Let's have civilized restraint

A great weight could be considered as having been lifted from the collective mind of Lankans with yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on the controversy surrounding the date of the next Presidential Election.

The Supreme Court ruling was made on a Fundamental Rights petition addressed to it by Ven. Dr. Omalpe Sobhitha Thera alleging, basically, an infringement or an imminent infringement of his fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 12 (1) of the Constitution.

As the Supreme Court ruling makes clear, "the impugned conduct is the failure on the part of the 1st Respondent, being the Commissioner of Elections, to make a pronouncement that the next Presidential Election will be held on the basis that the term of office of the President will expire on 22.12.2005 as contended by the Petitioner.."

Now that the highest Court in the land - which is the final authority on all matters constitutional - has made a ruling on this matter which tended to engage the energies of the public for quite some time, the Commissioner of Elections could exercise the constitutional powers vested in him on these questions and announce the date of the next Presidential election on the basis that the President - as clarified by the Supreme Court - began to serve her second six year term on December 22, 1999.

While it is relieving that an issue which proved so contentious has finally been resolved, it is incumbent on everyone concerned, including the main political parties, their Presidential front-runners, Prime Ministerial nominees and supporters, to ensure that the electioneering process which has already got underway, does not work against the interests of the country. To be precise, electioneering should be carried out in a perfectly legal and peaceful manner.

As is well known, election-related violence in this country is proving increasingly costly and baneful - in terms of, particularly, lives lost, public property destroyed and the heavy loss of time which could be put to productive use.

While we could take satisfaction in the fact that the democratic process is alive and well in this country, this now more than periodic exercise of the franchise should not be found to be counter-productive and wasteful.

We believe the main Presidential contenders and their parties would be serving the public interest in a very decided fashion by ensuring that their election campaigns prove peaceful and civilised.

This should be agreed upon early and the necessary practical and other safeguards taken to ensure a violence and malpractice-free campaign.

It is also equally important to ensure that the campaign is free of racist hate talk and religious bigotry.

These are twin evils which have been sapping the energies of the polity over the past few years. Ideally, the main players in the unfolding election-linked drama should arrive at a practicable accord to free the electioneering of such virulent rhetoric which has cost us very dearly.

It would be advisable to remember that terror groups are not synonymous with communities or religions. Indeed, ways and means of resuming the peace process and the need for a just, peaceful solution to our conflict, should be high on the agendas of our Presidential hopefuls.

However, intemperate, hate-inducing rhetoric should be outlawed. They should also focus on other burning issues such as the high cost of living, crime, reform of State-owned enterprises and indeed, constitutional revision.

We are a highly polarised society but we could take some comfort in the fact that the ballot is continuing to reign over the bullet. But the essential democratic values and norms need to be visible in the lives of the people. Tolerance, fairplay and magnanimity should not only be spoken of but practised.

It would be utterly useless to keep the democratic framework intact but for political supporters to be at each other's throats with murder on their minds. This is a nullification of the democratic process and spirit. It should be eschewed.

Now that election campaigns are beginning in earnest, the candidates must present their programme of work to the people so that they are able to take a pragmatic decision on who is best suited to lead the country for the next six years. The verdict of the people shall reign supreme.