Between A Rock And A Hard Place: The Sri Lankan Voter’s Predicament

Now that the first chapter of the kerfuffle about General Sarath Fonseka’s foray into a presidential election has been all but resolved, it is time to make a few observations relevant to the choices faced by the Sri Lankan voter.

At the inception, though, let me say that I believe the real challenge facing the voter is not a choice between Rajapaksa and Fonseka but how to return this country to a relatively corruption-free and democratic system of governance.

That the current regime is the most corrupt,  unscrupulous, unprincipled and ruthless seems beyond argument.  That said, that reality, or the expression of it, is constantly being twisted and “tweaked” by the sycophantic horde of scribblers and others who are either direct or indirect beneficiaries of the status quo, particularly in financial terms.  These worthies, some grammatically-challenged and others not, keep trotting out excuses for the conduct of the powers-that-be, delving into any and all the cesspools of history to justify every excess, with a constant refrain of “they did it first.”

This includes dredging up historical events such as Gitmo, My Lai, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, and the Holocaust all of which have figured prominently in these invidious comparisons while the only reason that the Rape of the Sabines hasn’t been quoted is that these “researchers” are probably ignorant of it.

But, no matter, back to the specifics related to the title of this piece.  Why do I believe that neither Mahinda Rajapaksa nor Sarath Fonseka offers a potential solution to the voter’s dilemma?

Let me start by expressing the truism that future conduct reflects past performance. Anything contrary to this would be expressing a belief in conversions on the road to Damascus, miracles hardly deserving of particular attention in the current context.

While the Rajapaksa Regime has not only epitomised arrogance, ruthlessness, corruption and a complete lack of anything resembling principle,  it appears also to pride itself on those factors, flaunting them with not a vestige of an apology for its misconduct and excesses.  In fact, it appears to have consciously adopted an “in your face” policy in the matter of flaunting that misconduct and those excesses as the prerogative of a party in power.

Its fiscal management has been woeful to say the least and its dependence on high interest loans from non-traditional commercial sources has set this country up for disaster when our new-found creditors call in their markers.  The gross lack of knowledge of relevant realities is mind-boggling.  An instance is the new dependence on Iran for supplies of refined petroleum products and also to expand our refining capacity.  Our geniuses have failed to note (or turned a Nelsonian eye on) what many observers of world politics are well aware of:  Iran, despite being the world’s second biggest oil producer, lacks refining capacity to meet its own needs of refined petroleum products – petrol in particular.  In fact, this is one vulnerable area that those seeking to impose an embargo on Iran in the current uranium-enrichment controversy have threatened to zero in on.  So much for our geniuses formulating foreign and trade policy.

The willy-nilly awarding of contracts to  those guilty of monumentally shoddy work, as in the case of the Southern Highway fly-overs, are going to come home to roost before too long.  In fact they have begun to do so already.  There is a cost to corruption and graft and it is one that we can ill afford and one that, seemingly, we cannot avoid as long as the present regime is in power.

We cannot afford  the costs of the stupidity and cupidity that this regime has visited upon us, leave alone what the future holds in store if these same people have another kick at the can, so to speak.

And what, pray, is the alternative?

Sarath Fonseka brought to power by a truly  motley political agglomeration is the only visible alternative at the moment. Insofar as the manner in which that soap opera is to unfold, the scenario advanced by Ranil Wickremesinghe goes something like this:

Sarath Fonseka runs as the United National Front’s Common Candidate and wins. He appoints Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister of an Interim Cabinet with the  Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and Tamil National Alliance (TNA) having significant representation in his Cabinet.

The Executive Presidency is either  abolished or the president’s powers are curtailed very significantly and Sarath Fonseka continues serving as a ceremonial president only. Sri Lankans live happily ever after!

Reverting to the theory propounded earlier, that past conduct would indicate future behaviour, it would appear that Sarath Fonseka is not the most likely person to surrender the authority that currently goes with the Executive Presidency.  One of the reasons he specified for his unhappiness post-Eelam War IV, was the fact that he saw Mahinda Rajapaksa as having “kicked him upstairs” out of a position of real authority and power.  Is he likely, in the circumstances, to participate in an exercise that will see a similar fate visited upon him by a different group of politicians?  I think not.  However, the dilemma of all the opposition parties that have formed the alliance to unseat the incumbent is that the single unifying policy, their very raison d’être, is the abolition of the Executive Presidency and Fonseka’s is the only candidacy offering the possibility of that change!

Even if Sarath Fonseka is prepared to go ahead with the Wickremesinghe formula for restoring democracy in Sri Lanka, there are serious concerns with regard to his seemingly Sinhala-supremacist leanings.  His now-famous interview with the National Post (in Canada) is a case in point.  He talked then about the place that the minorities should occupy in the scheme of things and their status relative to the Sinhala Buddhists.  That status was clearly one inferior to that of the majority group.

The lack of sophistication displayed in treating the National Post as a respected Canadian publication (which it is not) also did not reflect well on Sarath Fonseka.  His subsequent gaffe in his letter of resignation where he appeared to be unable to differentiate between Sikhs and Sheikhs was a pretty awful piece of naivete as well.  This was not befitting of someone who had pretensions of being Head of State.  If nothing else, Mahinda Rajapaksa’s political acumen would have prevented such errors of judgment and fact.

The fact that Mano Ganesan and Rauf Hakeem, who are seen as representing the two primary minorities, are prepared to support Fonseka despite his track record as a Sinhala Buddhist supremacist might well suggest that my earlier reference to a conversion on the journey to a Sri Lankan Damascus might, in fact, be apposite in the case of General Fonseka or that it is perceived to have occurred in the eyes of Hakeem and Ganesan.

There is also the matter of conduct in contravention of the Geneva Convention and the internationally-accepted protocols of conflict that Fonseka does not appear to treat seriously enough. At a felicitation at his alma mater in Ambalangoda he is alleged to have said something to the effect that the execution of surrendering combatants was acceptable in the context of the anti-LTTE war.  D.B.S. Jeyaraj, in a rather long article in a recent Sunday Leader also referred to the fact that Fonseka should have been aware of “death squads” operating within the army’s ranks.

All of this is most disconcerting to anyone seeking in a head of state someone with a commitment to the traditional norms of liberal democracy.

However, if everything does unfold in duly ordained fashion and Rajapaksa and Fonseka go head to head, it will certainly make for an interesting scenario.  Whether it will be a “Mr Clean from the Army” vs  the worst excesses that used to be attributed to New York’s Tammany Hall in years gone by, or whether it will be two Sinhala Supremacists vying for the mantle of the “Maha Kalu Sinhalaya,” is left to be seen.  However, it is most unlikely to be either a civil or violence-free contest.  Verbal abuse coupled with violence that has become a staple of Sri Lankan political practice will reach new heights (or is it “lows?”)

A Rajapaksa victory will accelerate the end of democracy in its traditional form in this country.  The oligarchy which is already well on its way to being established, will be consolidated and control and exploitation of whatever resources Sri Lanka has will be confined to a select band of family and sycophants.  Whether this will be done ‘efficiently’ or otherwise and how much violence will be involved in that consolidation is anyone’s guess. Overall, I have little doubt that the authority of the forces of darkness will be consolidated with benefit to a miniscule minority.

In an ideal world, Sri Lanka after a Fonseka victory will see civility, decency, law and order and competence return, no matter how slowly.  Since this is not intended to be an exercise in viewing the world through rose-tinted glasses let me say that I do not believe that, even if Fonseka wins under the terms and conditions stipulated by Ranil Wickremesinghe, Sri Lanka will return to such a blissful state in the foreseeable future.
However, given the realities of the status quo, a voter could well be forgiven for clutching at any straw that floats by!