UNP in tailspin at Uva

“When the going gets tough, the tough gets going” describes the grit and courage of people who are ready to face the most difficult of challenges. What we see in our political arena these days is the exact reverse of this. One expects an Opposition political party that has a history almost as long as our years of freedom from colonial rule, rightly boasts of having more than 30 percent of the popular vote, and has held office for nearly half the years since independence, to have some grit and determination when it comes to the hurly-burly of politics, even in facing losses.

But that is not the case with Sri Lanka’s main Opposition party - the United National Party, today. It shows every sign of political stumbling; shaky in its policies, uncertain of its statements, confusing in its thinking and with no clear direction to its followers, who are eager for good leadership in facing national issues.

The confusion in its ranks is seen by the proposal that is to come up soon before its Political Affairs Committee, to change the official policy of the party on the national question from that of a federal or quasi-federal position to one of a unitary state. There could be many arguments in favour of the change, the most obvious being that it seems as bad as flogging a dead horse to keep on talking of some measure of federalism after the LTTE has been militarily defeated, together with its separatist goal, and federal path to achieve it.

The UNP may have come to realize the inevitability of Sri Lanka being a unitary state, at least for the foreseeable future, and sees no purpose in hanging on to its pro-federal beliefs anymore; not even the asymmetric devolution that was at one time was eagerly touted by Ranil Wickremesinghe.

U-turns

But proposing the about turn in policy just now, after the President Rajapaksa’s success in defeating the LTTE, tends to show more weakness than strength within the UNP. Grabbing the slogan of the winner may look good, but it is not always the path to success. The UNP leadership of today has obviously forgotten its own past, about U-turns in policy.

No doubt JRJ who engineered the UNP’s U-turn on language policy at the special Kelaniya Convention in 1955, and made Sinhala Only the party policy, thought it was best to join the winning side on the language issue. But, the people did not believe the UNP to deliver on language or anything else. In the General Election that followed in 1956, the UNP that offered Sinhala Only in month after election was reduced to just eight seats, and SWRD Bandaranaike’s SLFP-led MEP romped home, with the promise of Sinhala Only in 24 hours. Surprisingly, the LSSP that supported parity of status for Sinhala and Tamil gained more seats than the UNP. And interestingly, the MEP that won with Sinhala Only, faced the polls and won thanks in large measure to a no contest pact with the LSSP and CP, both of which stood for Sinhala and Tamil with parity of status.

A good student of politics will see that it was not Sinhala Only per se, that propelled the MEP to power. But the bigger lesson is that changing one’s policy to fall in line with those who are clearly on the winning side, will not necessarily give you the success that is expected.

The UNP is today on a losing spin. Any good leadership will pause to take serious stock of the situation and come up with proper policies and solutions that are relevant to the needs of today, and not even consider embracing the policy of the winner in the hope of success. What people look for in political leadership is differentiation, and not similarity. Jumping onto the winning bandwagon can never be the path to success for a major political party; that is if the UNP still considers itself as such a party.

Into a spin

When the going gets tough, the weak get into a spin. That is what has happened to the UNP today. There is total confusion not just in its ranks, but even at the very top. How else can one explain the party leader, Ranil Wickremesinghe, former Prime Minister, and possibly the longest serving Leader of the Opposition, with promise of many more years there too, forgetting the date of a major election? Forgetting the date in one’s study when reading or in the washroom when singing, can be understood; but certainly not in public.

Not at a political rally to ask people to vote for your party and your candidates. This is what happened at Moneragala earlier this week. The Uva Provincial Council election is scheduled for August 8. But the leader of the UNP, not once, but twice, urged the people of Moneragala to get up early on August 18, go to the polls and ensure the victory of the UNP candidates.

The reaction from UNP supporters was not funny. They showed their anger with boos and jeers and flying chairs, too. It would have pleased those rebelling against the UNP leadership, as well as the rivals in the UPFA. But, that is the quality of UNP leadership today. When the going gets tough, Ranil doesn’t get going. He gets into a spin. He trips, he falls. Is this the man to contest the next Presidential Polls? The UNP had better do some hard thinking.

AP and Visa woes

It is clear that Associated Press (AP) and some sections of the media here are trying to make as issue of the departure of Ravi Nessman, the AP correspondent in Colombo for the past two years.

There are efforts to show that he was forced out of the country. That is exactly what an AP Bureau person from Bangkok asked me earlier this week, about Nessman’s departure. The specific question was “Why was the AP Correspondent forced out of Sri Lanka?” I checked the facts and gave the correct answer. He was not forced out of the country. His visa had expired, and was not extended. Far from forcing him out, Ravi Nessman came here on a visa for only one year in June 2007.

‘Forcing out’

On completing one year he sought an extension, which was granted, and that was it. When he knew that there would no other extension, he requested two weeks to make arrangements for his departure, and was given that time. He left on July 20, 09.

That is hardly a case of forcing a journalist out. The Government has the power and the right to impose the 20 x 24 rule on anyone and have the person ordered out in 24 hours with 20 kg of baggage. That was not done to Ravi Nessman, He was treated in keeping with the sovereign rights of Sri Lanka in dealing with foreigners, whoever they are, that are here on a visa given by the Government.

When I explained to the Bangkok AP person Duff Brown, that the usual term for foreign correspondents from agencies is two to three years, and the general turn around period is two years, I was asked why late Dilip Ganguly, also of AP, was allowed to stay here for 10 years.

My answer was that Dilip was the exception, and not the rule. Most other agency people who serve here go away after two years, and there is no fuss made, because they and their agencies know the rules of national sovereignty that are involved in the issue of visas.

There can always be exceptions to these rules, which is again at the pleasure of the host country. This is the case in the UK, USA and all other frequently pointed out examples of democracy.

Mark Tulley was BBC correspondent in India for goodness knows so many years, he has settled down there now.

But he was once sent back during the emergency rule of Indira Gandhi. Yet the length of time Mark Tulley has been reporting from India cannot be made a reason or precedent for any of his successors such as Chris Morris or any other to get the same length of stay.

There are attempts to make out that it was Nessman’s reporting of the last days of fighting to liberate the Tamil civilians held hostage by the LTTE, and especially his continued reporting of the highly questionable reports from the three doctors in LTTE territory that led to the refusal of his visa extension.

If that be the case he could have been sent out at that time, just like how some western journalists were refused visas to enter the country because of all those lies they wrote about the barbed wire surrounded holding camps of the IDPs.

The issuance of a visa to a foreigner, even to a journalist, is the right of the Government of a sovereign nation. It would have been better if AP had thought of this and made some prior arrangements to replace Nessman after he completed his extended stay of one year, enjoying the hospitality of Sri Lanka in every way. I’m waiting for the next howl over Nessman’s visa to come from Reporters without Borders.

They can all keep howling, but interestingly the Foreign Correspondents’ Association of Sri Lanka, of which Nessman was a member, and I believe as an office-bearer too, seems to know the visa rules of a sovereign state better than the AP bureaus, whether in Bangkok or anywhere else, and sections of the media here trying to blow this non-issue out of proportion.