Lanka Citizen

MEASURES OF SUCCESS
Prof.Rajiva Wijesinha

As might have been anticipated, I am relieved by the result of the Presidential. More importantly perhaps, I am delighted that the new President has manifested, after his election, a grace and inclusiveness that bodes well for the future. There seems little doubt that, as far as he himself is concerned, pluralism and democracy would be best served in our country by his leadership.

This is vital since the election results may encourage disruptive and separatist forces to foment unrest. In this regard it is heartening that the fundamentalist forces that tried, most obviously in the form of the distasteful and fraudulent advertisements placed by Lalith Kotelawala, to promote religious polarization have so signally failed. The healthy vote for Mahinda in the Catholic belt, and also in several Muslim areas of the Eastern Province and for instance Beruwela, makes clear that he represents hope for a wide cross-section of our citizens.

At the same time the results make it clear that he should move quickly to restore the confidence of those of our citizens who feel deprived of a voice in their own government. Clearly Tamils in the Central Province, as well as many in the North and East, have voted against him. They need therefore to be brought back into the body politic. I believe Mahinda would have been ready to show his anxiety to do this, by making Mr Kadirgamar Prime Minister. However, perhaps anticipating that and the consequent perception that the new government was more inclusive than any of its predecessors, the Tigers prevented such an innovative and positive step by assassination.

In the absence of anyone of Mr Kadirgamar’s stature, Mahinda will have to work incrementally, to make it clear that his is a government for all Sri Lankans. In this respect, it would be useful if he immediately targeted basic constitutional reforms that can be achieved through consensus, along with social policies that allowed those who feel marginalized to enter into full citizenship. And, given the circumstances, he needs to move quickly to make sure that all segments of the population receive the benefits and understand the value of democratic representative government.

Unfortunately it seems that the opposition, as at present constituted at any rate, will not help. I am saddened, though I must confess not surprised, at the failure of the current leadership of the UNP to respect the will of the people as expressed at this election. Ranil Wickremesinghe not only failed to turn up to the declaration of results, he even on that day held a press conference at which, according to the ‘Island’, he claimed that no one had obtained ‘50 per cent of the valid votes cast’.

This is arrant nonsense, though perhaps he should be forgiven since he must have been both tired and emotional at the time. Fortunately this blunder was contradicted directly by his chosen spokesman, the Deputy Secretary of the Party Tissa Attanayake, who according to the same news item granted that the required majority had been achieved. However, he was only slightly less gracious, in that in admitting the constitutional acceptability of the position, he nevertheless asked for a repoll, on the grounds that the margin was narrow – ‘namely 28,632 votes more than the constitutionally required 50 per cent of the total valid votes cast’.

Though the margin is narrow, it is substantially more than that received by HE Ranasinghe Premadasa in 1988. He received only 21,810 votes more then than the required 50%, in a context in which the poll was only 55%. This means he was elected by under 28% of the people, whereas, with the poll on this occasion being over 73%, Mr Rajapakse clearly has the support of nearly 37%. It will be noted that, despite all the machinations of the UNP government in the 1982 referendum, it was with under 38% of popular support that citizens were deprived of the right to elect parliamentarians for a further 6 years.

It seems that the UNP also regretted the boycott of the poll in the North, which is understandable since all their eggs had been as it were in the Tiger basket. More upsettingly it was not just them, but even the London Times, following the lamentations of the drawing rooms of Colombo, argued that, had citizens in the North exercised their franchise, the opposition candidate would have won.

This assumption is far from definite since, at the last Presidential election, only just over 110,000 voted. Indeed, a majority of them voted against Ranil even though the murderous attack on Chandrika had made clear the wishes of the LTTE. Given that Mahinda’s majority over Ranil was over 180,000, it is unlikely that, unless the LTTE had enforced a total commitment to the UNP (which is what some sections of that party had looked forward to), Mahinda would have been definitely defeated as those opposed to him now claim. The UNP would of course have been happy with that, and would have claimed it a victory for democracy had the Tigers delivered 90% majorities for Ranil throughout the North.

In this context it is perhaps salutary to remember that the destruction of democracy in the North began with the Jaffna DDC elections of 1981. On that occasion, when nominations were called, the TULF was able to defy the LTTE call for a boycott. However, following Cyril Mathew’s antics which included the burning of the Jaffna Public Library, support for the LTTE went up so that the following year they could insist that the TULF boycott local elections.

The destruction of democracy in the north was then sealed, after the referendum that prevented the youth movements that had developed apace in south and north from working democratically, through the bizarre sixth amendment to the constitution which ensured that separatist movements were driven underground. Given that that amendment was introduced in response to the vicious attacks on Tamils in July 1983, in the days when JR and his acolytes thought that the Sinhalese attacks on Tamils were to be explained as justifiable resentment against Tamil extremism, it is not surprising that many Tamils assumed there was no point in following the democratic path.

I have dwelt on this point before, to be told that there is no purpose in repeating myself. Certainly it is clear that the selective amnesia of some sections of the United National Party and their supporters regarding the history of this country is a political reality that cannot be changed. However, we as citizens should remember the facts. And we should also note that the boycott in part of the country on this occasion was not as severe as the boycott enforced in some areas of the south in 1988.

That boycott was welcomed by the UNP, because it was in electorates that favoured Mrs Bandaranaike that voting was lowest – and, as noted above, Mr Premadasa’s margin was just over 20,000 more than the required 50%. Then too there were allegations of malpractice as well as unfair deprivation of the franchise, but the Supreme Court, dominated by a Chief Justice promoted over the head of the most senior judge at the time, decided that the case brought against the election result at that time was not urgent. It was finally decided some years later.

Under the circumstances it is sad that the UNP seems to wish to encourage disruption by not acknowleding and accepting the verdict of the people. Mahinda, in thanking Ranil by name despite his unfortunate absence at the declaration of results, has made clear his determination to work towards unity. It would be tragic if, once again, personal ambition and churlishness prevented the development of a national consensus.

courtesy Lanka Academic