Of puppets and puppetry

Years ago I watched a movie called ‘A Very British Coup’. Based on a novel by Chris Mullin, the film won Bafta and Emmy awards and was syndicated to more than 30 countries. The story was of Harry Perkins, a down to earth, working class, very left-wing Labour politician who is elected United Kingdom Prime Minister.

Perkins’ agenda included dissolving all newspaper monopolies, removing all American military bases on U.K. soil, unilateral nuclear disarmament, and true open government.

The right-wing, naturally, conspires to oust him employing all the dirty tricks known to politicians. Interestingly, the television version was first aired over Channel 4, an outfit that has made a veritable art form of what is now called ‘trial by media’.

In the movie, the PM calls the bluff of his detractors, calls a press conference and admits the love-affair that was fed to the tabloids to embarrass him. He says, ‘yes, I had an affair; it was sweet.’

Then adds, ‘but the people of this country should decide who should lead/represent them, the person they elect or some shady individuals with secret agenda who are not answerable to anyone, least of all the voters’. He dissolves Parliament and the film ends with the man about to leave to cast his vote.

That’s not a ‘British’ story. It is a story that is old and frequent and one that is known all over the world. The first part, I mean. It is rarely that people turn back and say it as it is and demand that the voter takes responsibility.

I call the whole process puppetry. Do we know who really rules our country? The people we elect or some shady individuals who have some hold over them and therefore can arm-twist ‘leaders’ into implementing agenda the people never voted for? We have seen time and again how ‘leaders’ defer to foreign experts when it comes to formulating policy.

Indeed, given our location in the global political economy, our strengths and weaknesses, bargaining power and lack thereof, it has been typical for governments and officials to submit to the dictates of those who doesn’t give a hoot what happens to our country or our people.

This was always obvious in the execution of the war. The Security Forces never had a free hand. The political leadership always pulled the rug from under their feet as per the instructions of various foreign interests, near and afar.

The Forces were never sure when they would be pulled back, never confident that the political leaders would not betray them when victory was within their grasp.

All that changed when Mahinda Rajapaksa took over as President. If anyone had any doubts about this try to imagine a Sri Lanka in which Ranil Wickremesinghe had triumphed in 2005. I am not going to elaborate. We know what would have happened. And we know where Sarath Fonseka probably would have been today if that had been the case.

I am not sure where Prabhakaran would have been but one thing is sure: he would not be in a place called ‘After life’.

When the year 2006 dawned, i.e. just after Mahinda was elected President, ‘peace’ was like a mirage.

Two years later, when the year 2008 dawned, we were half-way there, but still there were doubts whether we would succeed, given a long history of betrayal by leaders and capitulation to the fear-psychosis orchestrated by the LTTE, and of course a discernible penchant for giving up the moment some self-appointed ‘Big Brother’ wrapped the particular leader on his mind-knuckles.

When the year 2009 dawned, it was pretty clear that the war would end soon. By that time, the President and the Government had withstood all kinds of pressure from the international community.

It was when the ‘international community’ realized that the President had unwavering resolve that he was left alone. But they tried. Right until the last moment, Prabhakaran’s friends and all those who were determined that Sri Lanka falter at the last post did their best to subvert the mission. They failed.

That was leadership. Blameless leadership? No, not by a long shot, but still, a kind of leadership and ability strengthened by an unquestionable faith in the people and a strong sense of history and heritage that has been rare.

The year 2009 brought us peace. It happened under the stewardship of President Mahinda Rajapaksa. We might not endorse his policies 100 percent, we might wish that he be replaced by someone else, but we would be utterly ungracious as a nation and citizenry if we did not give the man some credit.

No, he didn’t do it on his own, but he was and is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and the Executive President and just as he is answerable for all the ills that prevail in our society he deserves credit for all that is good, all the victories included.

It has not been an easy time of course, given the global financial crisis, escalating oil and food prices in the world market, executing a war and fighting back forces within the country that was intent on seeing the Security Forces trumped by the LTTE. He prevailed and that says something about political maturity, resolve and ability.

One cannot help but contrast that ability to resist forces that lesser men and women submitted to with hardly a whimper of protest with those who want to replace him, looking around in desperation for a coherent answer when questioned about policies and modalities.

Those who are good on rhetoric and short on plans reveal only one thing: insecurity and incapability. It is no wonder that they quickly pick invective and unsubstantiated rubbishing as the one political tool their dainty little hands can wield with any degree of confidence.

In the end, we have to choose. We have to figure out what kind of leader we want. Do we want a man who has no plan and cannot open his mouth without spouting bitterness and unadulterated hatred, or a man who unflawed though he is not, would stand up on the strength of the faith his people had in him to tell the world, ‘yes, we are friends and yes, friendship is about helping one another, but friendship, chum, is not friendship if it involves a price and especially not the price of altering agenda to suit one’s interest’?

Heroes can become puppets, we need to understand. People can become puppets. Presidents too. Politics is about people wanting to be puppeteers and wanting others to be puppets. There’s no need to name any names. Someone is someone’s plaything, or many people’s play thing. Right?

[email protected]