Choice before people :

Stability or instability

Our political correspondent

Nominations for the Presidential poll are over. Now the real battle begins. What occurred in the run up to the nominations was only a preface. However, developments since the Presidential proclamation on the election up to now give an indication of how the main campaign would run.

Despite nearly two dozen candidates the real battle is between the UPFA candidate, incumbent President Mahinda Rajapaksa and the candidate of the National Democratic Front retired Army Commander Sarath Fonseka.

President Rajapaksa is an astute politician with over 40 years experience. He has represented the people at various levels. Coming to Parliament as the youngest MP in 1970 he has traversed a long and illustrious path holding many ministerial portfolios, becoming Leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister before assuming that exalted office of President. None of these positions were gifts as some national list MPs get. He had to fight his way to the top. Even his last Presidential bid was against all odds with a section of his own party showing a lukewarm attitude.

Ceasefire Agreement

As President he had to face many a challenge that no previous holder of that office faced. He inherited a war that has gone for more than two decades. His regime was trapped in the Ceasefire Agreement which actually tied his hands while the opponent was freely arming his troops for war. Besides, the donors had placed conditionalities on granting aid as it was tied to the CFA. International pressure rose to a climax both to pursue negotiations and to abandon fight against terror. What did all this mean? In facing these challenges he had developed from being a mature politician to a mature Statesman. From national acclaim he was elevated to international acclaim.

His contender on the other hand, has no experience in politics. No experience in representative bodies, even at the village level. He was a military man. He has a 40 year military experience, of taking orders and giving orders. Politically he is a baby. In fact, he himself admitted his inexperience at the first press conference he gave after retirement.

What would you expect a novice to do? Do you expect him to run for the most exalted political office or do you expect him to learn the trade from the beginning? Fonseka has started at challenging the incumbent for the highest office.

An exalted ego, one would think. Perhaps it may be true. Or else he is only a cat’s paw for somebody.

In either case, even in the remotest case of him being elected President what would follow is chaos and amateurish experimentation. Would he be able to face domestic and international pressure? Unlikely.

What is more disturbing is the arrangement of forces behind Fonseka. Politically his two principal allies the UNP and the JVP are poles apart in policy. What one proposes the other would reject. Fonseka would be pulled from two opposite directions. To stand firm without being swayed away to one side he would have to assert himself. He knows only one way of asserting himself. That is the military way. That means taking all power to himself.

However, he is promising even to abolish the Executive Presidency. Could he assume all powers constitutionally in that case? Possibly not. He has hinted at what he would do. He has openly stated that he would not be a ceremonial President as former President William Gopallawa.

Besides, he has been pursuing power ever since the Post of Army Commander was thrust on him. Remember what he said and what he wanted to do after assuming the CDS post.

Ambition for power

He wanted more power. He wanted a bigger Army. All these were not his prerogatives. Ceding more power was the prerogative of the Parliament as the CDS Act has to be amended to do so. Enlarging the Army is a political decision to be taken by the Commander-in-Chief, the President. His ambition for power has been even noted by our neighbours.

A news report in the Pakistani newspaper Nation stated two days back that Indian Prime Minister had warned the Sri Lankan Government about the dangers of a military coup. Whether the story is true or not it gives a hint to what our neighbours were thinking. The same news report cited examples from Pakistan history to draw parallels with the situation that was supposed to exist. They would not have been apprehensive for no reason.

What if Fonseka is a cat’s paw? Those behind the scene would dictate terms and charter his path. It is not for nothing that many people are alarmed at statements made by him with regard to the last phase of the war. He has openly alleged that Defence Secretary had ordered a Commander to shoot those seeking to surrender.

Let down Army

This is an unsubstantiated claim. What was his motive in uttering this statement six months after the conclusion of the war? Was it ethical for a former Commander to let down the Army in such a way? He has later confessed that he came to know of the allegation from a journalist. How could a mature Commander rely on hearsay to make an incriminating public statement? It could be done only at somebody’s bidding.

Who is that somebody? Remember the Western media and Western powers including the United States, the United Kingdom and some other countries have been conducting an orchestrated campaign against alleged human rights violations by Sri Lanka. Remember the Channel Four fake video. Remember the strictures of UN officials and attempts to censure the country at the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Put all pieces together to decipher the jigsaw puzzle. Then one would see the rationale behind Fonseka’s utterances.

Elections in Third World countries are opportunities for Western powers to intervene. There are numerous examples of the CIA and other intelligence agencies funding Opposition political parties and groups to effect regime change in countries that do not follow Washington’s bidding. Send back your memory to events in the Yugoslav Republic before it was dismembered. The Yugoslav Government had officially protested to the UN against interference in its internal affairs by the US and other Western Powers.

In Allende’s Chile it was the United States and its multinational companies that assisted Pinochet to overthrow the democratically elected government. In Nicaragua, the US financed the Opposition and prevented a victory of the FMLN at the elections. In Iran they meddled in the last elections.

Should we say more? It is clear that there seems to be an international conspiracy to get rid of the Rajapaksa administration. In the eyes of Washington it has been guilty of pursuing an independent political line, one that does not pay obeisance to Washington.

It has associated with regimes to the dislike of Washington such as Iran, Libya. For Washington Sri Lanka’s close relations with China is also an eyesore.

In view of the above, it is plain that the forthcoming electoral contest would decide Sri Lanka’s future course of development. The voter has to select between experienced mature politician and a novice. His decision will result either in continued stability or instability.

It would decide whether we or Uncle Sam would decide our future. It would decide whether we continue development that has already been initiated or we have to experiment from scratch again with a novice at the head.

In short. It is a choice between stability and instability.