The difference between ‘change’ and ‘short-change’

There’s a term that didn’t exist in the Sri Lankan political lexicon a couple of decades ago: ‘civil society’. Today it’s so frequently tossed around that few who use it seem to understand what it means. ‘Civil society’ has become a self-identifier and a positing of self over the rest of society. The term implies that there is an ‘un-civil society’ as well, i.e. those who haven’t got membership in the exclusive club which is residence to all kinds of NGO operators, academics and advocates of this or that right.

I don’t know the address of Sri Lanka’s ‘civil society’, but one this is certain, it is located within the Colombo Municipal Council limits and probably in Colombo 3, 4, 5 or 7, most likely the last.

They do know the politically correct lingo of course and will claim that they speak for society in general and that they have won the right to represent the same. They are well versed in democracy-speak and pay lip-service to notions such as ‘participation’, ‘grassroots’, ‘bottom-up’ etc. Thankfully, they remain an incestuous bunch and are happily deluded into believing that actually have a voice that is being heard.

We saw this ‘civil society’ in top form while the LTTE existed. They spoke on to further the LTTE’s agenda, tried to whitewash its crimes and even went abroad canvassing on its behalf and against the Government and people of Sri Lanka.

Sunanda Deshapriya, for example, not only continues to engage in Eelam-speak (‘The Government Forces occupied Jaffna’ he tells the largely wide-eyed and unprofessional sections of the international media) but works overtime to resuscitate the LTTE. He has to, since his very existence depends on whatever he can obtain from na‹ve sections of the Tamil Diaspora, especially now that he has been found out to be a crook and therefore has lost access to funds from media rights outfits.

Then there is this person called Sudharshan Gunawardena, said to be the co-convenor of a thing called ‘Platform for Democracy’. I remember him writing to the Ravaya about a year ago saying ‘The Government’s war balloon is going to burst in Kilinochchi’. That, to me, was not prediction, but fervent hope. He is typical of a whole bunch of people who would bed with the devil just because they are opposed to the Government and the President.

Don’t get me wrong; it is democratic right of anyone to challenge the status quo, to wish for the overthrow of a government and work towards this. The problem with these ‘civil society’ initiatives that challenge the status quo is that it does not have any sense of political realities or the space for meaningful change. I received an email from a reader a short while ago (I am writing this in the morning of November 9, 2009 by the way). This is what he wrote:

“This regime of MR should go as soon as possible. We will not allow him to dictate politics in SriLanka as a misuse of power.”

I responded: ‘two questions: how? who/what will/should replace it?’ He replied, ‘We know how to topple that man (useless man) and the replacement should be decided by you.’

I had a tongue-in-cheek response: “I can trust only one person to do a better job. myself. Ranil wickremesinghe or any other would be worse.

Are you willing to endorse me as the ‘common candidate’?

The only problem is that if I contested I wouldn’t want the UNP or the JVP to back me...”

Now Sudharshana seems to be of the view that ‘any devil would be better than this devil’. This is where ‘civil society’ has floundered time and again. They are given to giving blank cheques to people and to forgive and forget their past.

Sudharshana (in interview with the Sunday Lakbima News of November 8, 2009) defends having to carry the message of his outfit from what he calls the ‘Opposition Corner’, saying that the political climate leaves them with no other option. He claims that the organization does not align its campaign with the agenda of the main opposition.

He says that his agenda “is geared for people empowerment and not for self-seeking short-sighted politicians”. The interviewer points out that there are lots of self-seeking and short-sighted politicians sharing his platform. Sudharshana takes refuge in the following manner: “we believe that all humans are prone to change. Politicians too can change provided the pressure applied on them by civil society to implement certain policies is intense.”

This is like saying that the tail can wag the dog. How na‹ve can people be, I asked myself. Just imagine a scenario where some candidate endorsed by people like Sudharshana becomes Executive President. Immediately following the election the elected assumes unprecedented power and there’s a corresponding decline in the pressure that can be applied by anyone. To believe otherwise is to be utterly ignorant of the political realities generated by the 1978 Constitution.

It is a dream, yes, and perhaps this is why Sudharshana talks of ‘yearning for whoever comes to power to champion democratic ideals’.

Stripped of all the whining, wringing of hands and rhetorical frills it boils down to this (in common parlance): kade yaema. The man is not even sure of the sorry track-record of people who he believes are ‘fellow-travellers’ when in fact they are the kada-yavanno: he says ‘allegations may or may not be true’.

The options for a true non-partisan movement are few of course. Even the movements that are built with the best of intentions and the most appropriate and progressive slogans can easily be pick-pocketed by the powerful.

There is one thing that people who believe they are movers and shakers forget: the will of the powerful prevails over that of the lesser players. Sudharshana Gunawardena is a lesser player. The Platform for Democracy is therefore made for prostitution. Forget the ‘civil’, society will end up being short-changed and the matter of ‘short-changing’, the name of the short-changer does not really matter.

The strong pro-LTTE track-record of Sudharshana Gunawardena and many who people the Platform for Democracy makes these efforts suspect of course and perhaps even marginal, thankfully, but those who want meaningful and not cosmetic change, ought to look elsewhere.

[email protected]