I personally will be sad if Sudan splits. But at the same time I will be happy if we have peace in Sudan between the two sides … — Sudanese President Omar Al Bashir

“We will not be happy over the division of a large Islamic country… but if they eventually decide to divide Sudan, we will pursue balanced, respectful relations.”
— Ramin Mehmanparast Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman
There are regional institutions — European Union (EU), Council of Europe, African Union (AU) and Organisation of American States (OAS) — to maintain legal, economic, political and living standards. Though there are two known regional institutions in Asia (SAARC and ASEAN) so far there is no single institution for the whole of Asia.
Out of these regional institutions, only the AU charter pays attention to the right to self-determination — Article 20 of the Charter says “……They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self- determination.”
Africa is one of the regions where there are many ongoing struggles for self-determination: Cabinda in the north of Angola, Biafra in the southeast of Nigeria, Casamance in the south of Senegal, Mthwakazi in Zimbabwe and a few others. Western Sahara has already been recognised by a few African states. Somaliland is waiting for recognition. Presently many decision-makers are beginning to think that ‘smaller units can be better’.
Sudan is the only country which has nine frontiers and the Red Sea as its 10th – Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo-DRC, Central African Republic-CAR, Chad and Libya.
In northern Sudan, there are Arab cultured Muslims. The southern region is black African, majority Christians alongside other religious beliefs. Both have many ethnic, tribal and language groups. The northern states cover most of Sudan and have a population of 22 million. The south has a population of about seven million and land that holds 80% of Sudan’s oil reserves.

Combined administration by Britain and Egypt

Sudan consists of many independent kingdoms. In 1820, Egypt conquered and annexed the north.  From 1899 under a combined governing arrangement, Britain (mostly) and Egypt maintained an administration in Sudan. They governed the north and south separately until 1946. During this period northern Muslims were prevented from holding administrative positions in the south.
However, in 1946, the north and south were amalgamated by the British, with the usual pretext of administrative convenience. There was no consultation with the south. It was done purely to satisfy the north and Egypt.
Furthermore when the British were granting independence in January 1956, they did not consult the south. After independence most power was given to the northern elites, sowing seeds for more marginalisation and repressive measures to be metered out to the south.  The Sudan Committee, created after independence included only six southern leaders, though there were 800 administrative positions. In 1955, Sudan failed to create a federal system, contrary to its promise to the British.  Arabic was made the language of administration in the south.
In 1962, Christian schools in the south were closed and foreign missionaries were expelled. This fuelled a fully fledged civil war for 17 years (1955–1972), led by southern army officers. This war was purely over economic, political marginalisation and to safeguard the identity of south. During this period, many northern teachers, bureaucrats and officials serving in the south were massacred.
Any struggle in exercise of the right to self-determination is based on decolonisation, numerical majority vs numerical minority and it is often misunderstood. In every case, the numerical majority suppresses the other nations and brands them as a minority, so that they will not be qualified to demand self-determination.

Three coups d’etat and two civil wars

In Sudan there have been three (1958, 1969, 1971) coups d’etat and two (1955-1972, 1983-2005) civil wars since independence.
Mediation by the World Council of Churches – WCC and the All Africa Conference of Churches – AACC, ended the first civil war and the  ‘Addis Ababa Agreement’ was signed in March 1972. This agreement granted autonomy for the south with various powers.
Fundamentalists in the north were always hostile to any possible viable political solution for the south. They ignored the contents of the Addis Ababa Agreement and in 1983 the Sudanese President declared Sudan an Islamic state and attempted to take control of oil fields on the north-south border. In 1993, all non-Muslim judges from the south were replaced with Muslim judges. Also Shari’a law was enforced in the south and other areas where non-Muslims were living.
Despite the fact that the Addis Ababa agreement was incorporated into the Sudanese constitution, the agreement was violated leading to the second civil war.
Soon afterwards, the Sudanese government abandoned the agreement. In 1983 the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) and its political wing (Movement) were founded to establish an autonomous state for the south under a ‘united Sudan’. Blaming the Sudanese government policies was leading to ‘fragmentation’.
Thirteen political parties opposed to the Sudanese government formed a coalition party ‘National Democratic Alliance (NDA)’ in June 1989. In fact, the second civil war affected the whole of Sudan. It paved the way for a northeastern front to the civil war, defying the simplified view that it is a north-south conflict alone.
Due to continuous civil war, farming was paralysed, malnutrition and starvation were widespread. Education, health care and employment were weakened in the south. This led to the multiple displacement of four million southerners into the capital and neighbouring Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Egypt and other countries.

SPLA split into three factions

In August 1991, as within other freedom organisations, internal controversy ended with the SPLA being torn in three factions. The SPLA lost their credibility in the west. At the same time, the Sudanese pro-Iraqi position and horrendous human rights record, made US support international isolation of Sudan.
The SPLA, and its National Democratic Alliance (NDA) was initially supported by Eritrea, Ethiopia, Uganda and Israeli, to overthrow the Sudanese Government and to install its opposition. According to a press report the US also provided some assistance to the SPLA.
Since 1993, leaders of Eastern African neighbours have pursued a peace initiative for Sudan. In 1994, the Declaration of Principles (DOP) identified the essential elements for a comprehensive peace settlement, including the right of self-determination for the south.  As self-determination was mentioned in the declaration, Sudan didn’t sign the DOP, until the government forces lost in a major battle in 1997.
In 1998 when Eritrea and Ethiopia entered a border conflict and Uganda was paying more attention to the conflict in the DRC, these countries’ support to the SPLA was decreased.
In September 2001, US designated a presidential envoy for feasible Peace in Sudan. In October 2002, US accused Sudan of committing genocide, killing more than two million civilians in the south. Talks started between the SPLA and the Sudanese government. Eventually both parties signed an agreement in Nairobi on January 9, 2005. This led to formal recognition of autonomy for the south, which joined the government as part of the agreement, acquiring one-third of government positions.  Under the agreement autonomy was allowed for six years in the south. When that period expired, the people of southern Sudan would be able to vote in a referendum on independence.
Due to alleged violations of the peace agreement, on October 11, 2007 the SPLA withdrew from the government.

Out-of-Country Voting (OCV)

As stated in the agreement of 2005, even though SLPA had withdrawn from the government, the referendum took place from January 9 to 15th, 2011.
The positive part of the referendum is that the ‘diaspora’ community of the south was allowed to take part in the voting from wherever they had sought refuge — known as ‘Out-of-Country Voting (OVC)’. They voted from Australia, Canada, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, United Kingdom, and United States. Southerners who were in the north in 16 states were also allowed to vote.
The condition of the referendum is that a turnout of over 60% is needed for the vote to be valid and 50% plus 1% vote is needed for independence. Failure to fulfil this condition would have resulted in the south remaining within a united Sudan.
According to the Chairman of the Referendum Commission the turnout of the voting surpassed 80% and more than 90 % voted in favour of independence.
It is obvious that South Sudan is going to be the 193rd member state of the UN. Will this new state have a new name or remain as ‘South Sudan’? Then, what will be the name for mainland Sudan? Will it remain as Sudan or will it be changed? These are puzzles that will be answered in the near future.

Western region Dafur

The Western region of Sudan is Darfur. As a result of marginalisation in power sharing and lack of equality for non Arabs, the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) and Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) were merged in January 2006 — ‘Alliance of Revolutionary Forces of West Sudan (ARFWS)’. At least 200,000 refugees fled across to Chad. The government of Chad joined with the ARFWS in countering Sudanese atrocities.
According to UN sources, up to 300,000 people have died in Darfur due to effects of war, disease and hunger.  Like other governments, Sudan puts the death total at 10,000 and said that the situation is being exaggerated.
In March 2006, SLM was divided into two factions. One led by Abdul Wahid al-Nur, the founder of the SLA living in exile in Paris and the other one led by Minnawi. In May 2006, Minnawi’s faction signed the Darfur Peace Accord with the government of Sudan. But the conflict is still ongoing.
International human rights organisations and the US have said that genocide took place in Darfur and a UN investigation team concluded in 2005 that war crimes had been committed in Darfur.
Like in other countries, the Sudan government has also announced trials for some members of the security forces suspected of abuses. But this is viewed as a counter-mechanism to challenge attempts to get suspects tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC).
In March 2009, an international arrest warrant was served by the ICC to the Sudanese President, Omar Bashir.

Eastern region

The Eastern Sudan region is divided into three  states — Red Sea, Kassala and Al-Qadarif. National resources of this region are oil, gas, gold and vast uncultivated land with five million inhabitants.
Sudan’s unequal distribution of oil profits has caused turmoil since 1994. Easterners demanded better representation in the composition of the national government. The rebel group known as ‘Eastern Front’ was strengthened with the support of Eritrea from 2005. Anyhow in 2006 Eritrea brought the Sudanese government and the Eastern Front to the negotiating table. Eventually both signed a peace agreement in Eritrea in October 2006. This peace agreement covers power sharing at federal and regional level, wealth sharing and security issues.

The possibility of a military coup? Picture courtesy www.esquire.com

Most of my predictions that appeared in The Sunday Leader of January 10 (“After The Election: What Will Happen To The President’s Promises?”), have come true. Now I give further analysis and predictions.
Firstly, as I said in my article, the people who voted for the elected President were let down — his promises remain unfulfilled. I presume I do not have to list these — they are widely published in the free and fair media. One such is — rather than removing the ‘Executive Presidency’, more power has been given him by two thirds majority.
Whenever we meet members of the international community, a typical stance is that the Sri Lanka government was unable to do anything on the ethnic conflict, because none of the governments had a two-thirds majority in parliament. Present Secretary of State for Defence of United Kingdom, Liam Fox, worked out an agreement between the People’s Alliance and the United National Party in 1997, aiming to find a common solution to the ethnic conflict.
But the President who has two-thirds majority in parliament, is not bothered about a solution to the ethnic conflict. Like putting the ‘cart before the bull’, the President used the parliamentary majority to strengthen his power, rather than finding a political solution.
As I predicted last January, Sarath Fonseka became a member of parliament, the Rajapaksas prepared a law suit and now he is sentenced to 30 months of rigorous imprisonment. Fonseka may not have dreamt that, one day he was to serve a prison sentence in Welikada. The one time hero who was praised for wiping out terrorism, is today with the same people, against whom he was fighting and who were accused of ‘terrorism’.
Are the charges Sarath Fonseka faced true? If so, firstly the government should take responsibility for keeping a corrupt military commander in service from December 6, 2005 to July 15, 2009. In democratic countries where ‘law and order’ and the judiciary function correctly, presidents, prime ministers and ministers have resigned for mistakes made on their part.
The day Fonseka was sentenced to prison, the President and Secretary of Defence of Sri Lanka, should have either resigned or been charged by the Attorney General for keeping a corrupt General in service. Did that happen in Sri Lanka? And what are the opposition parties doing? They are busy stabilising their own parties at the expense of Fonseka’s term in prison.

What about looking at the reality of military coups in Sri Lanka?

Since 1948, Sri Lanka has seen a coup d’état by the military on January 27, 1962 and two class struggles (revolutions) by the Sinhalese youths in the South (April 4, 1971 and 1987-1989). All ended in failure.
In the recent past, a neighbouring country predicted that there may be a military coup in Sri Lanka. Last month in a press conference, Sarath Fonseka said that a “military coup may arise”. Possibilities of an impending coup cannot be ignored. Valid reasons should be analysed.
Let us consider the failed revolutions in 1971 and 87-89. Where are those who were involved in these failed revolutions? We see only one individual from 1971 and a few from 87-89. Where are the others? The government knows better than anyone else. To fight the 30 years of war, recruitment in the South followed neither procedures nor guide-lines. The generation who had wanted to topple the government, made use of this opportunity and positioned themselves in the armed forces.
Sarath Fonseka knew this fact very well. This was one reason why, during the presidential election, he stood as a common candidate and during the parliamentary election, he co-operated with the JVP and other parties in solidarity with it. He systematically avoided the UNP. Nepotism, corruption, biased judiciary and dictatorships have paved the way for many coups in Africa, Pakistan, Myanmar, Fiji and other countries. Therefore, absence of a military coup in Sri Lanka cannot be taken for granted. Who knows, people responsible for waging a ‘coup’ may be waiting for the green light from an Asian country!
Compared to the earlier civil war, this is worse for the Rajapaksas. The enemy may be everywhere – travelling, eating, drinking and lodging with them. All eggs in one basket could be very dangerous. I presume that Rajapaksas must have taken some precautions. Otherwise they wouldn’t keep a ‘Standby Force’ — Karuna, Pillayan, Douglas and some others with them.

Let us look at the 18th Amendment in brief

If Rajapaksa doesn’t want to be another Fonseka or even Sirimavo Bandaranaike, he should not contest the presidential election for the third term. At the same time, rather than blaming Rajapaksa, that he is preparing to contest the presidential election for the third term, the opposition parties have ample time to prepare themselves for the next presidential election. They should find the lady who will be the strong common candidate. We hope that Rajapaksas will spare the lady from being stripped of her civic rights.
In conclusion, whether Rajapaksa becomes president, Fonseka is imprisoned, or Rajapaksa and the lady contest the presidential election for the third term – win or lose, the ethnic conflict has soon been forgotten by the major political parties and politicians in the South. They are all waiting for the day to say that the Tamil population in Sri Lanka is not large enough to be given any political rights.
By the way, I take this opportunity to congratulate President Rajapaksa for delivering a well memorised speech in the UN General Assembly, double checked by Palitha Kohona and Lalith Weeratunga. The speech received good coverage via the UN webcast, which included the mostly empty seats in the plenary hall.

http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/09/sri-lanka-general-debate-65th-session.html

Kevin Rudd

There nothing goes, everything matters. Here everything goes, nothing matters. A few days back Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister of Australia, resigned suddenly from his office. Evidently he had lost the confidence of the leading figures of the Labour Party of which he was the leader at the time. This paved the way for Julia Gillard to become the first female Prime Minister of the only country in the world which is a continent by itself.

Kevin Rudd is only 53 years old. If he was so inclined, with the aura of the prime minister’s office to draw on, he could have made a fight for it. A Sri Lankan would think him a fool, to resign from an office from which he and his family could have gained so much. But then he is not a Sri Lankan.

Kevin Rudd was born in a Queensland dairy farm. His father died when Kevin was only 11. In order to support the young family, his mother trained herself as a nurse. Kevin’s youth was spent in relatively disadvantaged circumstances, dependent on charity to further his education. In school he was often mocked as a ‘charity’ case. A keen student, Kevin specialised in Asian studies, an area of increasing importance to Australia.

He joined the Australian Foreign Affairs Department in 1981, working there till 1988 when he became the Chief of Staff to Wayne Goss, the Labour Opposition Leader of Queensland. It was only in 1998 that Kevin Rudd entered federal politics by winning the electorate of Griffith.

It speaks much for the fairness of the Australian culture that a person of an unexceptional background such as Rudd’s, was able to rise to the highest position in that country in such a short time span. In less than 10 years in federal politics, he was able to win the leadership of the Labour Party and then the premiership.
Soon after he was elected Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd signed the Kyoto Protocol, holding his country to greater accountability in environmental issues and later read out an apology to the indigenous Australians for the ‘stolen’ generations.

These actions not only define his political inclinations but also illustrate the core decencies of a country where thousands of Sri Lankans have, in recent times, found a happy and prosperous life. When we use the appellation ‘Honourable’ as borrowed from the British parliamentary tradition on Kevin Rudd the MP, surely it does not get stuck in our throats.

It is said that comparisons are odorous. But making comparisons across essentially diverse cultures and value systems is difficult. One cannot fault Hyenas for scavenging the kill of the Lions. Nature has determined the conduct of the wild and its actors merely play out a pre-determined role. To compare Rudd to Ranil Wickremesinghe, or for that matter, to any other politician in this country will be almost an act of cruelty. But we may attempt comparisons as a way of analysis, particularly in relation to their role vis-a -vis institutions such as parliaments, political parties and other public offices which are standard institutions in all countries now.

Ranil Wickremesinghe, leader of the United National Party for many years and for nearly that number of years Leader of the Opposition, despite repeated electoral failures refuses to leave office. On the fundamental issue that faced Sri Lanka in recent times, the terror threat from the LTTE, he misread the situation utterly. In recent times, no nation has taken   such a supine approach as he did when Prime Minister, towards a terrorist group killing its citizens, both Sinhala and Tamil, with blatant contempt while pretending to run a parallel government in areas under its control. Ranil preferred to let the situation drift, welcoming all kinds of foreign busy bodies and adventures into the act. For all his failures, resigning has not come into his mind.

Then we had Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga our second two-term President, the first being JR Jayewardene, the person who introduced the office of executive presidency to this country. On every score Chandrika’s tenure was a failure. In some of those years the country’s economy contracted. The LTTE, with which she hoped to parley, declared war, which soon settled into an embarrassing stalemate.  It was commonly said that the war became a gold mine for the corrupt.

On the troubling issue of the suitability of the presidential form of government, Chandrika the aspiring presidential candidate was vociferously for the abolishing of it. But that was only until she was comfortably ensconced in office. Later she even contemplated a third term while taking oath for the second, in apparent secrecy.

Both these individuals are products of relatively affluent and politically powerful families in a country poor in absolute terms. As happens in such societies, in their formative years they would have observed   many men and women debasing themselves in front of their parents, of course more so in the case of Chandrika, both whose parents were prime ministers. Naturally, early in their childhood they would have begun to think of themselves as something special   and that any door should open for them. When her mother, Mrs. Bandaranaike was prime minister in the 1970-77 period, government policies demanded sweeping austerity measures from the people. But that did not stop her three children, including Chandrika, from having a foreign education.

In the oral traditions of the country, to the employees, dependents, followers and beneficiaries, a rich and powerful benefactor is only a human incarnation of a divine nature, temporarily walking the earth. In their over-heated imagination, he is of a stature and nature that can be described only in a language given to florid tribute. Men compete with each other to invent the most servile praise. According to that way of thinking, leadership is passed on as an inheritance and not earned as the Kevin Rudds of the world have to. While people like Rudd are working their way through the universities of hard knocks, these spoiled products of a certain culture are only biding their time for the call to lead the nation.

As it happens, both Ranil and Chandrika are also highly exposed to the cosmopolitan cultures of the West. While benefitting from the belief systems of the country, they themselves probably have a larger view of the whole thing. But here lies their greatest failure.

The idealism that underlies the Western concepts of government such as the electoral principle, division of power, independence of the judiciary, objective nature of the state machinery (which will deal even with the highest in the land if found in breach of the law) and numerous other bulwarks of a democratic system require the presence of men of high caliber, not corrupted by personal consideration or greed for office. It is not that politicians of developed societies are without blemish. They are also subject to the same human frailties that are common to all. But in those systems there is always a Kevin Rudd rising above his personal interests, setting standards for public life. Even in the darkest moments we see the light of learning, enlightenment and freedom triumph, not only in public life, but even in other arms of the state.

Whether a shiftless people, moderately endowed and seemingly lacking a sense of self-esteem, could amount to anything in the modern world could be answered only later, historically. On the whole, human progress today is not the result of slave labour or press gangs. Most societies that have progressed have done so because of the sense of freedom and hope that those societies have offered its citizens, thus releasing their vigour and ingenuity in a manner not possible in other societies. A Barrack Obama, in a Sri Lankan context is an impossibility.

If Chandrika offered her resignation when  she could not do away with the presidency as promised or had Ranil gracefully walked away after his  electoral failures, our entire political culture would have been raised  a few notches. The opportunity for self renewal those resignations would have offered the respective institutions, would have brought pride and meaning to the system and its culture.

People could have walked with their heads held high, knowing that despite all the problems besetting this nation, its culture could still produce men who cannot be corrupted by the lure of office or money. But this did not happen. People who should know better, let the system down, letting it slide into an uncontrolled downward spiral.

This is a Mock Ballot Paper -- Graphic by Jeewantha Madukantha

By R. Wijewardene

It will soon be incumbent on each and every adult citizen of this country to do their democratic duty. To wield the mighty instrument of universal franchise and determine with a simple tick of the ballot who will and who will not lead this country for the next half decade.

The simple act of placing a ballot gives the ordinary people of this land the power to break political dynasties, profoundly alter government policy and ultimately shape the destiny of Sri Lanka.

But while that may sound very grand, in practice democracy can be a very underwhelming thing.

And it can be hard to imagine that queueing in the sun for hours in order to place what looks like a piece of toilet paper in a dubious box will actually change our political world.

But that anyway is the principle upon which the world’s most fashionable form of government is founded and for want of any better ideas we may as well have some faith; if only because it gives us something to talk about.

Choose your poison?

Now the basic idea behind democracy is choice. In monarchies for example people don’t really have much choice, and some progeny of your current oppressor is likely to become your future oppressor. Dictatorships too are much the same, if often a little less stable.

But in a democracy it is we the people who choose our leaders. Now given past experience this might seem like some particularly perverse form of masochism.
Perpetually voting for the people who will rob and cheat and lie to us for the next few years seems like a rather demoralising thing to do.

In a sense it makes us responsible for the various ills which our carefully chosen rulers inevitably vested on the country . While the ordinary citizens of North Korea and Myanmar can at least absolve themselves of responsibility for the state of their countries, we have to bear the responsibility for choosing the administrations that have brought the country to its present state.

Choices, choices

But still democracy is what we have on this paradise isle and that means choosing.
This year presents a particular problem as we are confronted with an unprecedented choice.

22 candidates will make this the longest ballot paper in history.

Surely such a large field of candidates is a sign that the country’s democracy is in good shape. Unfortunately not.

Like restaurant menus quantity is no indication of quality.

Good restaurants typically restrict themselves to a handful of dishes well prepared and varied seasonally while more mediocre establishments tend to present a long list of literally half baked and stale dishes.

Similarly for all it’s length this year’s ballot paper will ultimately present voters with a list of half baked candidates, offering stale ideas.

In fact many voters might find that this year’s electoral menu gives them political indigestion.

Most of the light weights listed are hardly appetizers and there are only two serious main dishes available. But with their past records and current blunders the main dishes on offer this year are likely to leave many voters feeling uninspired.

One seems somehow too rich, fatty and familiar and the other un-appetizingly tough and desperately lean on ideas.

Nationalism is the flavour of both courses, with hints of corruption and the essence of authoritarianism.

And while democracy is about choosing, choosing from this list is not the most appetizing prospect.

Vote for both

If you really can’t decide which is the least bad of our very bad options — if you find yourself smitten by Sarath’s boyish grin and Wickramabahu’s leftist chin, our political system actually allows you to vote for them both plus one other — three preferences in all.

This may seem rather odd but by indicating a first, second and third preference you are well within your rights to vote for Sarath and Mahinda and maybe even Bahu.
Again rather like a restaurant, if your preferred main dish isn’t available, as is often the case with overlong menus, you can resort to a second choice…
Just mark one candidate with a ‘1’ to indicate your first preference and place a ‘2’ by a second candidate to indicate your second preference. You can even indicate a third preference.

NB. Whatever you do, don’t tick the same candidate as first and second preference, or tick more than three boxes as this will lead to your vote being considered spoilt.
The fascinating political intricacy of preferential votes comes into play if no single candidate secures more than 50% of the vote. In the case of election 2010 for example if neither Sarath nor Mahinda secure more than 50% of all valid votes cast, preferences will come into the picture.

Scenario

In a scenario where Sarath gets 45%, Mahinda 45%, Wickramabahu 6%, Sivajilingam 2% and others 2% , then preferential votes will come into play.
All but the leading two candidates — Sarath and Mahinda — will be eliminated and the second preference vote on ballots cast in favour of eliminated candidates will be counted.

If you indicate Wickramabahu as your first preference and Sarath as your second in the case of the above scenario, Wickramabahu will be eliminated and yours will be counted as a vote for Sarath.

The whole system might seem arcane but given the general disgust with the squabbling main contenders, Wickramabahu and the other outside candidates stand a chance of securing enough protest votes to deny the main men an outright victory.

Variety is the spice of life

With so many options and permutations and with the chance of first, second and even third preference your options are virtually limitless.

And the best basic advice given a large number of dismal candidates is variety;
Chose something exotic as your first choice, maybe the double ‘lingamed’ Sivajilingam Kanigalingam or perhaps the monk no one knows any thing about and indicate one of the favorites as your second preference.

This tactic just might throw up an interesting result at least forcing a preferential vote count and stop the main men crowing about a great victory and popular support.

How to spoil your vote

Of course if none of these various permutations appeal; if you are completely disgusted with the cess pit of our current politics and would rather not partake in the upcoming political buffet, you can always exercise your democratic right to spoil your vote.

To do this you can: simply tick no boxes; tick more than two boxes; tick all the boxes.
Doodle a rant on the state of democracy over the ballot paper (futile, but may relieve frustration).

There are several ways to spoil your vote and you will have the satisfaction of not having played a part in the election of whichever delinquent it is who ultimately comes to power.

However anyone thinking about spoiling their vote should note that if you are wise enough to be disgusted with our political process you might want to use your vote for a more constructive purpose.

Spoiler

Vote instead for a spoiler candidate — perhaps Wickramabahu, simply to prevent either of the main men — S&M, from securing a victory . This will demonstrate that people aren’t fooled by their poster posturing and that it is only political starvation that has allowed two such unsavory characters to become the only viable options.
While even such minor acts of defiance are likely to achieve little a spoiler might well be the best option.

At least it will make things more interesting, and a large turn out for alternative candidates might help rattle the political establishment. After all democracy comes just twice a decade so use your choice wisely, be creative and make the best of a bad situation.

Idiots Guide

Register. In an ideal situation your local Grama Niladari will send round a registration form annually. Fill this in and return it to your Grama Niladari (GN). This is easier said than done. If as is likely your GN is not in his office, check the local taverns, gambling dens and political residences. NB: This is a vital step. If you fail to register at this point you will not be recorded on the electoral list and will not receive a polling card.
Check your mail. Those who have successfully registered will receive their polling cards in the post.

Go to the polling station (with your polling card); Again easier said than done, as these can sometimes be particularly obscure temples and schools. Remember to make it to the station indicated on your card. Make sure to get there early and avoid the heat and crowds. If your polling station is a temple or church don’t confuse the collection box and the ballot box — the candidates don’t need more money and Jesus, Buddha and company don’t need votes.

Stand in line. Now in Sri Lanka standing in line isn’t as dull as it sounds and you can amuse yourself by pushing frantically to get to the front fractionally earlier than the others.

When you finally reach the end of the queue you will, most likely, find yourself face to face with dour women seated behind a rickety table. Offer your polling card and NIC to these women and if you have got all preceding stages right you will finally receive the mighty instrument of democracy itself; the ballot paper. On receipt of your ballot paper, your little finger will be branded with some faintly canerous looking purple ink. This will serve as a badge of your democratic honor for the next few days or even weeks….

Remember that while we are all subjected to various pieces of ID — passports, driving licenses, etc. only the old National ID card is valid at the polling station — so don’t try and present you Arpico reward card. If you happen to be a refugee or one of two million or so others without a NIC you can secure a temporary ID from the Grama Niladari (a rather difficult process).

Now that you hold in your hand the great instrument of democracy — do not mistake it for toilet paper, or blow your nose on it. Read it carefully. Read to the end – don’t tick the first name you see. Despite his alphabetical advantage we don’t necessarily need Achala Asoka Suraweera as president.

Then select from the various names and symbols listed. If you only have the stomach for one candidate tick just one box. Should you wish to indicate a preference mark two or three boxes with numbers to indicate your order of preference.

Fold your ballot and place in the box. Take the rest of the day off, do not return to work on the pretext that it took you all day to vote, and bask in the glow of having fulfilled your democratic duty.

Mahinda Rajapaksa

By Victor Ivan

The victory in the war against the LTTE made President Mahinda Rajapaksa a giant whilst making all other political leaders look like dwarfs in his presence. In the final analysis it created a situation where nobody was there among the political leaders who had a chance of victory against him in a presidential election. In spite of having certain  limitations, the situation was  that Mahinda Rajapaksa could easily win a presidential race.

Engaging a hero against a hero

Gen. Sarath Fonseka

Interestingly, this problem appears to have been overcome with the emergence of another war hero as a potential rival to President Rajapaksa, instead of the traditional leader of the opposition. The victorious war against the LTTE has created three great heroes. President Mahinda Rajapaksa, Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, Gotabaya Rajapaksa and the Commander of the Army, Sarath Fonseka are these three heroes.

The role they played during the war was exceptional and unparalleled. President Mahinda Rajapaksa provided the necessary political leadership for the war. Commander of the Army, Sarath Fonseka provided the military leadership that was essential for the war. It was Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, Gotabaya Rajapaksa who coordinated these two factors. Due to the exceptional roles played by these three characters, at the end of the war, all three of them entered history as heroes of the highest caliber.

All these three heroes were persons who were subjected to severe criticism by the  opposition parties. The opposition parties viewed the war as a factor that strengthened the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime. Criticisms by the opposition were not confined to President Mahinda Rajapaksa or to Gotabaya Rajapaksa.  Nasty criticisms were aimed at Sarah Fonseka too, who is a professional soldier. There were instances when dreadful accusations were aimed at him by the Leader of the Opposition. There were also instances when the Commander of the Army reacted angrily in replying to those criticisms.

Due to these reasons, it is  a victory for the opposition  which was not in a position to put forth a credible candidate from among themselves, to draw out one of the remaining two heroes born through the war to contest President Mahinda Rajapaksa. Another surprising but important development coming out of this new scenario is  the possibility of the JVP and the UNP being in a position to work towards the same end result, thus ending the bitter hatred that the JVP has for the UNP.

The JVP

It was the JVP which acted as the grave digger for the parliamentary government of Ranil Wickremesinghe, when the UNP had the power of  parliament while the PA had the power of the Executive Presidency. At that time, the JVP viewed it as a noble mission to banish an ‘unpatriotic government.’

Thereafter, the JVP acted in the role of the midwife who severed the umbilical cord in the political process to elect Mahinda Rajapaksa as the president. The fact that the JVP is now performing the role of political grave-digger of the Mahinda Rajapaksa government which they themselves brought to power, treating it as a patriotic savior and playing the role of midwife indirectly to bring Ranil Wickremesinghe to power whom they themselves removed once labeling him as unpatriotic, is an irony of fate. However, if the deep-rooted hatred between the JVP and UNP could end in this situation, it can be treated as a factor for the political advancement of the country.

Ranil Wickremesinghe

In this crisis, UNP Leader, Ranil Wickremesinghe has become the actor with the most colourful role. Earlier he was in a situation bogged down in mud up to this neck unable to get out easily. He did not possess the ability to become a strong competitor at this contest. The victorious war against the LTTE has made Mahinda Rajapaksa a giant while he was made a dwarf. In a traditional sense, he should have been the challenger at this contest. But defeat at this contest could have spelt the end of his political existence. Even if he followed the policy of allowing another person in the party to contest, he would have lost the leadership of the party and also any political prospects in the future. Preserving the leadership of his party and finding a method to launch a powerful contest against Mahinda Rajapaksa could be deemed as an important victory in his political life.

If it is contemplated that General Sarath Fonseka will emerge victorious and thereafter everything happens as expected by Ranil Wickremesinghe, he will be able to gain power to govern the country while General Sarath Fonseka could be limited to a post with symbolic importance. Even if the winner does not agree to adopt Ranil’s political course of action, he will at least have the ability to protect his party leadership. In this perspective, whatever the result of the election would be, Ranil Wickremesinghe will have the ability to preserve the party leadership.

Tamil political parties

Thondaman, Douglas and Karuna are with the government. Mano Ganesan is with Sarath Fonseka. For whom the TNA will give its support at this contest is a very important question. In an exchange of ideas between R. Sambandan, leader of the TNA and Ranil Wickremesinghe held in parliament; Ranil had been informed that the TNA will not join the opposition alliance.

Even though the leaders of the TNA have undergone a deep change in their political ideology, it is not clear what policy they will follow at this contest. Although they have abandoned the idea for a separate state or in the alternative, a federal system of government, they clamour for a just and a lasting solution for the problems faced by their people. The government has so far been unable to put forth a practical solution which could instill confidence in them.

Sarath Fonseka

Sarath Fonseka is a military officer who has exhibited exceptional talents in the military sphere and accordingly has achieved the status of a hero. Even though there are various opinions as to how the honour for the victorious war against the LTTE should be divided among the three heroes born through that war, the role played by Sarath Fonseka is very  special. One may argue that even if there was a very clever commander for the Army, such a victory would not have been possible if not for the role fulfilled by President Mahinda

Rajapaksa as the Head of the State and Commander-in-Chief.
Another may argue that even if the Head of the State fulfilled his role, such a victory would have been impossible if there was no clever Commander of the Army like Sarath Fonseka. The contributions made by all three of them were very essential for the victory in the war and the honour entitled to Sarath Fonseka cannot be denied.
Since independence, no military officer has contested for the post of head of state. This could be the first such instance in Sri Lanka. The special endemic feature in this situation is that the biggest hero created by the victorious war is challenged by the next biggest hero also created by the war. In this sense, it could be termed as a holy war waged between two national heroes.
Until the entry of Sarath Fonseka, the Mahinda Rajapaksa government was proceeding on a path without any powerful challenges from the opposition. However, the entry by Sarath Fonseka has resulted in some changes to the situation. In a broad perspective, it could be construed as a favourable condition and not an unfavourable condition. A powerful government has to proceed facing the challenges and criticisms from a powerful opposition.
However, General Sarath Fonseka has to work with forces which are not akin to his ideology, but completely different to his ideology. Mainly, he has to work with a group who not only  had no faith in the war waged by him, but who were very much against it. This incompatibility is quite significant and it can be comprehended as the weakest endemic characteristic of this union.
Sarath Fonseka is not an experienced political leader, but an experienced military leader. Even though a military leader is vested with discipline which is lacking in a political leader, unlike in politics, what is important in war is to command and to comply. In  war, the command given by a leader should be complied without any questioning by those who are subject to command. But in politics, even a corrupt politician has to be sensitive to public opinion. Differing from the military leadership, people are the source of power for the politician. Such leaders who have entered politics after military service and proceeded forth in a democratic path could be rarely found. A majority of such leaders are those who deviated from the democratic path to an autocratic style of rule.

Napoleon and De Gaulle

The French Revolution is regarded as the revolution that expressed the modern values of  human freedom. The French Revolution ended monarchist rule and established democratic governance. However when the first democratic republic created by the revolution faced a crisis, the responsibility to protect the republic and to proceed forth was entrusted to Napoleon. But Napoleon abolished the existing democratic governance and crowned himself as the Emperor of France. He re-established an autocratic monarchial government.

But, General Charles De Gaulle who established the fifth Republic in France after the Second World War did not create an autocratic state like Napoleon. De Gaulle was capable in maintaining democratic state conditions in France. However, it could be said that, like the constitution drafted by De Gaulle, his style of governance contained dark shadows of autocratic rule to a certain extent.

If Sarath Fonseka comes in to power, will his example be that of Napoleon? Or else, is it the path of De Gaulle? Or will it be a third path? It is not clear.

Silence of the common candidate

The UNP and JVP sometimes directly and at some other times indirectly state that their common candidate for the forthcoming presidential election is Sarath Fonseka. The UNP states that within 180 days of his coming in to power, the  executive presidency should be abolished and their ‘Ten Point’ – Dasaraja’ programme has to be implemented.

Still, Sarath Fonseka has not aired his views on  speculation in the country with regard to him. If the former Chief of Defense Staff wishes to contest the presidential election as the common candidate, he should be given the right and freedom to do so without any hindrance. He is contesting against the President. If the President uses any regulation as a weapon to hinder a person coming to the fray against him, people shall not view the President as a person with a strong potential to gain victory, but as a defeated president. At present there is only speculation. It cannot be envisaged that the President will create any obstructions, if Sarath Fonseka wants to contest as the common candidate of the opposition.

Mahinda Rajapaksa

There is now a political challenge before President Mahinda Rajapaksa which he cannot avoid by any means. The victorious war made President Mahinda Rajapaksa, the Commander-in-Chief, a giant whilst all other political leaders in the arena were made political dwarfs. There was no strong candidate in the UNP or JVP who could contest against Mahinda with self confidence. Finally at the end of this difficult situation faced by them, they tried to gain victory by fielding one of the other two heroes created by war against the hero who was also created by the same war. Even though it can be construed as unfortunate to have two leaders who struggled for leadership and historical importance to fight each other, it may also be beneficial for the country. Now the fight is between the Commander-in-Chief and the Commander of the Army of the victorious war.

There is no ability for President Mahinda Rajapaksa to withdraw even by one step. He has to bravely face the challenge. There is no ability for the President to go for a parliamentary election in the face of this challenge. He has to hold a presidential election first. If not, people will believe that due to the fear of facing Sarath Fonseka, a presidential election is not to be held and instead a parliamentary election will be held. It will not be favourable for the honour of the President. The President should face a presidential election and negate the current state of confusion. If necessary, both  elections could be held closely to each other which will reduce the expenditure to be incurred by the political parties for election purposes. By creating necessary conditions conducive for free and fair elections, an advancement of political morality could be expressed.

Presidential contest

In this political system, the power of the state is centered on the Executive President. Accordingly, in the struggle for power, a presidential election will have the priority. The party that wins the presidential election will get the opportunity to win the parliamentary elections on a larger or a smaller scale.
In  the present situation, even though there is public criticism against the government, the President possesses a strong  power base among the people.

The people’s power base of the common candidate of the opposition is not so clear. Even if all those who vote for UNP, JVP and SLMC together vote for the common candidate, there is a huge margin between such aggregate and the President’s power base. The common candidate of the opposition can pose a powerful contest if he could muster a large portion of the votes for Mahinda Rajapaksa equaling the aggregate of the votes by the three supporting parties. In spite of the fact that the opposition with the wealth of the UNP and the organising strength of the JVP together are capable of launching a very aggressive and alluring election campaign, it is doubtful whether it could make a deep change in the President’s  power base.

Strengths and limitations

The fact that the UNP and JVP have moved away from the animistic attitude that prevailed so far and have come to a point where political negotiation would happen, can be seen as a favourable and progressive development. But the greatest endemic limitation evident in the opposition front is that they are a force which has come together to achieve one objective, that is, to defeat Mahinda Rajapaksa. Even though it is good to have a common agreement to abolish the executive presidency and the UNP has already expressed the changes that are anticipated, it is not clear what sort of system the JVP expects in lieu of the executive presidency.

In this contest, the UNP has published their political agenda. The political agenda of the JVP as well as the agenda of Sarath Fonseka who is the common candidate are still unpublished and unclear. Ranil Wickremesinghe has said that if the common candidate put forth by them wins the election, there has to be a cabinet of ministers inclusive of representatives of other parties while he becomes the interim prime minister. Does the JVP agree to this agenda? It is evident that Ranil Wickremesinghe expects to face a parliamentary election and win while he is the prime minister. The thoughts of the JVP or the common candidate in this regard is unclear.

It cannot be discerned that the JVP would like to see the implementation of the political agenda of Ranil Wickremesinghe once the common candidate wins the election. Likewise, it is most unlikely that Ranil Wickremesinghe may agree if the victorious common candidate gives priority solely to the agenda of the JVP. On the other hand, if the victorious common candidate pursues his own agenda not being subordinate to UNP or JVP, the ability of UNP and JVP to prevent such a situation is also not clear.