අරගල, විප්ලව සහ දේශපාලනයේ අවලස්සන යටිපැත්ත

 

 

ජනතා නැගිටීමක්, උද්ඝෝෂණයක්, රටක දේශපාලන නායකත්වයට අභියෝග කරන දේශපාලන ක්‍රියාවලියක්, දේශපාලන පෙරළියක් -- මේ හැම එකක්ම අරගලයක් කියල කියන්න පුළුවන්. විප්ලවයක් කියල කියන්න බෑ. සමහර අරගල විප්ලව බවට පරිවර්තනය වෙන්න පුළුවන්. කොන්දේසි තියෙනවා. පහුගිය මාස කිහිපය හරහා ලංකාවේ සිදුවුණා නැත්තම් සිදු කරන ලද අරගලය විප්ලවයක් බවට පෙරලුනේ නැහැ. ඒක 'අරගලයක්' නෙවෙයි, ඇත්තටම. එතන තිබුනේ අරගල. බහු වචනින්.

අරගලයට අදාල විවිධ ප්‍රකාශන සහ ක්‍රියාකාරකම් දිහා බලනකොට බරපතල කාරණා ගැන පොදු එකඟතාවක් තිබුනේ නෑ. මතවාදී කරුණු ගැන වගේම අරමුණු පිළිබඳවත් පොදු අවබෝධයක්, එකඟතාවක් තිබුනේ නෑ. ක්‍රමය වෙනස් කිරීම ගැන යම් යම් පුද්ගලයින් සහ සංවිධාන කතා කළත් අරගලයේ මහා පොදු සාධකයේ ඒ කිසි දෙයක් අඩංගු වුනේ නෑ. විවිධත්වයක් තිබුනා -- ආගම්, ජාති, කුල සහ පංති නොසලකපු, ඒ ඒ විවිධත්වයන් වලට ඉඩක් දෙන, අඩු වැඩි වශයෙන් ගරු කරපු  විවිධත්වයක් තිබුන. උග්‍ර වාමවාදීන් සිට ධනවාදයම ඉල්ලන, ධනවාදය වෙනුවෙන් පෙනී සිටින ධනේශ්වරය දක්වා මතවාදීමය පරාසයේ විවිධ තැන් වල ස්ථානගත වූ අය සහ සංවිධාන අරගලකරුවන් අතර සක්‍රීයව හිටියා. මේ සියලු විවිධත්වයන් එක ධජයක් යටට එකතු කරන්න වුනේ සහ එකතු වුනේ ඇත්තටම කුඩාම පොදු සාධකයකට. පුද්ගල කේන්ද්‍ර සාධකයක්. ගෝටා ගෙදර යැවීම.

ගෝටා ගියා. අරගලකරුවන් වගේම අරගලයත් ගෙදර ගියා. සිස්ටම් එක එහෙමම තියෙනවා. එහෙම වුනේ ඇයි? වී ඩෝන්ට් නෝ වයි ද, වී නෝ වයි ද?  
 
රුසියාවේ වුනේ විප්ලවයක්. ප්‍රධාන තේමාව/අරමුණ #සාර්මරමු නෙවෙයි; ඉල්ලුවේ ඉඩම්, සාමය සහ පාන්. සාර් සහ සාර්ගේ පවුල ඝාතනය කළා, ඇත්ත. ඒත් සාර් පාලනය සහ ඒ හා බැඳුන වැඩවසම් ක්‍රමය අවසන් කිරීම තමයි අරමුණ වුනේ. අවසන් කළා. සාමය ලැබුනා. ඉඩම් ලබා ගන්න නැත්තම් ඉඩම් පොදු අයිතියට පවරා ගන්න කාලයක් ගියා. ඒ සඳහා ලේ වන්දියක් ගෙවීමටත් සිද්ධ වුනා. ආහාර ප්‍රශ්නය විසඳුනේ පරක්කු වෙලා. ඒත් සිස්ටම් එක චේන්ජ් වුනා.

ප්‍රංශයේ 'අරගලකරුවන්' #ලුවීමරමු කියල කියන්න ඇති. ඒත් ප්‍රධාන තේමාව/අරමුණ වුනේ නිදහස, සමානාත්මතාවය සහ සහෝදරත්වය. ලුවී ඇතුළු ප්‍රංශ රජ පවුල ඝාතනය කළා, ඇත්ත. ඒත් ප්‍රංශයේ රාජාණ්ඩුක්‍රමය අවසන් වුනා. වැඩවසම් නිෂ්පාදන මාදිලියෙන් ධනවාදී ක්‍රමයක් වෙත ප්‍රංශය ගමන් කරන්න පටන් ගත්තා. සමානාත්මතාවය සහ සහෝදරත්වය කෙසේ වෙතත් සිස්ටම් එක චේන්ජ් වුනා.    

රුසියාව, ප්‍රංශය, වගේම විප්ලව සිද්ධ වුන කියුබාව සහ වියෙට්නාමය වගේ රටවල විප්ලවවාදීන්ට නැත්තම් අඩුම තරමේ ඒ අරගල වල නායකයින්ට පුළුල් දැක්මක් තිබුනා. ඒ වගේම දේශපාලන සහ සටන් ක්‍රියාමාර්ග සංවිධානාත්මක ව්‍යුහයක් මතයි පදනම් වුනේ. බල ව්‍යුහය බිඳ දමන්නත්, පාලක පාර්ශව පළවා හරින්නත් පුළුවන් වුනේ ඒ නිසයි. විකල්ප සමාජ ආර්ථික දේශපාලන ව්‍යුහයන් ගොඩ නගන්න පුළුවන් වුනෙත් ඒ නිසයි.  

ප්‍රංශයේ, රුසියාවේ එහෙම වුනත් ලංකාවේ එහෙම වුනේ නෑ.  ලංකාවේ කරන්නේ විප්ලවයක් කියලත් සිද්ධ වුනේ විප්ලවයක් කියලත් සමහරු කිව්වත් හිතුවත්, එහෙම දෙයක් වෙලා නැති බව දැන්වත් අවබෝධ වෙන්න ඕන. ලොකු අකුරින් අරගලය පුරාවටම ලියවිලා තිබුනේ #gotagohome. පසුව චූටිම චූටි ෆොන්ට් සයිස් එකකින් #ranilgohome කියල වෙනස් වුනා තමයි. ඒත් කෝ අර බරපතල සිස්ටම් චේන්ජ් එක? දිනාගත්ත 'වෙනස' හරහා ඉඩම්, සාමය සහ ආහාර ලැබෙන ලකුණක් නැහැ. නිදහස, සමානාත්මතාවය සහ සහෝදරත්වය ලැබෙන ලකුණක් නැහැ. අඩුම තරමින් අරගල භූමියේ දක්නට ලැබුණු  නිදහස,සමානාත්මතාවය සහ සහෝදරත්වය අරගලකරුවන් අතරේ දැන් නැහැ. ඒ සියල්ල පුද්ගල කේන්ද්‍ර සටන් පාඨයකටම ලඝු වූ 'අරගලයක' තාර්කික අවසානය ලෙස හේදිලාම ගියා.  

මෙහෙම වුනේ ඇයි? අරගලය පුරාවට ආර්ථික අගහිඟකම් ගැන සටන් පාඨ තිබුනත්, සමස්ථ ආර්ථික අර්බුදය පුද්ගලයෙකුට නැත්නම් පවුලකට නැත්තම් පක්ෂයකට ලඝු කළා මිස අර්බුදයේ සංකීර්ණ සහ පුළුල් දේශපාලන ආර්ථික මූලයන් හොයන්න උත්සාහයක් තිබුනේ නෑ. ක්‍රමයක අවුල් පුද්ගලයෙකුට බැර කිරීම පහසුයි, තාවකාලික (සහ අවසානයේ සිල්ලර) ජයග්‍රහණයන් අත්පත් කරගන්න ප්‍රමාණවත් වුනා. එච්චරයි.

අරගලයට නැත්තම් අරගලකරුවන්ට හෝ නායකයින් කියලා හිතාගත්ත අයට අර්බුදය සහ අර්බුදයට අදාළ දීර්ග ඉතිහාසය සහ අර්බුදය නිර්මාණය වෙන සමස්ථ දේශපාලන ආර්ථිකය කියව ගන්න බැරිවුනා. ඒ ඇයි? අරගලකරුවන් සහ අරගලය ගැන විශ්වාසය තැබූ අය හමුවේ ඒ ප්‍රශ්නය ඉතුරු වෙලා තියෙනවා. එවැනි කියවීමක් වෙත යන්න අවශ්‍ය දැනුම නැති  නිසාද? වුවමනාවක් නැති නිසාද? ඒවා ගැන හොයන්න ගියොත් ලැබෙන උත්තර අනුව අරගලයට චිය(ර්)ස් දාපු දෙස් විදෙස් විද්වතුන්, හිතවතුන්, ගමන් සගයින් සහ මූල්‍යමය ආධාර සැපයු පරිත්‍යාගශීලී සිල්වත්තු උරණ වෙන්න ඉඩ තියෙන නිසාද?

එතකොට අරගලයේ සැබෑ පාර්ශවකරුවන් කවුද? කා සඳහාද කා වෙනුවෙන්ද අරගල කෙරුවෙ? උත්තරය: ජනතාව. ඒත් ජනතාවමද? ජනතාව කියන්නේ කාටද? මේවත් හොයන්න ඕන. 

අරගලයේ නිතරම කියවුනේ ජනතාව ගැනයි. ජන දුක, ජනතා අභිලාෂයන් ගැනයි. හැම තක්කඩි දේශපාලනඥයා වගේම අවසන් විග්‍රහයේදී අරගලයත් අරගලයේ ඊනියා නායකයිනුත් 'ජනතාව' කියන වචනය ගසා කෑව, තම තමන්ගේ පුද්ගල ඉල්ලක්ක සඳහා 'ජනතාව' දඩමීමා කරගත්තා. ඒ විතරක් නෙවෙයි, ජනතා නාමයෙන් පුද්ගලයින්ට එලව එළවා පහර දුන්නා, ගෙවල් ගිනි තිබ්බා, පුද්ගලයින්ට මරණ තර්ජන නිකුත් කළා, මැරුවා, පොදු දේපළ වලට හානි කළා, මංකොල්ල කෑවා. අරගලයට චියර්ස් දාපු අය එක්කෝ මේවා අනුමත කෙරුවා නැත්තම් නිහඬ අනුමැතිය දුන්නා.

අවසානයේ ඒ හැම දෙයක්ම අරගලයට පාරාවළල්ලක් වුනාට පස්සේ කිව්වේ 'බලයේ ඉන්න අරයයි මෙයයි අරක කෙරුව මේක කෙරුව, ඒවා ගැන කතා කරන්නේ නැතුව අරගලකරුවන්ගේ වැරදි හොයන්න එපා' කියලයි. ඒකෙ අත්තක් තියෙනවා. ඒත් අරයගෙයි මෙයාගෙයි අර වැරැද්දයි මේ වැරැද්දයි පෙන්වල දුන්න, ඒවාට විරුද්ධව කටයුතු කළ අරගලකරුවෝ හිටියේ නැද්ද? ඒ අයට අරගලයේ තක්කඩිකම් හෙලා දකින්න සදාචාර අයිතියක් තියෙනවා නේද? සමස්තයක් හැටියට නිහඬව හිටියා නේද? හොරකමේ, තක්කඩිකමේ ප්‍රමාණයන් තියෙනවා තමයි. ඒත් හොරකම හොරකමමයි. තක්කඩිකම තක්කඩිකමමයි.         

එසේනම් 'අරගලය' නැත්නම් පහුගිය මාස කිහිපය තුල ගෝල් ෆේස් කේන්ද්‍ර කරගෙන ක්‍රියාත්මක කළ 'අරගල' තේරුම් ගන්නේ කොහොමද? සර්ව අසුභවාදී වෙන්න අවශ්‍ය නැහැ.  විවිධ අගහිඟකම් හේතුවෙන් සමාජයේ විවිධ ක්ෂේත්‍ර තුල සහ සියලු සමාජ ස්ථර හරහා කණස්සල්ල, බිය සහ කෝපය ගොඩ නැගී ඒ සියලු වේදනා උද්ඝෝෂණ බවට පරිවර්ථනය වුනා. නේකවිධ කෛරාටිකයින්ට සහ පටු අරමුණු ඇති පුද්ගලයින්ට, සංවිධාන වලට සහ ඇතැම් රටවල් වලට රඟන්න වේදිකාවක් නිර්මාණය වුනේ එහෙමයි. සමහරු අරගල භූමියේ කොටස් තමන්ගේ ව්‍යාපෘති වලට නතු කරගත්තා. සමහරු තිරයෙන් පිටිපස සිට තම කාර්යයන් වල යෙදුනා. සමහරු විසිල් ගැහුවා, තක්කඩිකම් සාධාරණය කෙරුව. උද්දාමයට පත්ව තම තමන්ගේ වෘත්තීමය සදාචාරයන විශ්‍රාම යවපු අයද මේ අතර හිටියා. ඒ සියලු දෙනා ප්‍රීතියෙන් මෝහනය වූ නිසා තම තමන්ගේ රෙදි ගලවගත්තා. සමාජ මාධ්‍යයේ සටහන් වල ස්ක්‍රීන් ෂොට් නැතුව නොවේ.     

ඒ කෙසේ වෙතත්, අරගලය තුල පුටු මාරුවලට එහා ගිය, ව්‍යුහයන් වෙනස් කිරීමේ අභිලාෂයන් තිබුන සහ ගෝටා ගෙදර යැවීම ඒ දිගු ගමනේ අනිවාර්ය සහ පළමු පියවට පමණක් බව අවබෝධ කරගත් පිරිස් හිටියා. තවමත් ඒ පුළුල් අරගලය සහ අරමුණු වෙනුවෙන් පෙනී සිටින සහ නැවතුන තැන සිට නැවත ක්‍රියාත්මක වීමේ අවශ්‍යතාවය හඳුනාගෙන ඒවෙනුවෙන් කරයුතු කරන බොහෝ අය ඉන්නවා. තමන් ඉත්තෝ බවට පත් වෙයි කියල එයාලා හීනෙකින් වත් හිතුවේ නැතුව ඇති. එහෙම නැත්තම් ඉත්තෝ වීම වළක්වන්න බැරි දෙයක්, පතන සමාජ විපර්යාසය වෙනුවෙන් ගෙවිය යුතු මිලක් කියලා හිතන්න ඇති. අරගලය පාවා දෙන්න සුදානම් අය ඉන්න බවත් එයාල හඳුනාගන්නේ කෙසේද කියලත් එවැනි බාධක ජයග්‍රහණය කරන්නේ කොහොමද කියලත් එවන් අරගලකරුවන් මේ ක්‍රියාවලිය තුල ඉගෙන ගන්න ඇති.  

විශේෂයෙන්ම  නිශ්චිත සහ පුළුල් සමාජ, ආර්ථික දේශපාලන දැක්මකින් තොර අසංවිධිත දේශපාලන ක්‍රියාවලි අවසන් වන්නේ සිස්ටම් චේන්ජ් එකකට මෙහා බවත්, ආ මග ඇත්තටම කෙටි බවත්, යායුතු මග එහෙමම ඉතුරුව ඇති බවත්, සිස්ටම් එක හිතුවට වඩා දෘඩ බවත්, විප්ලවය ඔය විදිහට කළ නොහැකි බවත් ඒ එඩිතර, අධිෂ්ටානශීලී, නිර්මාණශීලී ආදරණීය මිනිසුන් මේ වන විට අවබෝධ කරගෙන ඇති බව මම විශ්වාස කරනවා. රටේ හෙට දවස ගැන බලාපොරොත්තු තියාගන්න නම් මෙය විශ්වාස කළ යුතුමයි.  ආදරයට ඉඩක් ඉතුරු වෙන්නෙත් එහෙමමයි. අරගලය විප්ලවයක් දක්වා විකාශනය වෙන්න පුළුවන්. කොන්දේසි තියෙනවා. පාඩම් ඉගෙන ගැනීම ඉන් එකක්. පාඩම් ඉගෙනගනිමි සිටිනවා කියල හිතන්න මම ආසයි.

රැවටිලි එමටයි. රවට්ටන අය බොහෝයි. රැවටුනා වෙන්න පුළුවන්. යා යුතු මග යා යුතුමයි. යා නොයුතු මාර්ග 'යා යුතු මගමයි' කියල නම් කරත් කෙළවර වන්නේ ඉදිරියක් නැති තැන්වලයි. අරගලය නැවතිලා තියෙන්නේ එවැනි තැනකයි. ෆේක් අරගලකරුවන්ට ඒකෙ අවුලක් නැති වුනත්, සැබෑ විප්ලවවාදියාට එතැනින් නැවත ගමන පටන් ගන්න පුළුවන්. අර රුසියාවේ, චීනයේ, ප්‍රංශයේ, කියුබාවේ, වියෙට්නාමයේ සහ ඇතැම් යුග වල ලංකාවේ වුනා වගේ. 

අරගල, විප්ලව සහ දේශපාලයේ අවලස්සන යටිපැත්ත එන්සෝ ට්‍රැවර්සෝ ලියූ 'විප්ලවය: බුද්ධිමය ඉතිහාසයක්' (‘Revolution: an intellectual history’) නම් කෘතියේ විශිෂ්ට ලෙස විස්තර කරනවා.

'අරගලයක අරමුණ දේශපාලන  තන්ත්‍රයක් බිඳ දැමීම නොවේ; ඇත්තටම අරමුණ එහි නියෝජිතයින් වෙනස් කිරීමක්. අරගලකරුවන් සාමාන්‍යයෙන් ඉලක්ක කරන්නේ පුද්ගලයින් මිස පන්තීන්, ආයනත හෝ බලය නොවේ. එබැවින් ඔවුන්ගේ ක්ෂිතිජයන් පටු වේ, ආයු කාලයද කෙටි වේ. ඒවා ස්ථානික විය හැකි භූමියකට යම් නිශ්චිත අවකාශයකට සීමා වේ. විප්ලව මීට වෙනස්. බලාපොරොත්තු නිර්මාණය වන්නේ මතවාදයන් සහ යෝතෝපියානු ප්‍රක්ෂේපන ඔස්සේය. ඒවා ක්‍රියාවට නංවන්නේ ජකොබියානුවන් හෝ බෝල්ෂෙවික්වරුන් වැනි දේශපාලන ව්‍යාපෘති හා බැඳී බලවේගයන් වේ. ඔවුහු පවතින සමාජ දේශපාලන ව්‍යුහයන් වෙනස් කිරීම සඳහා සවිඥානිකව කැප වෙති. කෙටියෙන්, ඔවුන් ප්‍රකාශයට පත් කරන්නේ දැවැන්ත සහ ඇතැම් විට විශ්වීය අභිලාෂයන් ය.'

ට්‍රැවර්සෝ ලංකාවේ 'අරගලය' පුර්වාපේක්ෂා කෙරුවා වගේ. නේද?

Read more

Vee da (වීද) hoo da (හූද) people?

Sri Lankans make a unique and hilarious knicker-twisted nation, exasperated over lengthy fuel lines to the point of ousting a president and then entire families sweating lengthier lines under umbrellas to see his residence.

Any uprising cast as being spontaneous invariably runs into a bunch of problems, the most serious being the one about credentials. Who speaks for the aragalaya, one could ask. If anyone claims he/she speaks for the aragalaya (and many have, as individuals or groups), the immediate question is, who gave him/her the authority and on what grounds? This of course doesn’t necessarily mean that spontaneous mass uprisings are bad or are bound to fail. Sometimes things unfold and it is in the unfolding that leaders emerge.  

As one might expect, the surge, whether all spontaneous or subtlety orchestrated (yes, such things happen too), made many want to have a piece of it. It was a low-cost adventure for many who had for years benefitted from a rotten system but had never once complained. Yes, they would whine now and then when preferred parties/politicians were out of power but even when sworn enemies were in power, they never balked at exploiting the very same rotten system.  

There were those kinds of people, largely Kolombians who had most likely voted for Ranil/UNP or Sajith/SJB, Kolombians who were suffering from lifestyle deprivation but were certainly not feeling anything like the pinch that most people in the country were experiencing. They were a small but significant minority in the aragalaya. Their posts were in English. When they tried to speak in Sinhala, it was actually funny.  Mind you, the issue was not that Sinhala was not their mother tongue.

Why am I talking about these politically marginal set of people, you may be wondering. Well, there’s a note that’s being circulated titled ‘’Why did we join the aragalaya?’ It is signed by ‘We, the people.’ Obviously convenient but possible dodgy.  An interesting and telling read, though.  

Here it is:

1. WE…protested against the Rajapaksa regime.  2. WE…protested against corruption, nepotism, violation of the rule of law and of human rights. 3. WE…protested in favour of economic stability, civil liberties and rights, the upholding of the constitution, the legislature and the preservation of our democratic values. 4. WE…protested as a Sri Lankan along with my brothers and sisters, for what I believed would be a new future for my country that is shaped in accordance with our constitution. 5. WE…DID NOT PROTEST in favour of anarchy, violence or to empower subversive elements who would deem to overthrow our democratic values. What’s happening now is NOT OUR ARAGALAYA!

In Number 4, there’s a slip from ‘we’ to ‘I’.  I noticed in similar posts that this has been since corrected. It’s a personal angst obviously, but then again it is collectively subscribed to, going simply by the fact that it is being shared on multiple social media platforms. Ok, that’s out of the way.

So, ‘these people’ claim they protested against the Rajapaksa regime. Fair enough. They’ve protested against corruption, nepotism, violation of the rule of law and of human rights. Again, legit. Now, is it the case that all these nasties (corruption, nepotism, violation of the rule of law and of human rights) was the preserve of Gotabaya Rajapaksa or indeed the Rajapaksa clan? Obviously not. We saw such things galore even during the Yahapalana times during which there was little ‘yaha’ and even less  ‘palana’ and, mind you, without having to deal with decades long buttressing of the import mafia, dependency on remittances and tourism, Covid-19 related shocks that lasted for two whole years etc.

Here are some questions: did ‘these people’ a) benefit or not from ‘the system’? b) did they always vote SLFP (or SLFP-led coalition) or did they vote for Ranil/UNP or Sajith/SJB? c) did they ever protest these nasties when the UNP or UNP-led coalition or coalitions the UNP was part of?

There’s talk of economic stability, civil liberties and rights, the upholding of the constitution, legislature and the preservation of democratic values. Lovelies, all of them, BUT, again, were these things sitting pretty until November 2019? We can run through three to four decades, name parties, name individuals and name ideologies and policies that took potshots at one and all. So here’s the question: did these worthies utter a single word about those other transgressions?

The darlings are claiming that they did not favour anarchy, violence or empowerment of subversive elements who would deem to overthrow democratic values. Lovely. Let’s break it down.

Anarchy. Violence. Subversion. Democratic Values. Repeat after me. Anarchy. Violence. Subversion. Democratic Values. Anarchy. Violence. Subversion. Democratic Values. Anarchy. Violence. Subversion. Democratic Values. Anarchy. Violence. Subversion. Democratic Values. Anarchy. Violence. Subversion. Democratic Values.

Throughout this aragalaya there were calls for and affirmation of anarchy. Sure, not all aragalists were anarchists in ideological bent or in action, but only the myopic and naive could dismiss the possibility that anarchy of the worst kind was festering and could very well erupt. Forget all that. Did these lovelies who are now in whine-land ever once say ‘hey, hey, hey…ease off guys’? Mirihana. Rambukkana. Warakapola. Temple Trees. Galle Face. President’s House. Ranil Wickremesinghe’s residence. Parliament. And let’s not forget the vandalism, arson, thuggery etc., that followed the unleashing of thugs from Temple Trees by forces beholden to or controlled at  that time Mahinda Rajapaksa. Who called for, who indeed demanded anarchy and violence? Who called for and demanded subversion, who indeed subverted? What were the democratic values affirmed by pillage, destruction of public property, arson and thuggery? Why this sorrow now, but not then? Is it ok to be selective about these things? Is it ok to just go along, look askance when unpleasant things happen until the process yields an outcome that is, well, ok? And if the outcome is ok for you but not for others, if those others continue to do what you called for, cheered, took part in perhaps or supported one way or another, do you have a moral right to object?  

Regardless of who started the fire (and it was certainly not lit in November 2019), if those who were mandated to quash it did not or could not, regardless of unforeseen and unfortunate circumstances (Covid-19, which by the way Gotabaya Rajapaksa did much to quash — efforts which were scoffed at by, I suspect, ‘these [very] people’: no cheers for all that by the way), then they can, do and even must come under fire, so to speak.

People were angry. People protested. Legit. People made demands that could not be delivered. That’s ok, for that is all legitimate in politics. Gotabaya could have come clear, said the unpalatable truths, expressed regret for errors despite good intention (let’s say), stated options being considered (if there were any) or simply said ‘there is a crisis of legitimacy, I agree, and therefore I believe that the democratic thing to do is to hold elections so the people can decide for themselves.’ He didn’t. Is that enough to call for his blood, though? If it was enough, then why didn’t ‘these people’ call for the blood of other who did much worse for so many decades?

Democracy. Let’s get back to the word/term. There are values associated with democracy and ‘these people’ have mentioned this. There’s also a thing called ‘representation.’ And so, sorry lady/ladies and/or gentleman/men, we need to unpack ‘the people’ a little, if you don’t mind.

How do we know what a collective really wants? How do we obtain the popular will? Well, elections. Sometimes there are mass uprisings. Mass uprisings can be orchestrated, particularly in times of hardship, but let’s assume that’s not what happened here, just for argument’s sake. So yes, there’s a mass uprising. What was it about? Well, it was reduced to evicting an elected president. There were some noises about system change, yes, but nothing to write home about.

And so you had ostensibly classless, religion-free, ethnicity-erased and even ideology-free people coming together. They even said it was a ‘nirpaakshika aragalaya’ or a struggle free of political parties. Now, they got what they wanted: Gota left. All well and good. Now what?  Struggle done and dusted? Victory achieved? Now that Gota has gone home, should everyone else also go home? But why should everyone go home? There was no agreement was there that if and when Gota does go home, everyone would pack up and go home themselves? Things evolve and even if they didn’t, there are people out there who are not necessarily ‘these people.’ They have political aspirations whose shelf life haven’t expired. There was no referendum on what ought to happen, after all. It was assumed that the entire country, the entire voting population wanted Gota out. Now, without a referendum, can anyone claims that the entire country wants the aragalaya to fold up and the aragalists to go home? That’s the problem of representation. No election, no way to verify anything like that. If some want to go home, sure. If others don’t, so be it. And those who left cannot tell those who didn’t ‘well, the kind of anarchy we cheered is no longer acceptable.’

Democracy. There’s more to it. ‘These people’ didn’t give a hoot about established democratic procedures and institutions until Gota left. They didn’t give a hoot about constitutionally sanctioned procedures. Now, all of a sudden, they are swearing by the very same institutions, values and processes they themselves were ever ready to subvert.

‘These people’ claim, ‘What’s happening now is NOT [THEIR] ARAGALAYA! So what happened before ‘no’ WAS their aragalaya? The arson, thuggery, looting, pillage and destruction of public and private property before July 9 WAS their kind of Aragalaya? And is it that THEIR aragalaya is done? Is Sri Lanka now ‘all set’? Is there no political crisis any more? Has the economic crisis been resolved?  

Let’s hypothetically fast-forward to, say, August 9, 2022. There are still long queues for petrol and diesel. There’s still galloping inflation. The constitution is intact (interesting fact: talk of repealing the 20th, restoring the 19th and so on seems to have disappeared). Presidential powers: intact. Sajith Premadasa is the President. There is no IMF bailout or there is and they’ve imposed conditions which exacerbate inequities and deprivation over and above ensuring chronic dependency and slavery. People are as or more anxious, fearful and incensed as they were in April, May, June and early July, 2022. The people storm the barricades. The people weather teargas, disregard water cannons, brush aside policemen and soldiers and aim to re-take President’s House, Temple Trees, Prime Minister’s office and the Presidential Secretariat. What would be the take of ‘these people’? Would they spur the aragalists to do what they’ve done in all these past few months? Would they say ‘go ahead and threaten politicians’? Would they, on social media platforms egg them on to search, ransack and burn houses? And if all that did happen, would ‘these people’ (as they did before) remain mum?

‘These people’ are not woolly-headed. They are not in cloud cuckoo land. They knew and know what they wanted/want. There are outcome preferences that have nothing to do with systems, systemic flaws and assaults on the rule of law, democratic institutions and values, and human rights.  

‘We the people.’ I would love it if anyone who has posted, re-posted or shared that note has the courage to put his/her name to it. Then, we can do a background check and figure out who is who and what is what. In the name of democracy, decency, transparency etc., etc., etc. How about it, ‘[the] people’?
 

RELATED ARTICLES: 

When the centre cannot hold...

Recipes for co-opting and subverting #peoplepower

#De-dollarize!

The international community, the opposition and 'the people'

The 'ada davase mahanakama'

#Aragalayaleft?

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

The international community, the opposition and the people

 

Gotabaya Rajapaksa is the worst President we’ve had. He’s the worst leader, counting all presidents, prime ministers, ministers, chairpersons of local government authorities and maranaadhara samithi. He’s the worst Sri Lankan ever. Let’s assume.

Let’s assume that as the all-powerful Executive President, all ills are attributable to him. Let’s assume that although this implies that he can lay claim to all positives, he had nothing to do with effectively handling the Covid-19 situation, the vaccination drive and enforcement of safety protocols which (by the way) eventually enabled and empowered those who hate him the most (and whose hatred is rooted in political preferences and other things that predates the current economic crises) to rub shoulders with fellow political travelers in demonstrations, protest marches, arson, theft and thuggery. Let’s assume that he did nothing at all.

No, let’s go further. Let’s assume that Covid-19 was an insidious creation of Gotabaya Rajapaksa himself, a virus which he unleashed on the world with the express intent of wrecking the tourism sector, effecting a serious dent in remittances by expatriate workers, restricting movement etc., etc. Let’s assume that all this in aggregate made himself eminently eligible to the tag ‘party-pooper.’

Today, we are in the midst of an unprecedented economic crisis. Today, more than ever before, we have been forced to think about things like energy security, food security, food and nutritional sovereignty, the need for development banks and the folly of embracing uncritically and indeed nurturing to near perfection an import mafia. Let’s assume, though, that Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s rhetoric and action with regard to at least two of the above, namely renewable energy and environment-friendly agriculture, had nothing to do with such ‘needs.’

Let us not assume but acknowledge that regardless of intent, overall understanding and objectives pertaining to sovereignty that Gotabaya Rajapaksa was largely unsuccessful. Let’s assume that this had nothing to do with the resilience of entrenched interests of corporate thugs and public racketeers, but let’s not assume but rather acknowledge that party and family played a massive role in scuttling good intention, not just about energy and agriculture but basic management of the economy, upholding procedures established to ensure fiscal discipline, robust and meaningful tax regimes etc. Let’s not assume but acknowledge that Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s greatest failure was that he could not (or would not) unfetter himself from party and family.

Forget all that. Let’s return to the first assumption. Let us repeat. Gotabaya Rajapaksa is the worst President we’ve had. He’s the worst leader, counting all presidents, prime ministers, ministers, chairpersons of local government authorities and maranaadhara samithi. He’s the worst Sri Lankan ever. Let’s assume.

We should mention, at least parenthetically, that he is but (and at worst) a symptom of systemic flaw. At least that’s what those who can see beyond personality and party could (but probably for reasons of political convenience do not) conclude. Never mind. Let’s assume ‘Gota is the System’ and kid ourselves that getting rid of him gives us system-change. Well, let’s say it paves the way for system-change. Yes, let’s not talk about utter naïveté in these matters. Let’s assume. Let’s conclude.

Now, treating all assumptions as established fact, let us wave the flag of the logical response: ‘Gota should go!’ How do we move from there, i.e. beyond a slogan whose utterers aren’t political innocents and among whom are those who have benefited for decades (as a class and as individuals) or else are ill-educated about constitutions, constitutional reform and the whole brouhaha over amendments (the draft 21st was shot down by the Supreme Court, whose observations amount to law-makers being given a resounding F on the subject of ‘Constitutionality’)?

Of course Gotabaya Rajapaksa can resign. Can happen, but hasn’t. He can be removed, constitutionally. Can happen, but hasn’t. And so we have pundits saying ‘the people, the international community and the Opposition’ have to come together to remove him. In essence, to secure the numbers necessary to remove him constitutionally. He can be ousted in other ways, but no one is seriously talking about ‘revolution’ here. Revolution would include system-change and ‘system’ would include the economic theories (sic) that went a long way to bring us to where we are, dealings with the IMF and other Bretton Woods Institutions etc., but no one is seriously considering such options right now. It’s just ‘Gota must go,’ or ‘The international community, the Opposition and the people must get together  and send Gota away.’  Thereafter, parliament (or rather ‘The Opposition’) can figure out who should be the next president. Lovely.

Let’s get back to the movers and shakers. The international Community, one. Yeah right! Do they mean, the US, UK, EU and other members of The Quad? Now if those are the addresses to which grievance are addressed and succour sought, good luck!

The Opposition, two. Yeah right! And yeah, those who want Gota sent away utter not a word about capabilities of the current Opposition (never mind legitimacy which is ultimately measurable only through the ballot). The Opposition, if we just take the SJB and the JVP, essentially back-stabbed the ‘Aragalaya’ and ‘Aragalists,’ not to mention the fact that they deliberately planned to pursue their party interests by preying on general anxiety, fear and anger. Sajith Premadasa and Anura Kumara Dissanayake hilariously claimed that they would take up the prime minister’s post if Gotabaya Rajapaksa resigned. Each ought to have been more honest and said ‘I become PM if Gota resigns, and then I have the inside track to the Presidency.’ Anyone who places bets on such dishonest people and parties (whose track records are as bad or worse than those of the SLPP) are ridiculously naive or at least politically suspect. The SLFP, then? Really?  

‘The people,’ three. Now that’s a different category altogether. We cannot and should not say ‘yeah, right!’ or be dismissive in some other way. Democracy is about the people. How do we measure the weight of the people factor, though? The numbers at protests, the decibel levels of the rhetoric? Yes, in a way, never mind that among these ‘people’ are agents provocateurs and others whose political history doesn’t make one really cheer, especially given long and profound silence about what ‘the system’ has done and to whom for decades.

In a way, yes, ‘The people’ count.  They need to be counted. Literally.  My friend Sugath Kulatunga, commenting on dubious individuals including ‘intellectuals,’ professionals, the clergy and artists marking ‘presence’ at Galle Face, made a pertinent observation.

‘I believe [they] have had no lessons in Civics at school and are not aware that Sri Lanka is a democracy with a written constitution where tenets of majority rule and rule of law are enshrined.’

If you want to step out of all that, by all means. Just don’t dabble in constitutions and parliamentary affairs. A precedent set where a bunch of people even with legitimate reasons to protest (and the legitimacy of the protests are indisputable, let us not forget) browbeat the elected and obtain eviction without measuring the true nature of a) popular discontent, and b) agreement about the would-be successor’s ability to turn things around does not bode well for participatory democracy.

The silliness of all this talk about the Gota-Ranil combine being a failure is easily measured by a simple question: name another combine that can deliver. The truth is, politicians and parties as they stand today, given histories and fixations about economics, cannot deliver us from the evils they’ve showered us with. We might have to look elsewhere, but certainly not at the international community, the Opposition or ‘people’ who are deliberately left undefined.

Anarchy, then, by all means, but then call it that. Just don’t sugar-coat it with democracy-speak.

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

Personalities and Systems

‘The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,’ one of the more literary essays written by Karl Marx famously, contains many quotable quotes which are of course frequently used in contexts that have little to do with the thrust of the man’s thinking. This, however, is apt for our times: ‘Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.’ Pierre Bourdieu, the French sociologist who concerned himself with the dynamics of power, captured the same issue of structure and agency in ‘Distinction,’ speaking of structuring structures and structured structures.  

The overbearing nature of structures and how they weigh upon the universe of the possible are too often forgotten, perhaps mostly because public anger/perception focuses on personalities and their strength, weaknesses and idiosyncrasies. People vote for people. People vote for parties, but political organizations are judged less by ideologies and programs than by those identified with them.

Over the past six weeks or so, people did talk about ‘systems’ but if pushed to describe these, few would have gone beyond ‘the executive presidency.’ It was easier, as it has always been, to pick (on) an individual. So we got #gotagohome. Then we got, what is essentially a reboot without disturbing the structures or foundations. As some wit put it, ‘in 2015, Maithri became the de facto leader of the UNP; in 2022 Ranil became the de facto leader of the pohottuwa.’ Regardless of how many votes Ranil Wickremesinghe received, regardless of whether or not parliamentary strength reflects popular support (which of course cannot be precisely ascertained this side of an election), within Parliament, Wickremesinghe’s legitimacy is now established — the majority accept his leadership.  

Now all this seems to have floored many in the much talked of ‘aragalaya.’ Even Dr Harini Amarasuriya, the National List MP of the JVP, obviously one of the better informed parliamentarians and certainly someone equipped to engage in intelligent debate seemed to be surprised. She tweeted the following:

‘Ok, let’s talk stability. 1. @GotabayaR resigns, 2. Interim govt formed, 3. Constitutional amendments, 4. Election. Why wasn’t this an option? How is appointing a person with a single seat in parliament as PM going to ensure stability?’

So, Gotabaya Rajapaksa resigns, let's assume. What next? Well, as per the constitution, Parliament has to elect a successor. Who? Anura Kumara Dissanayake, the leader of her party? Well, we’ll get to that presently. Let’s assume MP X succeeds Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Let’s assume an interim government is formed. We then come to constitutional amendments. All talk of constitutional amendment is reducible to a. Repealing the 20th Amendment and replacing it with the 19th Amendment, b) strengthening the resultant ‘independent institutions,’ c) inclusion of robust auditing mechanisms.

Harini must have read the 20th and the 19th. Would she claim that the 19th is flawless (apart from weaknesses of independent institutions as per the BASL proposals)? We haven’t heard the JVP talk about the composition of the Constitutional Council (in the 19th) or ‘national government’ being left undefined. Few talk about the passage of the 19th and how it made a mockery of judicial review or, for that matter, the fact that the architects of the 20th followed judicial recommendations to the letter.

Among the changes to the constitution is the abolishing of the executive presidency. Neither the BASL nor constitutional tinkerers seem to have bothered the consequences in a context where the 13th Amendment remains untouched.

So, to the question, ‘why was this not an option?’  An option for whom? What’s forgotten here is that at the end of the day options can only be considered by the incumbent and the Parliament; what’s opted for is essentially reflective of the power balance in the latter. It can’t be the case that a bunch of NGOs or ragtag parties or a diplomatic cabal gets to choose among options, certainly not if ‘solutions’ have to be found within the framework of the existing constitution. Outside of it, of course, there’s revolution, but that’s something the JVP seems to have abandoned ages ago and it’s not something that the aragalists seem to be serious about since the focus has been, from Day One, on personality (and to a lesser degree family/clan and party), and not on system and structure.

‘How is appointing a person with a single seat in parliament as PM going to ensure stability?’ This is an interesting question in and of itself and amusing too, coming from Harini. Yes, Wickremesinghe obtained less than 3% of the vote from the Colombo District, keyword ‘district.’ In 2020, the Jathika Jana Balavegaya, led by the JVP, polled 60,600 votes in Colombo (5.72%). The UNP’s slice country-wide was 249, 435 (2.15%) whereas the JJB got 445,958 (3.84%). Harini’s got a point.

However, one wonders if Harini raised an eyebrow when AKD demanded Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s resignation as a precondition for accepting the Prime Minister’s post, essentially saying ‘get out and make way for me to become your successor.’ AKD got 418,553 votes (3.16%) at the last presidential election (Sajith Premadasa got 5.6 million or 42% while Rajapaksa got 6.9m or 52%). Again, remember, legitimacy thereafter can only be obtained via elections. So, what’s AKD’s legitimacy? So, what’s the legitimacy of the JJB to assume control? ‘Better than Ranil’s’ is a legitimate answer but it falls short, way short, of claims that cannot be scoffed at.

The larger question is not related to the season of silliness vis-à-vis legitimacy questions/claims; it is the fixation with individuals, the strange desire for a saviour. Brecht put it well in ‘Galileo’ who, responding to his student Andrea Sarti’s bitter remark ‘unhappy is the land that has no hero,’ pointed out, ‘no, Andrea, unhappy is the land that needs a hero.’

Wickremesinghe has a tough task and needs to be given credit for taking it on in the worst of circumstances. Whether he would deliver, what he would deliver and when he would deliver are left to be seen. For now, there’s political stability, relatively speaking. Those who wanted Rajapaksa’s head on a platter may want his as well tomorrow. Those who focus on personalities love ‘off with the head’ and seldom pause to reflect on the fact that heads can get replaced but if systems remain intact ‘change’ is cosmetic. At best.

As for the aragalaya/aragalists, the work is not even half done. Surfaces have been scratched, certainly, but a bit of polish sorts such things out easily. Enough? Harini Amarasuriya, despite being ‘clipped’ so to speak by party loyalty, would probably say, ‘hardly.’

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

A budget presented amid celebrations and acquittals

 

Over the last few weeks there has been a concerted campaign in social media attacking President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. The ‘Gota Fail Campaign,’ as it was, promoted a strong response questioning the success of the President’s detractors. The campaign was clearly targeting the President’s first anniversary celebrations and the impending reading of the budget. The campaign failed or rather, now that the moment has passed, the campaigners have taken a break.

It was a week made of celebratory days, depending on one’s political preferences of course. We had Mahinda Rajapaksa celebrating his 75th birthday. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa completed his first year in office and addressed the nation to mark the occasion. The first budget of the Government that came to power in early August was presented. Secretary to the then President (Mahinda Rajapaksa) Lalith Weeratunga (also the ex officio Chairman of the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission) and Anusha Palpita (former Director General, TRC) were acquitted of all charges of misappropriation by the Court of Appeal.

Quite a week, to say the least.

Ranjan Ramanayake, predictably, ridiculed Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Mahinda Rajapaksa ‘for not standing while presenting the budget.’ Leader of the Opposition Sajith Premadasa rapped Ramanayake on the knuckles for doing so, in a gesture of good grace rarely seen in Parliament.

Obviously, Mahinda Rajapaksa is no longer the energetic man he used to be. This of course does not necessarily mean he is infirm in mind. He still remains one of the most effective communicators in our tribe of politicians. He’s had his good days and bad ones, like anyone else. He receives praise and blame, which again indicates strong passion, fierce loyalty and, on the part of his detractors, equally intense sentiments which include envy, fear and disgust.

That said, as ‘The Gadfly,’ a regular contributor to the website www.theleader.lk observed, when the post-independence history of this country is written, there will be a special chapter devoted to the man, whereas the likes of Ranil Wickremesinghe, Sajith Premadasa, Rajitha Senaratne an Wijedasa Rajapaksha would get, at most, a line or two. Again, depending on who is writing the history, someone might say. However, the man’s mark is unmistakable and certainly hard to brush aside.

Some argued that he should have gracefully retired in 2015. Maybe he should have. On the other hand, ‘Mahinda Rajapaksa’ is not just a man but a brand and moreover a name that’s etched in the political consciousness of the nation, and, as the August 5 results indicated remembered with gratitude that obliterates memory of his blemishes. If Gotabaya Rajapaksa was captain-designate and Basil Rajapaksa the man chartering course, Mahinda Rajapaksa was the name of the ship (with a tagline, ‘Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna’) and ‘MR’ a signature that was on every element of the vessel.

So, let us wish him, belatedly (on account of circumstances), a very happy 75th birthday, good times ahead, good health, continued guidance of his younger brother the President in matters political and restraint in deference to changed times and more importantly the leadership and power that is constitutionally granted to Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

The budget is still being debated. Predictably Harsha De Silva has come down hard on it. He tweeted, ‘the most boring budget speech in years.’ He added, ‘…a weak n inspiring (he probably meant ‘uninspiring’) budget w totally unrealistic revenue figures…a shift towards protectionist n failed ‘Import Substitution Industrialization’ model.’ Having opened the debate for the Opposition, he then tweeted ‘a short edit’: 1. Figures fudged. 2. No stimulus package. 3. About to explode foreign debt issue ignored. 4. Import Substitution Model has failed; need bridges not walls.’

Now De Silva is a fear-mongerer if ever there was one. There was a time when again he was in the Opposition, when he would issue dire predictions of imminent economic collapse almost on a weekly basis. The man had to keep quiet when the UNP regime he was a part of mishandled the economy. He had nothing to say on the Central Bank bond scam.

He might have been thrilled when that regime wagered on the West coming to Sri Lanka’s help, but he didn’t contradict his then leader Ranil Wickremesinghe who, when ‘Brexit’ happened, suddenly said ‘we will look East.’ This after badmouthing China in the run-up to the January 2015 presidential election. We remember De Silva posting selfies with the Port City construction in the background at the time when his party was swearing to put a stop to the project. Finally, his government signed an agreement even less favorable to Sri Lanka. This was to be expected; after all the Yahapalana Government cheered itself while compromising sovereignty by way of Resolution 30/1 in Geneva. Anyway, neither De Silva, Wickremesinghe, Premadasa and pretenders to various political crowns now in the Opposition seem to have cottoned on to the fact that the USA is no longer the big boss in the global economy and that the sun set on the British Empire a long time ago.

Nevertheless, the onus is on the Government to respond to the charge that figures were fudged. As for the revenue plan, we will certainly assess it, realistic or otherwise, as time goes by. The rest is obviously Harsha rattling off received (non) wisdom about things economic.

Stimulus packages are about bailing out the rich. Nothing more, nothing less. Such things hinge on the erroneous premise that the private sector is the one and only engine of growth, where ‘growth’ itself is a concept that is contentious at best in the development discourse and has by and large been rubbished considering what that model has done to the world, the health of the planet and of course the most vulnerable sections in the global population.

Pertinent here, as has been editorially pointed out in www.gammiris.lk is Harsha’s myopia about the Bretton Woods institutions. Here’s a quote:

‘He (Harsha) does not seem to have gone through Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz’s Globalization and its Discontents, which talks in succinct detail how these institutions operate, particularly in underdeveloping countries. A pity, because Stiglitz took the trouble of writing on Sri Lanka, and more to the point, of cautioning the then administration against hedging its bets on the IMF-World Bank paradigm of, what else, “globalizing and liberalizing.'

Siglitz, interestingly, observed, that if Sri Lanka is to progress, it should start “learning to produce, learning to export, and learning to learn.” Harsha of course can’t think beyond the neoliberalism model, which has failed and whose admirers show a marked reluctance to acknowledge the role of the state in the success stories they offer as examples. The state did and still does play a pivotal role in the so-called developed nations that have embraced the capitalist model. Practice is quite a distance from theory in their case.

The budget has sought to empower local production. This is not the same as import-substitution, though. In any event, Covid-19 has forced certain hard choices which even Harsh, had he presented the budget or was the President of the country, could not have ignored.

 

It must be pointed out that the strategy laid out doesn’t make sense if the banking institutions are not focused on development. The Bretton Woods institutions have always been against development banks. There has been talk of setting up a cooperative bank, but the details are still to be worked out. This was an opportunity to get it down in black and white.

Meanwhile a delegation of the European Union and the Embassies of France, Germany, Italy Netherlands, and Romania issued a statement slamming the government’s trade policy, 'with an obligatory non-sequitur to human rights,’ again editorially observed by ‘gammiris.’

‘Thanks to the EU’s special Generalized System of Preferences (GSP+), Sri Lanka enjoys competitive, predominantly duty- and quota-free access to the EU market,” they said. Trade, they pointed out, ‘not a one-way street,’ and observe (gravely) that ‘a prolonged import ban is not in line with World Trade Organization regulations.’  A reference was also made to the Government withdrawing from the (treacherous, what else?) Resolution 30/1, which, they say is ‘a source of concern’.

The hypocrisy of Europe crying foul over human rights is well known. But why talk of WTO rules here? Just last year Indonesia complained to the WTO over EU restrictions on palm oil imports. Both Germany and France blocked their own exports of crucial personal protective equipment (PPE) at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hypocrisy much, eh?

Well, if the EU’s ‘concerns’ (threats?) do translate into action, it would only push Sri Lanka even further into the Chinese circle of influence. Sri Lanka would have no option but to promote domestic production and rebuild as per the demands of the home market.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa completed one year in office. Not given to pomp and pageantry, his first year has been relatively subdued. He promised ‘work’ and ‘systems.’ Covid-19 was an obvious dampener. And yet, in this one year, we saw a mandate overwhelmingly reiterated. We also saw the passage of the 20th amendment which resolved the confusion of the 19th Amendment with respect to who really rules the country. The 19th, let’s recall, as acknowledged by its authors themselves, full of flaws. The Supreme Court shot it down and the then regime introduced what was almost a fresh document, quite in contravention of established parliamentary procedure (in the UK, the House of Lords can make changes but only minor ones). Here, there were wholesale changes at the committee stage. In contrast, the 20th a) retained certain elements of the 19th such as term limits and b) incorporated the observations of the Supreme Court).

The President's anniversary speech was essentially a rehashed version of  his ‘throne speech.’ He didn’t detail the modalities of getting the ‘One-Country, One-Law’ going. He probably should have explained the controversial circular on ‘Other State Lands’ over which he has been getting a lot of flak. It was a no-frills anniversary speech quite in keeping with the personality he has projected or even the person he is seen to be. The proof of everything is in the ‘works’.  Work is where he will be judged eventually.

Given the announcement that the Government is planning to introduce a new constitution, the buzz over the 20th seems silly. The Government could have incorporated the 20th into a new constitution and seek passage in one go. 

 
Covid-19 has framed the president’s first year. He has had to balance coping mechanisms with keeping the economy going. The Opposition, as pointed out in a television discussion on Thursday by Deputy Editor, The Island, Shaminda Ferdinando, was bailed out by Covid-19. Now they have something to talk about, he said. There are charges of mishandling. The rise in numbers is certainly worrying. The Government does have a plan and it is as reasonable as any given multiple constraints.

However, it is certainly ridiculous that so many government officials and healthcare professionals are commenting and contradicting each other on Covid-19. The Government should authorize a single person to do this. Others should obtain from what this person says and not act as though they are epidemiologists. That goes for the opposition and political commentators as well, of course.

In Canada, for example, according to a Sri Lankan who is a long time resident there, ‘there’s a chief medical officer  giving daily recaps at the federal level with Prime Minister Trudeau offering a daily non medical brief. At the provincial level,  the chief provincial medical officer gives a daily briefing. All financial assistance information is conveyed by Trudeau since it's all federal at this stage.  In Sri Lanka, in contrast, everyone except the Minister of Health is an authority on the pandemic!’  

Finally, the court decision on Lalith Weeratunga and Anusha Pelpita. Now they were acquitted not by judges appointed by this government. The charge that they were politically motivated is therefore silly. In this regard it is pertinent to point out that the President has nominated the six most senior judges for promotion to the Supreme Court. Seniority was spurned out of hand by the much-celebrated Constitutional Council of the previous regime. Friendship and loyalty were rewarded. Good move by the President but one which he ought to apply across the board in the matter of appointments/promotions.

The 62-page verdict notes, ‘There is no dishonest intention with which both accused appellants have acted. They were not actuated by men rea or actus reus. There has been a bona fide exercise of their powers and duties. Neither accused was enriched. Whilst the board authorized a transaction which is protected by law and corporate social responsibility, it is a travesty of justice that only two members of the TRC had to endure the traumatic experience of a selective prosecution at a prolonged trial, causing a senior public servant of long years of meritorious public service humiliation and anguish.’

Intention of course is always assessed subjectively. It’s the act that the court has to assess. The court was of the view that the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of the offenses laid in the indictment. The court also determined that the circumstances in which the presiding judge came to hear the case created a serious doubt on the impartiality and validity of proceedings adopted. In other words, there was selectivity and deliberate maneuvering to obtain a pre-arranged outcome.

Weeratunga is a seasoned public servant. He probably knows the Establishments Code inside out. He probably knows not only what’s possible and what’s not but all the loopholes that can be used and abused. Both Weeratunga and Palpita were responding to a request from the top. They did it legally. He didn’t benefit. Neither did Palpita. One can argue that had Mahinda Rajapaksa won in January 2015, whether or not the sil redi issue was a factor, both would have benefited. At the very least they wouldn’t have been subjected to the obvious harassment meted out by overzealous yahapalana operatives (who essentially turned the FCID into a kangaroo court and commandeered operations from the Prime Minister’s office). That’s however in the territory of speculation. Courts are not in that business. 

The court has ruled. That’s that.

malindasenevi@gmail.com.

A shorter version of this article was published in the SUNDAY ISLAND (November 22, 2020). 

 

Read more

Gota’s no-frills first year, whines and whiners

 

It was obvious not a year that made for pomp and pageantry, even if that was the desire. All issues have been either framed or impacted by Covid19. In any case, he’s not, for example, a Mahinda Rajapaksa. Covid19 of course was so sobering that the contrast was lost.

No-frills is good but presidents are not elected to be less or more showy than their predecessors. It’s about manifestos, mandates and delivery. Delivery ran into the Covid19 wall, but this doesn’t mean that it should not be assessed.

Since the country, like the world, has been Covid19-driven, the response needs to be evaluated. One would think.

The Opposition says ‘fail’ and that’s laughable. The worthies in the Opposition ruled the country for 5 years. They brought in a constitutional amendment violating all established procedures and even giving the Supreme Court the proverbial finger. They created kangaroo courts to hound political opponents: hundreds of cases, not a single conviction at the end of five years. If special procedures and institutions were required to circumvent flaws in the judicial system then the architects should have addressed systemic flaws. Failed (even as the ‘kangaroo courts’ functioned) to do so. Failed.

Easter Sunday attacks. Need we say more? A clueless duo at the top of the roost who set new standards for incompetence on all counts. Need we say more? Failed. That was a period when the notion of ‘failed state’ would have been an eminently appropriate descriptive. As predictable, once their pals took over governance reins, they dropped that nomenclature, brushing off the dust for re-use only when they realized that their pals were about to be ousted. And now they have to maintain the lie.

They’ve made some short videos, probably to convince funders that they are still relevant. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu has talked of militarization, authoritarianism and majoritarianism. He’s mentioned presidential task forces and the appointment of former military chiefs to key positions (in these and in other institutions). He believes some human rights organizations are practicing self-censorship (maybe they have nothing to say/market these days). He whines that their activities are being scrutinized and are being asked about how they spend their money. Well, should they remain unaccountable? We do know that these NGO lords and ladies insisted that their organizations be left out of RTI purview. For a reason. Obviously.

Saravanamuttu also says that the 20th Amendment took us back to the situation in 1978. He has not uttered one word about all the flaws of the 19th, the tinkering associated with it and the confusion regarding executive power which in part facilitated the Easter Sunday attacks. What the 20th did they must bother these people most is removing the Constitutional Council, in which their brethren were members and therefore had a say in appointments to the so-called independent institutions. The CC facilitated the appointment of regime-loyalists to top posts, even violating basic principles of meritocracy in appointments to the Supreme Court. President Rajapaksa, in contrast, without the ‘plus’ of ‘civil society’ involvement, recommended the six senior most judges for promotion to the SC. The president hasn’t insisted that meritocracy should override all else in all spheres. He should.

Bhavani Fonseka talks about the period when parliament was dissolved and elections had been postponed. She’s upset that during this period the President called the shots. Well, it’s not as if at that time some NGO consortium could have been asked to run the country, surely? The Supreme Court was petitions, remember? The SC didn’t find anything wrong.

Ruki Fernando, just like her, has talked of human rights activists being intimidated. Vague claims. No substantiation except for mentioning a lawyer who is under detention. Neither dare mention the reason for detention: suspicion over involvement in Easter Sunday attacks. If a terrorist is a lawyer, journalist or wears  some ‘ok’ garb, identity is drawn from dress and not the body it covers. That’s par for the course for these people. Hijaz Hisbullah has not been found guilty. The jury is out. However, one cannot blame a government for refusing to take chances. We saw what THAT policy did just 19 months ago. In the name of celebrating diversity (intent being to deliberately confuse 'majority' with 'majoritarianism' and ridicule, harass and put down Sinhala Buddhists) and championing freedoms, the yahapalana years saw the entire security apparatus being effectively dismantled.

They’ve developed a sudden love for vulnerable groups and this is a good thing. They are talking about fishermen, people in low income categories, garment workers etc. They are saying that Covid19 has made them more vulnerable. Yes, this is correct. It is however not a reflection of any pohottuwa-policy regime. They won’t say that though.

Then we have Jayadeva Uyangoda, who (unlike Saravanamuttu) says the 20th has given the president more powers than those vested in the office in 1978. No elaboration on this has been offered. The president has more power than those given by the 18th Amendment he says. Well, the 20th didn’t remove the term-limit imposed by the 19th. The passage of the 20th followed proper procedure. SC was petitioned. The Attorney General informed court that certain clauses would be amended at the committee stage (the 19th saw wholesale changes when even the British tradition, which yahapalanists love to refer to, allow only minor changes by the House of Lords), the SC objected to just one article and said it would require both a special majority in parliament (two-thirds) and a referendum. It was duly dropped.

Burial of Muslims who have died on account of Covid19 has been mentioned. There’s an issue here. Again, the government has erred on the side of caution. And that’s a good thing. As has been the case since February this year, decisions have been informed by health authorities and epidemiologists. State institutions and personnel have been tasked accordingly. They’ve worked 24/7. Politicians bragged about the efforts of containment, but not at any point were people told to drop their guard. They were told to follow protection protocols even after curfew was fully lifted.

The second wave was not unanticipated. We still don’t know enough about the behavior of the virus. However, there was a plan and it was executed. Quarantine centers were transformed into intermediate hospitals for asymptomatic patients (tested positive) and symptomatic parties were moved to hospitals. First contacts were asked to self-quarantine. Limited resources have been and are being used efficiently.

There have been complaints about privacy and about people being forcibly taken to quarantine centers. Privacy or death, that’s the issue. Angela Merkel said as much and Germany, as private a country as there is, went along. Those living in bubbles can complain. And it’s not as though anyone can be ‘private’ in the year 2021; certainly not most of the whiners who’ve willingly given enough ‘private data’ when they use credit cards, apple phones, use PickMe or Uber, order food, do their keyboard-‘warrioring’ on social media etc.

Were people herded into quarantine centers? They were certainly not allowed to say ‘no’. The relevant authorities moved and moved fast. Had they not, then containment would have been a problem hundreds of times worse. Again, it’s good that an NGO consortium wasn’t mandated to handle the situation.

So. Gota after a year. No frills. Has he turned Sri Lanka into a country that has reached its full potential? No. Close to it? No. On the road to it? No. There’s a lot to be done. Right now, there’s a need to control the Covid19 situation without compromising the economy. There’s a need to protect the most vulnerable sections of the population. There’s a need to move from aid-dependency to domestic production. There’s a need for development banks to be set up. There’s a need to set up a cooperative bank (which the People’s Bank was supposed to be!). There’s a need for a new constitution which resolves once and for all the big question of what kind of governance structure suits us best: presidential or parliament-driven.

There’s a lot being done without fanfare. Perhaps there’s a big communications-gap. No-frills is nice. No communication is not. Are the people happy? I don’t think so. The Covid-19 situation and all the restrictions have not made for roaring laughter. Does it mean they want the yahapalana failures back in the saddle. Highly unlikely.  

It’s too early to say ‘pass’ or ‘fail’ but that day will come. Right now it is absolutely laughable to say ‘fail,’ and hilarious when rank failures make this claim.

malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more

Whither Gota and the SLPP?

Even the staunchest opponents of the Government would concede that the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) is more than likely to secure a clear majority at the parliamentary elections in August. A resounding victory for Gotabaya Rajapaksa at the last presidential elections less than a year ago, an Opposition in disarray and a general approval rating of the president for the way in which the Covid19 issue is being handled certainly weighs things in favor of the SLPP.

In effect we are likely to have a situation where the parliament is controlled by the same party which the president belongs to. As things stand, former president Mahinda Rajapaksa is likely to retain his prime ministerial portfolio. The 19th Amendment (flawed and anti-democratic let us not forget) does give the Prime Minister more sway than was the case before it was constituted. Whether this cramps or further empowers the president will depend on the relationship between the two brothers. That too is left to be seen.

The SLPP is seeking a two-thirds majority. Such a majority, historically, has fed power-greed to the detriment of democracy and the interests of the citizen. Let’s not forget however that Ranasinghe Premadasa and the UNP didn’t have a two-thirds majority and yet was responsible for the bloodiest period in post-independence history.

‘Fear of a two-thirds’ is obviously not reason enough for a voter to shift allegiance. Simply, one does not endorse a party/candidate that one considers less competent or downright moronic just because one’s first choice might obtain more control in government.

The numbers thrown up on August 5, 2020 will tell many stories, the possibility of cobbling a two-thirds being just one. Power tussles, imagined or real, could be analyzed thereafter. What is more important at this point is policy.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa carried out what was probably the first ever carbon neutral election campaign. By the 12th of November 2019, 26,000 trees had been planted, 6,000 above the 20,000 required to achieve carbon neutrality, accounting for average mortality rates and unexpected destruction. The campaign team maintained at the point that each tree will have a geo-tag to facilitate monitoring and that allometric equations would be used to infer the carbon content stored in these trees by using data such as height and diameter of the plants. The campaign team has not uttered a word since. Maybe it’s all good, but we have no way of knowing. Nevertheless it gave the indication that Gotabaya would be a ‘green president,’ quite in line with the campaign promise of an environment-friendly presidency.

And yet we saw a relaxing of sand-mining regulations following a cabinet decision ‘to support the construction industry.’ Environmentalists warned that the move would see a spike in illegal sand mining as such activity is detected mostly during transportation. Cabinet spokesperson Ramesh Pathirana would later admit that the liberalization of permits to transport sand was being abused and that there was indeed a spike in complaints about illegal mining.

Environmentalists are also up in arms over the decision to revisit Circular 5/2001 related to ‘Other State Lands.’ The Land Commissioner General has stated that a committee has been appointed to segregate lands into protected areas and bare lands. This was in response to objections to the cabinet decision to revoke Circular 5/2001 which would have brought such forests directly under District and Divisional Secretaries whereas previously provisions for releasing areas ‘for development’ had to adhere to numerous environmental protocols. Environmentalists claim that even existing regulations are being flouted and fear that removal of the same would make it an open season for wanton abuse.

The SLPP Government’s pledge to combat the ‘rice mafia’ has also been tested. Dismantling cooperatives of small-time rice millers clearly made a mockery of wresting ‘the right to price’ from the big players. Are they that powerful? Is the government that weak? Is it an indication of true ‘constituency’?  

The SLPP Government has, to its credit, put a lot of effort to review the Millennium Challenge Corporation Compact. The Gunaruwan Committee has effectively called for dropping it. For reasons best known to the President, the report has been sent for cabinet perusal. The map of Sri Lanka in 2050 as envisioned by the MCC team-leader, Steve Dobrilovic, presented at Temple Trees in August 2018 included a nation dividing electrified railway line between Colombo and Trincomalee. Jenner Edelman, MCC Country Director sweet-talked about it all being a gift and declared that the railway line was ‘fake news.’ When confronted with the relevant slides, she is reported to have gone red in the face and mumbled ‘Steve made a mistake in giving out this map.’ The MCC stinks. Period. Why the SLPP refuses to dump it clearly raises concerns over the party’s ‘nation first’ rhetoric.

Then there’s the issue of the Eastern Terminal of the Colombo Port. Is this pay-back to India for compensating for possible ‘loss of immediate bucks’ that could come with the MCC (minus of course the nation’s sovereignty).

The SLPP Government is simply not coming clean about all this. The President portrays himself as a nationalist. The SLPP claims the same. You can’t be a nationalist and barter sovereignty. It’s best to tell the truth and be judged accordingly. Navel-gazing and thumb-twiddling will be read as capitulation, nothing less.  

The President raised a lot of hopes immediately after his election by limiting cabinet size. No mention of sticking to this after a possible victory in August. Why not? Are there plans to ‘buy over’ opposition MPs by offering portfolios and using provisions surreptitiously included in the 19th by the UNP (and endorsed by the SLFP and the then Joint Opposition led by Mahinda Rajapaksa)? A committee was appointed to receive applications to high posts. This was to minimize political interference. Well, the committee no longer exists. Loyalty outweighed competence. Is that what a future SLPP Government will also do? If not, the SLPP must tell the voter what’s what as would a ‘kiyana de karana - karana de kiyana (do what was promised, tell what’s being done)’ government.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa is a doer. It seems clear that he wants to do things differently. Is the SLPP with Gotabaya Rajapaksa? Will he become a creature of the party? Will the SLPP elect those who are in line with the President’s thinking or are they ok with how things were done before? Was Gotabaya Rajapaksa sincere in his promises and was he biding his time until a parliamentary majority was obtained? Will an SLPP-dominated parliament strengthen him or will it render him ineffective? Time will tell.

An SLPP victory is all but assured. That however doesn’t mean everyone, electors included, feels comfortable about endorsement being treated as a blank check. If Gotabaya and/or the SLPP believe it is a mandate for ‘do as we please,’ they would be dead wrong.

ALSO READ: Whither Sajith Premadasa and the SJB

malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more

New Zealand and Sri Lanka: Two narratives of ‘the compassionate exemption’

‘Compassionate Exemption’ is a term that has been used mostly in relation to cancer treatment. It refers to someone receiving a drug even though he/she does not meet the eligibility criteria of a clinical trial in which the said drug is being studied.

COVID-19 gave the term an additional meaning, referring to those who were excused from mandatory quarantine procedures on compassionate grounds. We don’t know if ‘compassion’ was a factor in the exemption accorded to a US Embassy official who refused to take a PCR test at the airport recently, but in New Zealand it was an integral part of the national policy to combat COVID-19. Until a few days ago, that is. New Zealand suspended the policy after two beneficiaries were found to be COVID-19 positive.

Now New Zealand has been hailed as a COVID-19 success story. And those who did the hailing more or less ignored Sri Lanka’s story. Good news from non-white nations typically aren’t detected by media radar for reasons that need no elaboration. It’s the bad that’s newsworthy. Indeed if it is convenient, ‘bad’ is created, not so much as news-sell but to buttress narratives carefully crafted to secure political objectives. Typically too this is a formula used by ‘natives’ co-opted easily into political projects due to convergence of short-term outcome preferences such as getting rid of a less friendly regime or protecting a friendly one. And so we have these narratives  knowingly or unknowingly uttered and regurgitated by the co-opted (read ‘Born Again Democrats, Funded Voices, Candlelight Ladies, Rent-a-Signature Protestors and other Colombots and Wannabe Colombots). In a nutshell, ‘NZ is great,’ and ‘SL sucks,’ either by direct mention or implication.

The Western media has gone ga-ga over New Zealand and her charismatic Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern for making that country Coronavirus-free. No such accolades for Sri Lanka and her president Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Indeed, if there was any mention it was noise about dictatorial measures, cries of horror about deploying the military apparatus and even imposing measures such as curfew. The noise was naturally echoed by the Colombot twitterati.

Things have taken an unexpected turn, but before we get to that let’s caveat here. Sri Lanka is not out of the COVID-19 woods. Neither is New Zealand. The same goes for the world in general. We don’t know when we will get out of the woods or indeed if we will be condemned to be in the relevant wilds forever. That said, since this is about the here and now, let’s compare and contrast.

Supposedly Covid-free New Zealand suddenly discovered that two arrivals from Britain who had left managed isolation without being tested were in fact infected. Health officials are now tracing 320 people regarded as ‘close contacts’ of the infected. What’s interesting is Ardern’s reactions.

She said that the quarantine process will be audited. She said that the compassionate exemption under which the two persons were released from quarantine early would be suspended. She said defense force would now oversee the quarantine of new arrivals. And she insists that New Zealand remains ‘Covid-free’ because its ‘definition always assumed there would be cases at the border.’

So the military is going to oversee stuff in New Zealand. No one is using words and terms such as ‘draconian’ and ‘militarization’. No one is crying out in horror about freedoms being compromised.  No one is saying something along the following lines: ‘All reported cases in Sri Lanka over the past several weeks are from quarantine facilities with most of them being “cases at the border” and as such Sri Lanka should be declared “Covid-free”!’

Forget compassion or even realistic assessment — Sri Lanka continues to get vilification treatment over measures taken based on principles of caution that take into account the obvious knowledge-gaps regarding the pandemic. We can just imagine the response had it all happened in Sri Lanka and not New Zealand! We would have heard ‘There you go, we told you so!’ We would have heard people berating the Government for carelessness. And we would have the recycling of the militarization narratives with appropriate wording to invoke horror.

Here are some facts, devoid of compassion and other politically charged wording: New Zealand’s population is 4.88 million, Sri Lanka’s is 21.67 million; NZ has 1156 cases and 22 deaths, SL has 1915 cases and 11 deaths; NZ’s GDP is over 200 billion USD, SL’s is less than 90 billion USD. The math is elementary but perhaps too elementary for compare-and-contrast.

Of course Sri Lanka has not tested as much as New Zealand, just 3.92 tests per 1,000 compared to the impressive 64.35 per 1,000 in New Zealand.  However, it must be acknowledged that it would be really hard for anyone infected with COVID-19 to hide. The near and dear would not let anyone with relevant symptoms remain without medical attention. And three months is long enough for the truth to come out. It could be theoretically possible that people who suspect they are infected stay(ed) at home consuming coriander and ginger-tea and so their possible infection and recovery cannot make it into official records, but that would suggest a hardy physiology among other things. What’s pertinent is tracing. Can New Zealand claim to have a tracing apparatus superior to that in Sri Lanka?

Exceptionalism. That’s the word. The ‘compassionate’ qualifier is politically charged. New Zealand get’s soft passage, Sri Lanka gets the third degree. It’s not about facts. Not only about COVID-19.  It’s about what makes political sense. The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Compact is a case in point. US Ambassador Alaina B Teplitz said the other day that ‘a decision on the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) agreement will be taken after the Parliamentary election in August.’ She doesn’t state who is going to make this decision. Neither does she mention the fact that Sri Lanka, given ascendancy to the ‘upper middle-income’ category among nations , cannot meet the eligibility criteria for this supposedly lovely, no-risk facility. Someone’s being compassionate here, are we to believe? Well, suspend that!

New Zealand. A beautiful country ruled by white people and not the descendants of natives who lived there for millennia before the compassionate hordes from Europe descended on them. Sri Lanka. A beautiful country too, where similarly compassionate hordes left but left behind their voices and put in place mechanisms that ensured the sustained development of subjugation, with and without the support of the ideologically and politically enslaved ‘natives.’ There are differences and similarities. Compassion comes in different colors. Exceptionalism too.  There’s eligibility criteria that is not value-free or exempted from political framing. Call it a clinical trial if you wish. The results are certainly illuminating!

malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more

Gota, Parliament and the Question of Representation

Long before the 2019 Presidential Election, stalwarts of the United National Party (UNP) and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and of course their closet lackeys painted Gotabaya Rajapaksa as a monster. Gotabaya was a Rajapaksa, after all, and Rajapaksas are the villains of the piece, as far as these worthies are concerned. From their point of view, then, it was a valid fear. Except for a few uncomfortable truths which they feign ignorance of. Let’s nutshell them.

Apart from the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), no political formation has a track record of absolute brutality that can come close to matching the curriculum vitae of the UNP and JVP.

The Mahinda Rajapaksa tenure wasn’t without blemish of course. There are charges of extrajudicial killings in which the military was involved. Compare that with the extrajudicial killings of Tamil combatants and civilians during the 80s and 90s (i.e. during the presidencies of J.R. Jayewardene, Ranasinghe Premadasa and Chandika Kumaratunga).

There are as yet unresolved cases of abduction and/or murder which turned the likes of Upali Tennekoon, Keith Noyhr, Prageeth Ekneligoda, Lasantha Wickramatunga and Wasim Thajudeen into pin-up boys for the UNP and JVP come election time, the last of whom was buried, exhumed, buried and resurrected over and over again. Compare that with the as yet unresolved cases of abduction, torture and murder to the tune of 60,000, not counting proxy arrests, illegal detention and other kinds of harassment at the end of the 80s.

Then there’s the issue of media freedom. Again, Mahinda Rajapaksa was branded as THE Villain. Then again, whatever limits were imposed during his presidency (marked more by a switch from censorship to ownership than rules and/or intimidation) pale to little or nothing when compared with the excesses of the UNP in the 80s on the issue of gagging journalists and media houses. Yes, that was the time of the aadaradeeya sadaadaraneeya piyaano (Ranasinghe Premadasa) of the much inflated but eventually made-to-look-small puthaano (Sajith Premadasa).

The magnitude of the particular wrong or the play of relative merit does not however leave Mahinda Rajapaksa with a clean record. By association and of course because of the fact of temporal proximity, fear or at least mild trepidation about a Gotabaya presidency is certain understandable. The specter of a dictatorship which was conjured by Colombots, Candle Light Ladies, Funded Voices and the Rent-a-Signature Club was of course silly and more indicative of the despair that their favorites were on their way out than anything else. However, Gotabaya was a military man and therefore extrapolations were easy.

Except for a simple fact. 

He was in the end elected by a handsome margin. It was Gotabaya ‘The Doer’ or rather that element of his persona that was most appealing, especially since the yahapalana regime that he ousted by that victory was characterized by rank incompetence, palpable inefficiency and absolute cluelessness, not to mention a zealous desire to hurt the sentiments of the majority community. 

Parliamentary elections were on the cards. Only someone who is absolutely out of touch with Sri Lankan politics would have imagined that Parliament would not be dissolved when it completed 4.5 years in office as per the provisions in the 19th Amendment. So Parliament was dissolved. ‘Too early,’ people said AFTER they knew more about the nature of the Covid-19 pandemic.

So now, with parliament dissolved, elections postponed and with constitutional limitations about reconvening Parliament, we are faced with an additional question. What do we have to say about representation?

So let's talk representation. Let's start with provincial councils. Well, they've been dissolved for quite a while now, years in fact in some cases. No one, not even the most ardent of the devolutionists, has uttered one murmur of concern. 

It must be pointed out that Covid-19 has shown that this is actually a blessing. The USA, for example, is struggling to design and implement uniform policies to fight the pandemic because of its federal structure. The richer states in the USA and the richer provinces in Canada are inwardly focused. They want more face masks for themselves. The country can go to hell, in other words. Just imagine a federal Sri Lanka where the Western Province, clearly the richest, determines something along the following lines: ‘To hell with the other provinces, let’s focus on saving ourselves.’ It won’t help, considering the behavior of the virus, but then the survival chances of the poorer provinces are immediately compromised.

Sri Lanka has, for all intents and purposes, a central command which is all the more accentuated in a situation where there’s no sitting Parliament. Apart from the local government bodies, it is only the office of the President that has representative legitimacy.

Now some have clamored for a reconvening of Parliament. Constitutional conundrums aside, this is a joke. The Parliament elected in August 2015 is no longer legitimate. Yes, this also means that the cabinet is illegitimate, but that’s another story. Reconvening a Parliament whose composition does not reflect the sentiments of the voting population is an insult to the spirit of representation. We cannot look back. The problem is that it is not easy to look ahead either.

Holding elections, some have argued, would compromise efforts to combat the spread of the virus. However, there are precautions that can be taken. The basic rules of social-distancing can be adhered to in both campaigning and voting. No meetings, no crowds, not even pocket meetings or door-to-door campaigning in the way we have got used to. Candidates will have to find different ways of reaching the voter, just as vendors have succeeded in reaching the consumer over the past four weeks or so.

That’s all in the land of speculation at this point. There’s a matrix which includes constitutional provisions/limitations and the advice of authorities relevant to fighting Covid-19 based on knowledge of the pandemic (which is getting updated all the time but subject to the caveat, ‘what we know now could be close to nothing compared to what we are ignorant of). And so, we cannot predict how things will unfold. 

In the event  there is a Parliamentary election soon, however, we would get a legislative that is representative (as opposed to one that has long lost its legitimacy and as such its right to represent). Until then, we have Gotabaya Rajapaksa, for good or bad, better or worse. 

Until then, we have a system where the state sector, led by the suvaviruwo, the tri-forces and the police. They are doing a hard but determined and highly commendable job. No question about this. There is a danger, though. If, for example, Sri Lanka succeeds in combating the threat under a Gotabaya Rajapaksa presidency sans a functioning Parliament, there would be many who would consider it proof positive that we can do without one. Indeed, even right now that are people who are thankful that Parliament is dissolved because 'it would be an unnecessary distraction'. Secondly, the ability to overcome a threat of this kind could also plant seeds of ‘legitimacy’ for continued military dominance in civil affairs. 

What needs to be recognized however is that crises such as this are anomalies. Sudden, unexpected and monumental threats may need extraordinary responses which shelve certain protocols but there is a danger of that being turned into ‘the normal state of affairs’ when it comes to governance. 

We need representation. Right now, for all intents and purposes, the best representative we have in terms of overall legitimacy is Gotabaya Rajapaksa. We’ll have to make do with this situation, but we have to a) retain and affirm civic responsibility of holding him accountable, and b) agitate for the full complement of legitimate representation. We need a newly elected Parliament (yes, the provincial councils are no longer legitimate).  It cannot be impossible. Theoretically, parliamentary elections could be held over an entire week (or even two), province by province or else one district in every province on any given day over a period of several days with counting commencing only after all the districts have voted.

We have a representational deficit right now. Gotabaya Rajapaksa, considering that he was elected just a few months ago, certainly has a large slice of representational legitimacy. It may suffice for now, given the pandemic. It would however be dangerous to take our foot off the democratic and of course representative pedals.

We need to have parliamentary elections. Soon. Somehow.

This article was first published in the Daily Mirror [April 16, 2020]

RELATED ARTICLES

Vulnerability, fear and the legitimizing of prejudice

Prioritize the poor and vulnerable

Homovirus and Coronavaccine

The WHO, 'civil society' and the parameters of sanity

Every citizen has to be a ˆsuvaviruwa'

A test run for a better tomorrow

The Coronavirus could sober up the 'Development Intoxicated'  

Lockdown is a key to unlock minds

Let's not stop singing in the lifeboats

When the Welikada Prison was razed to the ground
Looking for the idyllic in dismal times
Avurudu in the time of Covid-19

Let's raise an army of rainmakers 

Water the gardens with the liquid magic of simple ideas, right now  

A heart-note to Italy

There's canvas and brush to paint the portraits of love 

We might as well arrest the house 

Vo, Italy: the village that stopped the Coronavirus

The 'village' in the 'city' has more heart than concrete

We need 'no-charge' humanity

The 'we' that 'I' forgot 

Liaashya keeps live alive, by living 

Heroes of our times

malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more