The Two-thirds Menace

Lankan democracy is under siege. And the besiegers are not the ruling party but the Ruling Family, not the SLFP or the UPFA but President Rajapakse, his siblings and their progeny. It is the determination of the Rajapakses to perpetrate their rule which is creating an existential crisis for the Lankan democracy.

“Some of the problems during the election, notably abuses by state institutions, increasing politicisation of the military and non-adherence to the rule of law, raise serious concerns. Further, the cumulative effect of the pre-election problems and the post-election incidents and environment serve to undermine the integrity of the democratic process in the eyes of the population and could undermine public confidence and trust in elections and politics in Sri Lanka”. (Report of the Commonwealth Experts Team on the Sri Lankan Presidential Election)

The UPFA can win the upcoming parliamentary election with a simple majority, freely and fairly, without abusing power to a degree which makes a mockery of democracy. And a simple majority would suffice for the SLFP and the UPFA since it will enable them to stay in office for the next six years. But a simple majority and a six year term will not be enough for the Rajapakses; a two-thirds majority is necessary to ensure the survival of Familial Rule beyond 2017. The endangering of Lankan democracy is not a function of the normal power hunger of the ruling party but of the abnormal greed for power of the Ruling Family.

If the UPFA wins the parliament with a simple majority, it will not imperil Lankan democracy. A new UPFA government will be inept, wasteful and corrupt; it will abuse power and resources and mess up the economy; it will thrash its opponents now and then and violate the rule of law. But all its crimes and misdeeds will be within the Lankan norms. And eventually, when the populace has had enough, it will be swept from power, electorally. This is the way Lankan democracy has functioned from 1947, with one exception, the Referendum of 1982.

The induction of the Rajapakse factor has taken Sri Lanka away from this familiar groove into uncharted territory. The Rajapakses need a two-thirds majority, which cannot be attained without fundamentally violating election rules and democratic norms. Consequently it is the Rajapakse Familial project which has placed Lankan democracy in jeopardy. It is the misdeeds and excesses of the Rajapakse Family (and its acolytes) which is causing the steady erosion of the necessary lines of demarcation between state, government and the rulers. In short, Lankan democracy is at risk not from the SLFP or the UPFA but from Mahinda Rajapakse and his family.

The LTTE sans Vellupillai Pirapaharan would not have been the LTTE of the Sun God and the suicide killers. Had Rohana Wijeweera survived the Second Insurgency, the JVP may not have given up violence and re-entered electoral politics. The SLFP has become a threat to Lankan democracy not because it is an anti-democratic party but because of the overarching ambitions of the Rajapakse family, ambitions which cannot be realised or even accommodated within a democratic system.

The need therefore is to ensure that the Rajapakse’ grip on the Lankan state and government ends by 2017, with the culmination of the second term of President Rajapakse. For this, it is necessary to withhold from the Rajapakses the power to make their own constitution, which would either retain the executive presidency or replace it with an executive premiership, without term limits. This in turn requires not so much the defeat of the ruling party but the defeat of the Rajapakse project of winning a two-thirds majority (or something close). Defeating the UPFA is not politically possible, currently; but stymieing the two-thirds project of the Rajapakses is very much a realistic goal. Furthermore, it is a goal which can appeal to those within the SLFP who do not want to spend the rest of their political lives kowtowing to the Rajapakse family. It is an achievable goal which must be achieved.

Commonwealth Observers’ Report

The Report of the Commonwealth Experts Team of the 2010 Presidential Election made barely a ripple in Sri Lanka. The multi-partisan silence is understandable, because the Report debunks many the myths central to the politics and propaganda of both the government and the opposition.

The Report makes two key observations – the voting was free; the election was unfair: ‘Even though on the day of the election voters were free to express their will, shortcomings, primarily in the pre-election period, meant that overall, the 2010 presidential elections in Sri Lanka did not fully meet key benchmarks for democratic elections”. There was no computer skulduggery during and after the counting, as the Opposition claimed (this is evidenced by the exclusion of this ‘issue’ from the Presidential Election Petition). But Candidate Rajapakse’s abuse of state power and resources during the campaign was potent enough to make the election itself unfair.

The conduct of the ruling party during the election campaign, its proclivity to abuse power in favour of its candidate to a degree unprecedented even in Sri Lanka are matters of abiding concern, especially during an election season. As the Commonwealth Report correctly points out, the problems are structural rather than conjectural. “Overall there are starkly contrasting aspects to the electoral process in Sri Lanka. There is an experienced and professional election administration that strives to properly manage the process of voting and counting. However, there is a compromised pre-election environment, including the election management body being unable to fully ensure respect for the rule of law; a failure of some state institutions to respect legal provisions and guidelines, resulting in an abuse of state resources; a failure by state media to meet its legal and moral responsibilities; and incidences of violence”.

The Commonwealth report identifies several areas of concern, particularly the gross violation of election laws (‘Campaign posters, billboards and cut-outs depicting the candidate were technically banned under electoral legislation….this prohibition was widely flouted, particularly in the case of the ruling party candidate’); the blatant abuse of state power and resources by the candidate who is also the incumbent president (listed under the self-explanatory title of ‘Abuse of Incumbency’); the far from impartial role of the police (symbolised by the court-aborted attempt to search the office of the Leader of Opposition for illegal weapons in the run up to the election); an ‘environment of intimidation’ leading to ‘self-censorship’ by many journalists; and the “unprecedented blurring of lines between party and state’ (‘senior positions at all three state-owned broadcasters are held by regional political organisers of the ruling party’).

The Report also makes a comparative analysis of the state and private owned media. “During the period of its observation, the Expert Team noted that there was acceptable balance in the election coverage of several private print and electronic media houses (some better than others). However, the performance of state-owned newspapers and broadcasting organisations failed to meet acceptable standards and practices for publicly owned media. The decision of the Commissioner of Elections to withdraw his Competent Authority after being unable to persuade the state-owned media to abide by the terms of his media guidelines speaks for itself”.

All these are issues of immediate and intimate concern in the parliamentary election season. The opposition should be focusing on these issues because they can and will impact on its ability to defeat the two-thirds project of the Rajapakses. As the Commonwealth Experts Team points out, most of what was wrong in the election ‘emanate from the failure to implement the 17th Amendment to the Constitution’. However the full implementation of the 17th Amendment is a goal which can be realised only in a post-Rajapakse future. In the meantime, the opposition needs to improve its organisational and propaganda efforts. It has already failed the first test by failing to form a common front to contest the election. Unity is an imperative when energies are debilitated, resources are scarce and hope is flagging. Unity is an imperative when the enemy is powerful and determined. It is to be hoped that the opposition’s failure to overcome this first hurdle does not presage a generalised incapacity to impede a Rajapakse constitution.

The Fonseka Saga

The regime is busy creating the necessary public environment for the persecution and condemnation of General Sarath Fonseka. Two questions cannot but obtrude in this context.

Since Sarath Fonseka is retired and is thus a civilian, why should he be tried in a military court? It may be correct that he can be tried by a military court, technically, but conversely, there is no law preventing his trial in a civil court, in the full sight of the country and the world. In a military court, the judges are serving officers with careers.

Would any of them dare to oppose the will of their political bosses, the President and the Defence Secretary? The antipathy of President Rajapakse and Defence Secretary Rajapakse towards Gen. Fonseka is no secret while ruling party politicians publicly demand his punishment. In such a context, can a court consisting of military officers (who are subservient to the executive and the legislature constitutionally) deliver a different verdict? Will not a military tribunal be akin to a kangaroo court preceded by a witch hunt?

Are we expected to believe that the finances of close family members of Gen. Fonseka would have been probed, had he remained loyal to the Rajapakses? If, as the government charges, Gen. Fonseka’s son-in-law did engage in corrupt practices, with his knowledge or connivance, for four long years, then there must be something very much amiss with the mechanism introduced by Defence Secretary Rajapakse to prevent corruption in the procurement of military requirements. Therefore there has to be a much broader investigation (by a parliamentary select committee) into the activities of the Lanka Logistics and Technologies Limited, and its past and present board members, including the Defence Secretary.

When Anatole France was asked to sign a petition (organised by Marcel Proust among others) demanding the revision of the Dreyfus trial, his response was “Show it to me; I’ll sign. I’ll sign anywhere. I am revolted”. It was not that the great author liked let alone admired Col. Dreyfus. On the contrary he believed that Col. Dreyfus was ‘the same type as the officers who condemned him; in their shoes he would have condemned himself’ (quoted in The Proud Tower by Barbara Tuchman). What mattered was the principle, that justice denied to even one citizen causes a potential threat to the rights of all citizens.

As Army Commander, Sarath Fonseka saw nothing wrong in witch hunts or kangaroo courts to deal with his opponents. His persecution of Gen. Pannipitiya is an excellent case in point. In that sense he is reaping today the bitter harvest of what he helped sow – abuse of power and impunity. But when the retired General is being subjected to the same injustices he subjected others to, we cannot remain silent, without becoming unjust ourselves, without becoming like him and the Rajapakse brothers. In the final analysis, demanding justice for Sarath Fonseka is akin to protecting the future of Lankan democracy and our right to remain free citizens in the country of our birth.

- Asian Tribune -