  In the first instance such change of heart cannot be legally obtained.  Secondly, if electoral defeat must necessarily result in abandonment of political project, there are lots of things the JVP should have dropped a long time ago.  And not just the JVP, one might add.  

It is like saying that since there are laws against theft, thieves should give up on wrongdoing from  pickpocketing to misusing power and abusing trust to pull of heists worth billions through the manipulation of Central Bank bond issues.  Silly.

While we can attribute the formulation of such wishes by the JVP to anxieties about how much political bleeding the JVP could suffer from the enactment of such proposals (if endorsed by a referendum) and of course sophomoric thinking, the key issues are essentially being skirted here, by the JVP and by the Government.  

First of all, the question ‘why devolution in the first place?’ is not addressed beyond the crass regurgitation of the logic of Eelamist myth-modeling sans appropriate weight to all the relevant factors.  According to all indications, is yet another ill-conceived pandering to Tamil chauvinism marked by an absolute disavowal of history and a shameless and even dangerous refusal to factor in historical, demographic and geographical realities.  

It is also, in effect, a proverbial lifting of the sarong to the valid observations made by President Maithripala Sirisena with respect to the errors embedded in provincial boundaries which (need we even mention?) were arbitrarily drawn by the British and has been the ‘base’ on which the Eelam Map has been traced.  It’s a trace that Tamil chauvinism swears by and sections of the current Government are loathe to inspect.  That’s pernicious historiography compounded by pernicious approval by the very fact of nonsensical constitutional drafting.  

It is clearly incumbent upon governments to listen to grievances and to set in place structures and processes that allow for the rational treatment of aspirations where the true dimensions of grievances and the appropriateness of aspirations are correctly assessed.  One can argue that these structures and processes do exist.  What is lacking is the political will to do this important and necessary audit.  The formulation of ‘resolution’ where such ‘homework’ is not done is irresponsible and goes against the basic principles of good governance.  In the absence of such will the natural yield is ‘whim and fancy’.  

The fate of a people should not be put in the hands of whim-fancy politicians because such idiocy and irresponsibility do not yield reconciliation but rather exacerbate antipathies and produce bloodshed.  

What if, for example, the JVP went further and something of this kind: ‘include a caveat whereby a an overall “yes” for devolution requires all Tamils to live in the North and East’?  That would be unfair, absolutely.  On the other hand, therein lies the key problem about devolution predicated on chauvinistic thinking and the exaggeration of claims.  Close to half the Tamils live OUTSIDE the so-called traditional/historical homeland (whose histories and traditions at best remain unsubstantiated).  

Strong supporters of federalism are now swearing that this is not the right time to have a referendum.  It will be defeated, they claim, because ‘wounds are still new’.  They advocate a brainwashing of Sinhalese before putting the question to them.  That’s ‘democracy’ in their book.  In other words Anura K and the JVP need not worry, going by what the devolution racketeers are worried about right now.  Any ‘yes’ vote for such measures in Parliament would seal the political fate of the aye-sayers and perhaps even their parties, at least in the short term.  The President, at the right time, could pull out SLFP support.  That’s ‘goodbye’ to the two-thirds needed to get it passed in Parliament.  The UNP could tell Tamils that they did their best but the SLFP wrecked it and thus seek to retain the minority vote.  The SLFP will say that the UNP was trying to whack the Sinhalese.  A general election would see the UNP losing much ground among the Sinhalese.  Needless to say parties such as the TNA will tell Tamil youth that the Sinhalese will never yield anything.

This is what happens when you put the horse before the cart.  Reconciliation is scuttled.  The necessary starting point of the exercise has been missed.  Failure gets scripted, even if that’s not intended.  Sooner or later, after much pain, suffering and even bloodshed, we have to return to the beginning, the historical audit and the sober assessment of grievances and the equally sober consideration of aspirations.  

If the ‘beginning’ is to be painted in colours that are acceptable to Tamils, then the Vadukoddai Resolution is an excellent document to have on the table.  The claims therein could be evaluated with those affirming and negating bringing substance and not rhetoric to the table.  Anura K can find his voice, even.  

All of the above, we must not forget, has the danger of scuttling important deocraticising measures which may have been included in the draft.  The mishandling of Tamil chauvinism by the constitution drafting pundits can therefore wreck that other, more important project that is such an important part of Maithripala Sirisena’s manifesto.  We saw a similarly surreptitious move by the Chandrika Kumaratunga government in the year 2000.  Proposing the kind of ‘resolution’ that her political successors in this Government are currently pushing effectively resulted in keeping intact the executive presidency.  

These are the issues that the JVP could take up, if indeed they want to remain politically relevant into the foreseeable future.  As of now they are party to the insidious attempts by a few to cheat the people, the Sinhalese in the proposal itself and the Tamils through the most likely outcome.

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer. Email: malindasenevi@gmail.com.  Twitter: malindasene

Read more

Anura, Oxygen and Snakes

Q: So who gave Ranil oxygen, Anura?  A: මට මතක නැහැ නෙ! 

JVP Leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake is taking pot shots at his UNP counterpart Ranil Wickremesinghe.  At least in public, let us add.  Quoting Wickremesinghe, who said that his Prime Ministerial oxygen would run out on April 23 (i.e. when the ‘100 Days’ of the reform agenda expired), Dissanayake concludes that the UNP leader is now surviving on ‘hora oxygen’ (rogue oxygen).  

He has a point.  It was an election promise made by Maithripala Sirisena.  There were many promises however and there is nothing to say that the by-the-100th-day part of it should be privileged.  The 19th Amendment was passed after a lot of huffing and puffing.  It did clip some of the president’s powers and that’s good.  The down side is that it came up with a Constitutional Council that’s only a tad different from a parliamentary select committee.  The government is now labouring to birth the 20th.  It’s long overdue.  Pertinent however is the fact that there is no urgency shown by the people.  They are willing to wait.  Anura obviously is impatient.  Why?

It’s simple.  The JVP stands to lose big time if the proportional representation system is reformed.  It is silly therefore for him to complain about delays in a self-righteous kind of manner when he is absolutely disinterested in promised reform.  

But let’s consider his oxygen analogy.  It wasn’t too long ago that Anura and Ranil shared space on the same political stage.  They were virtually singing each other’s praises.  Indeed, considering the fact that Ranil Wickremesinghe in endorsing Sirisena’s candidacy acknowledged his (Ranil’s) inability to defeat Mahinda Rajapaksa, we have to conclude that Anura and the JVP (among others, including Patali Champika Ranawaka, Ven Athureliye Rathana and the JHU) were sending lorry loads of oxygen cylinders to Ranil.  It is thanks to them that Ranil became Prime Minister.  

Anura went out of his way to ensure that Ranil continues to breathe (politically) when he uncritically supported the UNP-helping version of the 19th Amendment that Ranil tried to bulldoze through Parliament.  What he did in fact was to try and ensure a continuous oxygen supply to the party which (ironically) massacred the JVP.  

This is why we had to interject the ‘at least in public’ qualifier above.  Anura has behaved in the last 6-8 months or so as a virtual water-boy for Wickremesinghe and the UNP.  If ‘reform’ was what prompted him to align with what he himself and his party dubs as the ‘Far Right’ and if reform is the last thing on his mind (going by his recently discovered angst about elections) then we cannot conclude otherwise.  

We might have gone with that interesting Sinhala saying about thrusting a snake under the sarong and then wailing ‘I was bitten!’ except that Anura’s complaint doesn’t sound too convincing.  It’s almost as though he’s enjoying being nibbled.  We ask him, ‘who took the oxygen cylinders to Sirikoha?’  We ask him, ‘who placed the oxygen mask on Ranil’s face?’   We ask him, ‘do you know the meaning of the word “hypocrite”?’

Read more

Mahinda, Maithripala or Delusion?

‘We are not in the business of issuing character certificates to those who cross,’ JVP Leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake said.   The past few weeks have seen a lot of politicians crossing party lines.  These moves have been received with jeers and cheers, depending on whether the person left or arrived, respectively.  Interestingly, if you took names of the ‘movers’ and the names of those who either praised or vilified the move out, it would be as though people are using the same script. 

If rhetoric and self-righteous chest beating is all that these crossovers are about, it would be silly to take them too seriously.   They do matter, however.  They keep contenders and campaigns in the news.  They are used to portray ‘sway’ even if they don’t exactly translate into the numbers that movers and backers toss around.   On the other hand if people do get swayed by those who are up for sale what does it say about the voter?  Not much, unfortunately.

It is in this context that Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s wry observation has to be viewed.  Our political culture was never really great, what with rogues, murderers, drug traffickers and common thugs seeking office and getting elected and re-elected, even when they switch loyalties. It seems to have hit rock bottom if the somersaults, pole-vaults and other gymnastic moves by people of all hues are considered.  If anything is worse than the rubbish uttered at post-crossing press conferences it is the wild cheers of the fans who believe the candidate they support have gained.  Even as they argue that theirs is the moral choice, they refuse to see the immorality of eleventh-hour ‘jumps’.  There’s a question that’s not being asked: ‘were these people sleeping all these years?’ 

In all this, there’s a character being taken for a big time ride by politicians.  The voter.  That’s you.  That’s all of us.  What happened to ‘Good vs. Evil’?  What happened to ‘Honesty vs. Dishonesty’?  What happens to notions such as law and order, good governance, the need to eradicate corruption, when you get the evil, the dishonest, the lawless and disorderly, wreckers of good governance and the corrupt on both sides of the principal political divide?  What does it say about the political maturity of a country when all that matters is liking or disliking someone in the particular political camp?  It is as though people have already decided (for whatever reason) and then say whatever is necessary to justify decision. 

When this is the political culture that governs important elections, one cannot blame the JVP for keeping out of it, except of course that party arguably has not-so-noble reasons such as not wanting to be embarrassed by having their true support base revealed.  One has to keep in mind, also, that the JVP is playing a ‘For-Maithripla’ game where the thahanam vachanaya (taboo word/name) is ‘Maithripala’. 

So if it’s about principles (which it is not for the vast majority, obviously and unfortunately), then the voter is fixed in mid-air, he/she is floating or has to support one of the many no-chance-in-hell candidates.  At best, people have to tell themselves (if they are honest, and the jury is out on that too!) ‘lesser evil,’ although it is tough to pick, considering all the riff-raff that the front-runners have surrounded themselves with.  Right now, though, the entire election is nothing more than a charade, where the vast majority of the country is happily engaged in a monumental exercise of self-delusion. 

Perhaps that’s consolation and the best we can come up with right now.  Sadly. 

Read more

Options for the Opposition

Dayan Jayatilleka in an article published in the Colombo Telegraph (How a weak opposition could still play it smart) offers that the Opposition is actually helping President Mahinda Rajapaksa secure a third term. 

He claims that the Opposition has picked the wrong slogan, that of ‘constitutional change’ when ‘it has little prospect of acting as a rallying cry among millions of rural voters’.  But even if the Opposition got the slogan right, it has got the candidate wrong, Dayan argues.  As things stand of course, the stand out figure among the pretenders is Ranil Wickremesinghe who, according to Dayan and many others is the weakest of all candidates against the President.  Furthermore, Dayan argues that the President will win against any candidate that the Opposition puts forward, so in and of itself Wickremesinghe contesting is not an issue.  

In this scenario, Dayan advises the Opposition to use the Presidential Election as a springboard to target ‘the weak link in the chain of regime hegemony, which is lodged in its real base: the parliament and the two thirds majority’.  Ideally, the ruling party would be defeated and this would stop ‘an oligarchic-securocratic or oligarchic-militaristic Iron Curtain (descending) upon post-election Sri Lanka, behind which a garrison state will grow and a dark age will settle’.  That’s Dayan with his usual doom’s day conclusion-flourish.

In an earlier piece titled ‘The Uva effect and the Presidency,’ written just two weeks ago, Dayan made a case for the UNP putting forward someone other than Wickremesinghe. He tossed out two names, Sajith Premadasa and Karu Jayasuriya, and argued the former’s case.  He didn’t claim that Sajith could win, but that he would help secure moral points in a loss that narrows the gap between regime and Opposition.  He seems to have shelved Project Sajith (for the moment), but can’t be blamed for arguing that any momentum gained even in a losing cause at the Presidential Election could help the Opposition in the Parliamentary Election that is most likely to be held immediately afterwards.

There are lots of ‘ifs’ in Dayan’s analysis of post-election scenarios.  There are lots of ‘wants’ too.  He would ideally have ‘the main Opposition goes into the parliamentary election under a new, populist-patriotic leadership which can achieve two things at the same time: (a) re-profile the Opposition so it looks newer and younger than the UPFA and (b) neutralize the regime’s monopoly of Sinhala Buddhist nationalism.’

That re-profiling, according to Dayan, would see the Opposition using the Presidential Election to raise consciousness and employing ‘Sajith Premadasa, Sujeeva Senasinghe, Harsha de Silva, Eran Wickremaratne, Rosie Senanayake, Anura Kumara Dissanayake, Sunil Handunetti, Vijitha Herath, Wasantha Samarasinghe, Lal Kantha and Tilvin Silva in a pincer move’.  Ranil Wickremesinghe and Karu Jayasuriya are left out of the picture.  Ravi Karunanayake and much of the UNP’s ‘Leadership Council’ are out too.  So re-profiling would essentially be a Sajith-led affair. 

Now ‘newer and younger’ doesn’t guarantee anything.  J.R. Jayewardene was not young in 1977, for example.  As for ‘pincer moves,’ it’s not names that count but the numbers behind the names.  It is not that each JVP leader mentioned here comes with all the JVP supporters. Together they bring all -- separately they don’t bring additional numbers. Harsha, Eran and Sujeeva are intelligent and eloquent but they are all voice-cut politicians.  Sajith has great appeal but not only is he not his father’s son in this respect he is divisive, arrogant, fixated with his political future and is a puppet of two prominent media moguls. 

In a post-Presidential situation, whatever momentum gained loses to election-fatigue, demoralization, additional electoral swing towards the winner and the scrambling of coalition. Going by history, the UNP would be distracted by yet another Unseat-Ranil effort which, given that the man is far more shrew than people make him out to be and is backed by a For-Ranil party constitution, would give nothing but take much from ‘re-profiling’.  It would be optimistic to stake it all on an unlikely reversal. 

    

The solution (a tough one of course) would be to look for an alternative candidate who doesn’t look like Sarath Fonseka (a sure ‘loser’ that saves face).  Alternatively the Opposition should dig in for the long(er) haul associated with regime-change.  Such a choice would not see anyone getting too excited about the Presidential or Parliamentary Elections.  To the extent that these elections can be used, it would be about enlarging the Opposition by winning over all disgruntled elements in the ruling coalition.  Only a right candidate with a right program that addresses all the antipathies that the majority of Sinhala Buddhist voters have regarding the UNP’s political positions could do this.  

This doesn’t seem to be happening.  Dayan is right in this sense: taken as a collective (and with a few individual exceptions) Sri Lankan politics today has the dumbest opposition this country has ever seen.

Read more