Crime Does Pay In The End

And so Mahinda Rajapaksa has got the mandate he sought – a second term, amidst allegations of hi-tech rigging. This columnist feels Rajapaksa may be a tad disappointed that he could not get into the “60s” as his predecessor Chandrika Kumaratunga did in 1994 (63%). Sixteen years later, having actually delivered the peace Chandrika promised in 1994, Rajapaksa could well have expected to garner more than what the former president got. The fact that he didn’t must surely cause him to look inwards for why this was so.

As far as his majority of 57 percent is concerned there is every reason for him to be happy considering the pre-poll predictions of a close contest. That the last minute ‘swing’ among the many undecided voters worked in his favour is apparent by the 17 point lead he established in the end, confounding many an analyst.

While Rajapaksa can take a bow on his victory, what we in the fourth estate need to examine is what exactly caused this late swing. This columnist is of the view that while Mahinda Rajapaksa won this election it was not Sarath Fonseka that lost it but democracy itself. We say this because new lows were established by the regime when it came to respect for the rule of law in general and respect for the election laws in particular. The regime’s determination to win at any cost came at great cost to democracy. The next election campaign will kick off from where the last one ended, and we all know where that is.

A dangerous precedent was created when, for the first time in the country’s history, even military personnel were brought out to say things beneficial to the government. Artists were brought out to canvass for the incumbent and even the hitherto untouched sportsmen and women were not spared. Now that the trend has been set, things can only get worse.

The conduct of the regime resulted in the Elections Commissioner – not for the first time – threatening to call it a day, and for the greater good of the nation we sincerely hope he keeps his word. We were treated to the despicable spectacle of the once-respected Police Department being reduced to the status of a branch of the ruling UPFA. Most importantly, there was the shameful conduct of the state media.

So what exactly caused the last minute swing among the many undecided voters? While it might take a while to figure that out, one contributing factor we can safely bet was the blatant abuse of the state media. That abuse of state resources can actually swing votes in favour of the abusers does not speak much about the calibre of the voters. But this is the hard reality.

This is why it would be interesting to recall an article titled “Rigging the election – can it be done?” published in the January 17 issue of The Sunday Leader where attention was drawn to the methods that could be used to obtain the desired election result. Among six probable scenarios we focus on the first two:

“How an election can be ‘rigged’…

1)     The illegal/unlawful publicity and promotion by cutouts, banners/posters etc.

Answer
Yes, this is rigging. It can be done and on this occasion the government has succeeded. The Elections Commissioner has not been able to prevent it.

2)     Use of state media for unlawful/illegal publicity and intense mud slinging of opposition candidate. Also assaulting/killing opposition supporters?

Answer

Yes, this also is rigging and on this occasion from nomination day, the state media — Rupavahini, ITN, SLBC and Lake House Press have been brazenly used to publicise the President and spread false reports about General Fonseka. The government has succeeded in rigging on this ground. They have killed a voter in Tangalle.”

The sad part is that the collective Sri Lankan memory is such that in two weeks all the controversies that were created through the abuse of the state media to destroy the opposition candidate will be forgotten. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the Muzammil bribery issue (by the way, what happened to the “bribe” of Rs. 30 million in hard cash that was paraded as evidence?), the Hicorp drama, the secret agreement scandal, etc. in the aftermath of the election. History has taught us that all these so-called “issues” will now be consigned to the dustbin of history, only to be raked up once again at the next poll, which of course is not far off in this land of elections, elections and more elections.

Much hype and drama were created with the “discovery” of weapons in various places on the eve of the presidential election, with the opposition candidate’s posters strategically placed among the haul of weapons, and, as always, the state media being on hand to deliver the “breaking news.” This breaking news abuse went on until the polls closed, with partisan UPFA lawyers being used to question the candidacy of the opposition candidate long after the sole authority to decide on the suitability of a candidate, the Elections Commissioner, had accepted the common opposition candidate’s candidature. While the lawyers concerned can expect a serious erosion of their credibility in the eyes of the public for their 15 minutes of fame on national TV, the state TV networks will go on with little regard for the damage caused.

Using the state media to hoodwink voters and win elections is not something new, but the January 26 election saw this strategy being used in a dangerous manner. It was 24/7 character assassination of the opposition candidate with no aspect of even his private life being spared. This provoked even the usually silent Mahanayake theros to issue a statement condemning the conduct of the state media after the Elections Commissioner publicly gave up on the issue. It was evident that the regime had much faith in the Goebbels theory, come what may. In the end it seems through carefully-crafted “news” items the swing vote had been secured.

Against great odds the private media by and large managed to stay clear of the mud slinging.

For the private media, the first term of the Rajapaksa presidency has been nothing short of a nightmare. One hopes that things will change for the better in Rajapaksa’s second innings in the presidency.

Journalists – not the kept press – have been a threatened species during the entirety of the first term of the Rajapaksa presidency, which has never hesitated to unleash its brutality on uncooperative media persons. There is of course the option where safety can be bought if one chooses to sing for his/her supper, but for principled journalists this has not been an option.

This terrorising of the media seems to have started with renewed vigour as seen in last week’s threat to the Lanka paper and the arrest of its editor, the disappearance of a Lanka e-news reporter and the alleged blocking of news websites. It is a sad indictment of a regime which in its last manifesto promised everything under the sun, including that most cherished of promises – media freedom.

That the regime has gone back on the solemn promises made is not exactly “breaking news,” but the fact that the brand new manifesto does not even bother to parrot such niceties is nothing short of galling. It goes to show that for all intents and purposes media freedom has effectively been killed in this relatively short period of four years, well and truly buried, and there is little hope of its resurrection. How bright the future can be with the people being kept in the dark, only time will tell.

Media freedom, as the civilised world has come to know the hard way, is a basic ingredient of a modern, functioning democracy. In the first world this is the cornerstone on which societies are built. President Rajapaksa has promised to take Sri Lanka from the third world to the first during the course of his second term. He has his work cut out for him.

Of what use are mega development projects if the fundamental principal on which democracies are built, the rule of law, is non-existent? Without this foundation, no edifice, no matter how great, can survive. We have been promised mega highways, flyovers, airports, ports, the works, but of what use are all these if the present culture of impunity and lawlessness are to be perpetuated for another six years? In other words, what is the use of a nice plate if the food on it is rotten? Would any first world country tolerate a Mervyn Silva?

Rajapaksa may well have hit the magical 60% mark and may have even beaten Chandrika Kumaratunga’s record 63% had he done what he swore to do on taking oath as the fifth Executive President of Sri Lanka in 2005.