Click for News Update: tweetsTrove

transCurrents Home

Is there a "role" in Sri Lankan politics for Sarath Fonseka?

by Lionel Bopage

"For the development of the country, for the security of the country if there are any steps that need be taken, I believe that it our duty as citizens to take these steps. It is important to pay attention to what will happen in the future rather than spend our days living in a joyful mindset.”*

Sage words indeed from General Sarath Fonseka. Now that the euphoria of winning the war against the LTTE is over, our minds must turn to the complex issues facing the country, such as wining the peace; post-war reconstruction; the bourgeoning economic crisis; the settlement of the displaced people; and dealing with the national question.

Sri Lanka, with all its flaws, still maintains the appearance of a democracy. There is a demarcation in Sri Lanka, though often blurred between its Presidency, parliament, judiciary and the armed forces. No matter which of the two bourgeois parties have ruled the country, in alliances or by themselves, their leaders and senior cabinet members for all their flaws and virtues, have been civilians. The civilian authority over the armed forces has never been effectively challenged, although some of these civilian directions can be construed as self serving.

History is littered with the good intentions of Generals who have come to power through military and democratic means. Many have been motivated by patriotism and the genuine desire to solve the intractable problems in their societies created by corrupt and inefficient regimes. However, the end result was, of course, a distinguished soldier with a tarnished reputation and a country and society in an even deeper morass than it was in before.

Recent experience in Nigeria, where an ex military commander taking power through democratic election, has not been a successful one. After a long period of disastrous military rule General Olusegun Obasanjo came to power democratically in 1999 in Nigeria, with the specific aim of getting the country out of the economic and political morass it had found itself in.

Nigeria like many developing countries found itself beset by unfair terms of trade, a ballooning public debt, communal unrest, huge disparities in income and corruption. General Obasanjo came to power with the express aim of tackling and alleviating these problems. Yet when he retired as President in 2007 these problems still plagued the country and inter-communal harmony, for example, were in an even more perilous state.

This breakdown of Nigeria’s economic and social structures was not because General Obasanjo was an untalented person. But his skills were those of a military man. As a result, he sought solutions to complex cultural, political and economic problems in simple, clinical and logistical terms. Dealing with complex problems of economic disparity and inter-communal harmony requires not only a leader of vision and goodwill, but also the political and intuitive skills to negotiate political goals. Namely, the willingness to listen, compromise and have the background to take all the people in the country through the changes that are necessary. These are not the qualities we expect of Generals.

This is the reality civil l society in Sri Lanka and General Foneska as an individual need to be cognisant of at this juncture in the country’s history.

Compounding the issue, of course, are the individuals and political groupings that are pushing General Fonseka’s candidature for the top political job in the country. Nationalist groups see the General as personage who would push their hard line agenda once in power. This would be a disaster and open the wounds of communal disharmony once again. For these groups issues of economics, corruption, democracy and communal fairness are subsumed in attaining their nationalist goals. To unchain their political fantasies would bring to reality a truism that f General Fonseka himself has recognized in his recent speech at a Buddhist Temple in Washington DC. ‘In the beginning there was no Prabhakaran, he was created thirty years ago'.

This seems an open admission that the Tamil nationalist militancy came into being as a response to the nationalist and discriminatory policies, strategies and tactics of successive Sri Lankan governments. One must not ignore the fact that such nationalist and discriminatory policies were imposed upon non-Sinhala communities in Sri Lanka through violent campaigns carried out by mobs and allegedly by the security forces at the behest of the prevailing regimes.

Furthermore, the security forces and its commanders have been the main props governments in Sri Lanka relied upon repeatedly to carry out short term political manoeuvres leading to the creation of militant youth struggles not only in the north but also in the south.

The youth demanded justice, fairness and equity of opportunity to the issues that were affecting them, their families and their future. Rather than addressing such issues, and ensuring the democratic right of people to protest, successive governments resorted to repressing such demands militarily leading to the death of nearly 150,000 young Sri Lankans.

There is no doubt that security forces and their commanders were actively involved in these campaigns; they have openly admitted to learning from the military experiences of forces that fought against the liberation war in Vietnam in destroying those who rebelled against the unjust actions of a corrupt, nepotistic South Vietnamese regime. As General Fonseka himself has allegedly admitted in his speech, he had been instrumental in preventing the implementation of certain decisions of previous governments in bringing relief to certain sections of people in Sri Lanka.

The policies spelt out thus far by General Fonseka in solving some of the complex issues facing Sri Lanka today lack clarity, whether they be of the economy, unemployment, protection of human and democratic rights, bribery and corruption, abolishing the executive presidency etc. etc.. Despite the alleged support for his candidature by many parties, any discussion or clarification on any of these issues is yet to see the light of day.

Coalitions of many hues have come and gone in Sri Lanka, promising many things to many sections of the communities in Sri Lanka, from the abolition of presidency to an open economy with a human face. Have we learnt anything from these experiences?

On the contrary, issues have spiralled upwards with increased economic, social and political burdens heaped on people not to mention increasing levels of bribery, corruption and discrimination.

Under the circumstances, what guarantee is there whatever bourgeois democratic characteristics that remain in Sri Lanka will not be brought to an end by an army general elected as President of the country? Would not one want to remain President for life once elected? What are the safeguards that could be applied in such circumstances? I have not seen any discussion of such issues.

There is a role for retired war heroes and Generals who have served their countries admirably and with distinction. Their prestige, bravery, tenacity and skills of command are best put to use on specific nation building projects, not on solving the complex social and political issues for which they have shown no aptitude in the past.
We need to be mindful of this when we weigh and balance General Fonseka’s candidature at this crucial juncture in the nation’s history.

* All quotes are from the English translation of General Sarath Fonseka’s speech made at a Buddhist Temple in Washington D. C. on the 25th of October 2009

8 Comments

Lionel being an ex-JVPer talks some sense into the General's ability to suceed as a politician in an unlikely victory in a forthcoming presidential election. His ex-party's current rulers are acting these days like "rattlesnakes attacked with kerosene oil". They will be taught a lesson to remember in the forthcoming parliamentary elections for sure by intelligent voters. If anyone who has an iota of brain must remeber the Sinhala saying of "cut nose because angry with the face".

Posted by: Dutugemunu | November 12, 2009 07:49 AM

First and foremost we must understand that Sri Lanka is no longer the democracy it claims to be. In his short term in power Rajapakse has managed to destroy democracy and install a one man show. Parliment has been reduced to a talk shop. The Opposition has been systematicaly destroyed. Politicians have been bought over. Political parties have been splintered. So how can one be satisfied with this state of affairs.

Also if we say that Politicians can and know how to run this country, think again. Look at the economy, cost of living, education, health, employment. What good have these political experts done? What are their qualifications to run this country? So if we say that ex military people dont know anything and should keep away from politics thats not really justified. Today any Tom, Dick and Harry is involved in politics, from rogues to murderers. In fact they continue their vocation even as they serve the people and of course themselves.

I think Sarath Fonseka has often been misquoted. He is not the best at conveying his ideas. But he can produce results. Moreover we need a President who can rise above politics and restore parrlimentary democracy. Thereafter it will be upto the Parliment to run the country. At present its totally a one man, one family show.

Posted by: SriLankan | November 12, 2009 08:22 AM

First the PTA should be removed from the Statue Book and the Emergency abolished.The Army of Occupation in the north and east should be removed,as there is no necessity for it now - unless to prop up quislings of the state.Only then,could there be free and fair elections.War Heros or Butchers can then contest and the people can only then vote without constraints.

Posted by: justitia | November 12, 2009 09:51 AM


Despite our profound fears of loosing the current eqalibrium in the exisiting governance structures, the General has started his new political journey today. The white clothed new politician will have a formidable support base in the South among anti MR parties and groups, particularly JVPs and other idealists of a pure society. Mr. Bopage being a former JVP member knows better than us the danger posed by JVP+Military combination in governance. I, as a normal citizen, can see sevarl dangerous elements in electing the general as country's leader:

1. The current democratic values, whatever remain, will be severely threatened by a mococracy under the General. Among some of them - the exisiting limited freedom of expression, the freedom of idependant institutions, the freedom of having 'different views' will have a serious threat.

2. The current structure of civil administration will the dismantled in the name of better efficiency and minimising curruption. This will have a irrepairable damage to the civil administrative services, which function with limited freedom even now. This process will have other consequances in the long run including the vital benifit of taking dynamic and friendly decisions with due consideration for all stakeholders in a dispute. The ruling by listning will change to ruling by order limiting civilian orientation and military leaders, who will be appointed to civil work, will definitely excercise their authority to impose hard and fast rules.

3. Our relations with some important countries will have major difficulties, particularly India. The JVP anti-Indian is an inherent slogan articulated by the General on many occassion. In the name of security and the fear of hidden animies (military leaders always need them) the country will open new fronts - rather confrontational with India and others, which is going to have a mjor impact on security and peace in the country.

4. A new set of rich and powerful will emerge in the process, including military might. Their influance will creep into decision making and the exisiting judicial and parliamentary institutions will face serious threats. With all his weaknesses, the present Prsident keeps the ability of the Parliament to function independently, with his long experience as an MP. The General will have difficulties with this system as he is used to the hierrachical military order.

5. Many intellectuals will leave the country in the face of coersive governance. Particularly the civil persons who think of new solutions will find it very difficult to live under a militaristic regime.

The far reaching negative consequances are yet to unfold. Until he comes to power, no one can imagine overall impact. This does not mean MR government is pure and clean. They were tolarent or rather responsible for the current situation. However, if we fail to understand the dangerous course we have entered now, the repayment will be higher than we expect.


Posted by: Thalpa | November 12, 2009 12:53 PM

He has to answer the question "Do you still think that Sri Lanka belongs to the Sinhalese because they are in the majority? before he considers entering politics.

Posted by: Mano | November 12, 2009 09:06 PM

Sri lanka is neither democracy nor republic. Neither liberal nor conservative. Not religious either. It is far gone.
It is a crime ridden, intolerant clusters of tribes and self serving leaders people deserve.
We are going to see anarchy before anything good if at all. Motherland without a mother. "Patriots" hands soaked with blood of innocence.
Soon intelligent people may realize ruthless tamil militancy only the effect not the cause , battle won but not the war or peace.

Posted by: Fran | November 12, 2009 11:03 PM

Really revealing stuff. We need to hear from your "co thinkers" as well on this issue.

I looked for the word “International Community” in your article but could not find it.

I also tried to find a word that describes your "method". Closest I found was:

"Doublethink is a form of trained, willful intellectual blindness to contradictions in a belief system. Doublethink differs from ordinary hypocrisy in that the "doublethinking" person deliberately had to forget the contradiction between his two opposing beliefs — and then deliberately forget that he had forgotten the contradiction. He then had to forget the forgetting of the forgetting, and so on; this intentional forgetting, once begun, continues indefinitely."
Source: Wikipedia

Posted by: Nimal Sandaruwan | November 13, 2009 03:40 AM

Most of the things mentioned here that SF will do if elected, are baseless speculations. What gurantee is there that MR will do the same if elected again, coz he knows that it's his last term.

Posted by: Dilan | November 17, 2009 06:41 AM

Post a comment

(The comment may need to be approved by transcurrents.com. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting; generally approved/posted if they are not abusive of the topic as well as the author and/or another commenter.)

(Please write the comment in paragraphs if its long and allow space between paragraphs, for easier reading by others)

Recent Posts on TC