Lanka Citizen

The Sunday Times (16.10.2005), essential reading for all UNP supporters!! Why?

by Zoon Politikon

If one wants to know the real status of the UNP campaign one needs to go to the real sites that is, the mirror sites of the UNP, the mirrors being more than simply a reflection of the original, but more real than the ‘reality’ of the UNP site itself: The Daily Mirror and The Sunday Times. There you find political commentary regularly appearing under News and without by-lines, in other words as, in-house productions. (Just like, most of the ‘comments’ appearing on the original site itself, appear to be.) The Daily Mirror in fact produces headline political ‘news’ without a by-line. While some may want to attribute these practices to either the Ratnatunga or the Alahakoon School of Journalism, others may argue that these are ‘standard’ practices even in USA. So, why not us, especially if that is what we want to emulate? Even there, at times of national significance, newspaper owners, not the editors on behalf of the public, convey their own opinions. Ghost writers of course will produce the copy. It is as if the Newspaper itself decided to write for itself. In that case, why should there be a name, it is on the masthead. The newspaper is ultimately its owner. (Oh, no! we are not inviting, what some call, Sunanda’s Partial FMM or whatever, here to picket in front of the Times!) Noam Chomsky, despite him being branded as a comie, then, is not finally wrong? So, don’t blame the poor editors, they are just earning a living, one might say. (It is not that we believe entirely, the Lanka Truth story about the list of journalists including some editors, who have been enlisted for the UNP campaign.)

Well, politically speaking, at least the Times has its saving grace, in the independent mind of Rajpal Abeynayake. Well, what about the Times political columnist who criticizes Ranil as well? Sure, it makes interesting reading when he is not ‘pro- nephew’s party man’ all the time. What about the Mirror inviting Malinda or Thanuka to write a column. Sure, all-party newspapers can hardly sell nationally, can they?

More to the point, after all if the Uncle is eager to see the Nephew wins at least his thirteenth or whatever election, he has to somehow tell the nephew to overcome his shortcomings, at least in public. Perhaps, Uncle only knows too well how the heart of the Sinhala electorate beats.

Next: Why is that “Ranil’s message not getting through”?
(The Sunday Times, News section, 16.10.2005)

lankacitizen@gmail.com

by Kumaran

There is a lot of talk these days about the two major parties working together to find a solution to the LTTE waged war. It is one thing for the southern polity – not only the two main parties, but also other not so main, but politically influential parties, as well as the general public opinion in the south - to arrive at a consensus regarding the devolution of power. This is a welcome move whoever initiates it and, to repeat, it should include all political forces – not only political parties, for it to become a success.

But it is an entirely a different thing to form a so-called national government, (see, The Sunday Leader , 16th October, 2005 ) which means a majority of parliamentarians getting together to do as they wish with our common life, thus virtually eliminating the opposition, however, without the sanction of the public who elected them. To consider a presidential election as a referendum on an issue such as forming a national government out of a parliament already elected is somewhat misleading the public to say the least. That is an issue which has to be fought separately in a fresh general election.

Politically, a national government could mean an end to criticism and it could lead to the suppression of any critically dissenting opinion, in other words, to a possible constitutional dictatorship. As such we may revert back to an era similar to the fear-driven one we experienced throughout JRJ’s regime and especially during and after the 1987-90 terror period. Sri Lankans who can’t govern themselves, talk all the time about the need for some authoritative regime or political figure to discipline them. When a society authorizes their politicians to discipline them it is also an invitation to authoritarianism. In the first place, it is politicians who create the major law and order problems by cultivating thugs, mafias of all sorts under their patronage. If at all it is them who need the disciplining.

So, are we getting there yet? The authoritarian regime we dream of? Well, only the election results will tell us.

lankacitizen@gmail.com