Saturday Sep 21, 2024
Saturday Sep 21, 2024
Thursday, 11 December 2014 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
By Sarath De Alwis
Filing of nomination papers for the presidential elections on Monday 8 December was a sombre formality that marked the official commencement of a do-or-die battle. It prompted the Commissioner of Elections to remind the nation that we are one of two nations in the entire Asia Pacific region to have practiced universal franchise since 1931, the other being New Zealand.
The Commissioner of Elections used the occasion to make an eloquent appeal to all parties to respect democratic dissent. Grass roots activists were urged to take a cue from the chivalrous conduct of their leaders in the impending contest.
Race for the top spot
Perhaps, it is this ‘back to basics’ homily of the Commissioner of Elections that prompted a leading public thinker to suggest in the columns of the Daily FT of 9 December that “contrary to the lurid propaganda about dictatorship and even Nazi fascism that accompanied the 18
th Amendment, Sri Lanka remains a vibrant democracy and the race for the top spot in the country is a real one”.
The 18th Amendment is the crucial, central and decisive subject that has brought rival political groups in to a single composite represented by a candidate untarnished by scandal, devoid of ideological baggage and a capacity for crisp delivery of unvarnished, self-evident certitudes.
The main Opposition party, in hibernation for near two decades, has suddenly awoken to the possibility of actually dislodging the party in power. That they are nowhere near unanimity either in the process or in purpose is evident from the consistent efforts of its Deputy Leader to outsmart its clever taciturn leader. This writer expected the departing UNP Secretary to take at least two more Parliamentarians who insisted on the invincibility of a Ranil W candidacy in the presidential contest.
18th Amendment
The 18th Amendment was not accompanied with lurid propaganda. It may so appear to Romantics comfortable with blind folded lady Justicia with a Cuban cigar dangling from her dainty lips. The 18th Amendment remains the most pernicious provision of a Constitution that all parties have now agreed to either revise or replace with a new basic law.
The 18th Amendment has deprived Parliament of its political and legislative decision-making authority. It is a constitutional device that has entrenched the supremacy of the Executive over the Legislature and the Judiciary.
The technocrat economist Wilfredo Pareto, who in 1906 discovered that 20% of the people owned 80% of the wealth in his native Italy, advised Mussolini that in order to have a stable polity, to allow Parliament to function with modifications. Democratic aspirations, he argued can be neutralised through such a parliament that gave the illusion of participating in state craft and exercising power.
This writer cannot insist that the Most Venerable Maduluwawe Sobhitha Thero, the founder of the Movement for a Just Society, is acquainted with the brief flirtation of Pareto with the great Italian leader who was much loved at the zenith of his power. Yet, it is undoubtedly his missionary zeal for reform in public life that spurred the JHU and its messianic monk Venerable Athuraraliye Rathana Thero. Rathana Thero is one of those rare accidents in history. He combined the passion of a Savonarola with the strategic skills of a Machiavelli and precipitated an implosion within the citadel.
Balance of forces
Despite incurring the wrath of many pundits, this writer holds that former President Chandrika Kumaratunga is the mastermind that assembled the cohesive composite of the common candidate.
The balance of forces that has now created the semblance of a vibrant democracy is a combination of factors. With the two contenders evenly matched, the outcome remains open to conjecture. It has been correctly argued that the ‘Lion in winter’ has the machine while the challenger is propelled by a movement. If the movement has to contend with a machine, why do we engage in semantic niceties of vibrancy and democracy?
“Is it historically fair and just that Mahinda should be sent home, having saved us from Prabhakaran, while Ranil Wickremesinghe should be installed as Prime Minister, having genuflected before Prabhakaran?”
The question of sending Mahinda home arises from the 18th Amendment. Otherwise all heroes mount their white stallions and gracefully ride into the sunset. There is nothing moral or ethical about the 18th Amendment. That Ranil W genuflected before Prabhakaran is a stretch.
This writer takes the advice of dear Abe Lincoln: “Elections belong to the people. It’s their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters.”
Do you fancy sitting on blisters? I don’t.
