Two basic questions to the United National Front and its allies
by Kusal Perera
There are two (02) basic questions that have NOT been answered directly by the UNF and its allies (some 16 political parties said to be with them but, yet to be named) and the JVP in promoting and supporting their Common Candidate for presidency.
One, IS IT ONLY A WAR HERO, a military commander, who could abolish the executive presidency and no one else ?
Two, will all corruption, nepotism, human rights violations come to an automatic stop, ONCE THE EXECUTIVE PRESIDENCY IS ABOLISHED ?
This is what the JVP says is their reality with emphasis. This is what the UNF and its leaders are trying to say will happen, through stories. This is what Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) said, when he stressed that the most important issue right on top of their agenda now is the abolition of the executive presidency. This is what Ranil W and Mangala S were trying to say, when they talked of "Asia's ever prospering" Rajapaksa family.
There is no doubt, no argument and no hesitancy in asking for a total stop to corruption, nepotism, human rights violations, media attacks etc., etc. There is also no hiding the fact that this Rajapaksa regime is the most corrupt regime since independence, starting with and highlighting the enormous plundering of public money through the now infamous "Mihin Air", down to very many contracts, tenders, commissions, both talked of and yet to be talked of. This regime is also the one and only regime that raised nepotism into a new and dizzy height with a huge canopy of relatives.
Therefore the easiest and the first simple assumption is to say "the Executive Presidency" gave way to all that and therefore the presidency should be abolished. So here we are, calling for the abolishing of this executive presidency.
The question is, if that is an urgent political necessity, if that is what the people are called to vote for at the next presidential elections, is it unavoidable that an army commander should be a presidential candidate for that? Why not a civilian leader to abolish the presidency ?
Accepting for the moment that abolishing the executive presidency is the most urgent and the most important issue as the UNF-JVP say, leads to two more questions that come, one after the other.
First, (i) was Gen SF named as the Common Candidate, because the people do not believe these political leaders to abolish the presidency ? Or, (ii) is it because the UNF, its allies and the JVP could not come to a decision on a civilian leader to honour such a promise ?
If the answer to the first (i) question is a straight "YES", then these political parties should be disbanded immediately. These political parties it means, are of no credible use to the people.
If the answer to the second (ii) question is also "YES" then again, these political parties aren't necessary parties. Why have them if they can not come to a common decision between them, even on such an important national issue as they claim ?
If their answer is “NO” to both or any one one of the questions, then they contradict themselves in bringing forward Gen SF.
So, let's have this cleared up.
The fact is IT IS NOT A WAR HERO, a military commander, who could abolish the executive presidency. Its a 2/3 majority in parliament that could abolish the presidency. For which the consent of the president is not even necessary.
But these political leaders did not start from the "problem" of abolishing the presidency they talk of now. That was not their objective, nor their prerogative. If they want to, they still have time and the numbers can be harnessed in this present parliament too.
Then why bring in a war hero, a military commander as the presidential candidate ?
Their objective was to first work on a candidate who could possibly defeat President Rajapaksa. Gaining political power, was their sole objective. They thus worked on the project to choose one who could compete with President Rajapaksa for Sinhala Buddhist votes. They tend to believe, principled politics is not the criteria for vote catching.
They had 'two' to select from. The first Sarath may have opted out on his own logical reasoning being a civilian intellectual and was one who could claim no special credit for the war, though a colourful Buddhist.
The second Sarath was consciously developing his own image as a “Sinhala” politico-military leader, all through the war. He thus obviously ran into conflicts with the Rajapaksa regime that thought the war victory was their making. They had the right to think so too, as it was their political decision that made SF the army commander (He had to retire on 18 December, 2005, one month after MR was sworn in as president, as one who was never thought fit to be promoted to that position). It was Rajapaksa's political decision that gave him 04 more years as Army Commander, with extensions.
Nevertheless, SF's egoistic conflict for continued commanding authority with the regime provided these political leaders with a tailor made candidate, who could stand with the Sinhala Buddhist constituency. Thus their decision to work round Gen SF, who was gradually promoted as their "Common Candidate".
This is something they can not possibly tell the people straight and clean. SO they needed a political platform to hoist Gen SF on to. The slogan of abolishing the executive presidency that for the last 15 years was only toyed with but was never taken seriously by any one of them, was thought of as the most common slogan to justifiably project their Common Candidate.
Politics is that simple for these political leaders when they only want power and they do know even if THE EXECUTIVE PRESIDENCY IS ABOLISHED, corruption, nepotism, human rights violations will not come to an automatic stop (Civil politicians are corrupt says Gen SF and this man who is cleaner than "Mr. Clean" Ranil W has descended to clean the country).
Eradicating corruption, nepotism and violation of human rights and then democratising of this shattered society can not be done just that way. In Sri Lanka we need a far reaching programme with a committed intellectual political leadership (much beyond the capacities of these leaders ?) to first draw up a programme for all that to be achieved.
Such a programme should include a total shift in attitudes and concepts in formulating the Constitution that would restructure the State. It needs to accommodate mechanisms to make governance more closer to the local constituencies. All of it has to be developed as a social process that would generate a social dialogue too.
Corruption and nepotism can only be controlled and restricted with such empowerment of the constituency, between two elections. That creates space for better democratic functioning of social structures too.
This by itself is a mega project for a committed, intellectual political leadership, running beyond that of petty, personal fighting and mud slinging at elections.
Most disgustingly, the project of these political leaders who are now raising sky high a military leader as one with an unblemished record of honouring promises as a war hero, does not go that way or that far, both in form and content. It ends simply after gaining power and that is reason why Gen SF now contradicts both the UNF and the JVP saying he would not be a "Gopollawa" as President. If he is not going to be a "Gopollawa", then, what would he be as president ?
That brings up the third question, left unanswered by these leaders. These questions are not for them to answer as we want.
As for the JVP and Mangala S, this is their second disastrous adventure that would not only ruin them (which wouldn't matter at all), but the whole country as well. The first was installing MR as President in 2005 November, then their most avowed Sinhala Buddhist leader who vowed to establish the “Unitary State”.
Now their second, the far more dangerous and suicidal adventure. They want him ousted to install a battle hardened, Sinhala racist to establish a “clean and democratic” society. SO, the questions if answered that explains their very personal aspirations for power, are left unanswered.
9 Comments
The first step in abolishing the Executive Presidency is implementation of the 17th amendment which has been held in abeyance by the current incumbent. We observe that there is no attempt to do so and even the current election is being held under a climate of impunity and disregard for election laws.
Also General SF as a war hero has the authority and credibility to prevent the current incumbent selling the war victory to further his own selfish aims.
understand the reality of the problem.
one can not eliminate the corruption ,nepotism so on and so forth overnight .the abolition of exceutive presidency and implementation of so called commisions under 17th amendementnt to the constitution will definately pave the way for such a direction at least to minimise them.
one has to imagine that who is the best candidate before puting him to contest.and eventhough there are so many civil persons who can be nominated for the presidential election the one who is the best in competing with the opponent has been put in place.Can he point out one minus point that GEn: Fonseka is not a suitable candidate for the post of precidncy?
The opposition selected Fonseka (SF) as their candidate because he was the strongest challenger available. What's the problem? Why do the political parties have to be disbanded? Everybody selects the strongest challenger!
Can only a military man fight corrution is KP's next question. I guess not; there could well be others also. The relevant question is: 'To what extent can we the public be assured that SF, if he wins, and his government, can fight corruption?'.
An ex military man, an ex grave digger or anybody else has every right to stand for election so what's the problem KP, doing some stooging for Mahinda? KP does not ask the single most important question that is worth asking. Is it only Mahinda and Gothabaya who are likely to be indicted for war crimes? Is there not room to suspect that SF too bears some responsibility?
The two basic questions have vary two basic answers and the point is missed here by contrast. Once the Rajapakse regime is removed the answers to all the questions will come true. Right now there is only one candidate who will be successful in defeating Mr. Rajapakse in the Presidential election. At that point yes, the answer will appear as only a war hero could do it. Brining Mr. Rajapakse and letting his regime to groom will not solve the said questions.
We need to give the respect where it’s due dear Sri Lankans. I am not a person who is in favour of a war neither am
I in favour of corruption in any part of a society let alone a country. But don’t forget, the retired General Sarath Fonseka is a highly disciplined General, who commanded a highly disciplined army to win 30 year old guerrilla warfare and wiped it out from its roots, in one of the most corrupted countries in the world today. Please don’t read this as a charter reference for retired General Sarath Fonseka and I for one would state, it is certainly not. If you do that will be the ultimate insult to him in the recent history as he has a lot more vales qualities to be assured than that.
There are so many countries and superpowers in the world, yet to prove that they have been successful in defeating guerrilla wars and prove that they are capable of wiping out guerrilla wars right out of its roots. The theory glittered that “the guerrilla wars can never be defeated” till the date the Sri Lankan forces completely wiped out the LTTE outfit from Sri Lanka.
Why is it that we Sri Lankans are at large always fail to give credit and recognition when and where the credit is due? Isn’t that what we did to Anagarika Dhrmapala as well, who requested not to return his dead body back to Sri Lanka? What does it take for us to learn simple lesson dear friends? Isn’t this un presidented, unwarranted behaviour of ours is the exact reason why LTTE survived in Sri Lanka for three decades?
I am sure any kindegarten student can answer your questions.
Yes a foolish person like you can also abolish the presidency. Unfortunately nobody knows about you in Sri Lanka. That will answer why a man who is known to Sri Lankan and who could win should contest. If you contest you cannot win and thus cannot abolish it. This is called day dreaming.
The corruption could not be stopped by abolishing the presidency. But who is not corrupted and has a back bone will send those who are involved in corruption to jail and give necessary punishments. Unfortunately you do not have a back bone either.
This is the reason why we do not consider you as our candidate.
I have admired your capability of incisive analysis most of the time. However, I could not agree with the logic and rationale of some of the articles that you have written recently on the presidential elections, including this article.
Imadh
The writer has not prosed a probable alternative candidate to face MR Regime - knowing the
latter`s track-record for "thuggery" the best available choice therefore was and is SF - despite his infancy to the 40 yrs experience of MRs Politics! SF may have
said and done things that were not conducive to his
status, but does that matter when compared to what
the current man has declared in a "Chintanaya" and
done thus far - expect leading the war - which even
Churchill did and faced his defeat in Democracy?
The abolishment of the Exe. Presidency is too based on
the track-record of what the incumbent has done
to-date and is capable of doing eve much worse if he is
re-elected: Common-sense?
Trust the 50.1% of "modayas" will make the correct
decision for once, if Sri Lanka deserve it?
they should have selected the oldest person in this country or a terminally ill person as the candidate....now all of us are an audience to a crazy musical chair competition..... SF ,jvp,UNF dancing to the same tune ,at the same time trying to hoodwink the other and occupy the all powerful slot...hope and pray this does not end in another bloodbath .
Everybody knows that JVP can not win a presidential
election.There's no point in asking why.What's so
disappointing is,UNP can not win either and that's well
worth asking why.Before trying to find an answer to that, let's put the question back to Kusal.If abolition
of executive presidency is not so important,why did MR
agree with JVP to do it? Why MR can't complete his term
and stand before the voters? Executive power was a
necessity to protect a whole new economic set up in the
country and it's on that line this power was created
and the objectives achieved of which the outcome even
today, stands irreversible.It's this power that could
have been the main concern even to India.This power has created lot of problems as well as solutions.It's
this power that guaranteed a safe environment for
foreign investments which has become the magic formula for development.Without this power MR could
not have directed a war and Fonseka would not be standing today as a candidate.Now I'm asking a simple question from Kusal.Has MR ever, anywhere appreciated the creation of this power which is key to any victory? Instead, the party which created this power has been reduced to mockery and challenged to stand up to them.What a bunch of jokers we have in our politics One party must be defeated by the other on grounds of development in education,economy,health,commerce,
agriculture and socialwelfare etc; but what's happening is really disgusting to watch.Many of them are fighting to destroy what's so far achieved with a
vision for real change.Executive Presidency is a good
tool in the hands of craftsmen.It's a bad tool in the
hands of someone just got off the tree.
No hero can get rid of corruption,nepotism,despotism
and all other isms just by any magic.Voters know this
better than anybody else.Even a uniformed military man will not achieve this.It's in the blood of giver and
taker and if very tough environment was created,some
good improvements can come in about 20-25 yrs.We are
talking about transforming people's lifestyles and
attitudes.Sarath Fonseka is alredy a civillian and not a Military commander as assumed by Kusal.Common candidate is a strategy to defeat a manipulator and face saving as well.And my argument is not to take sides but simply to highlight some facts.