Cacophony of lies from purveyors of political vendetta
“January 26 was an historic day for Sri Lanka. It was the first
presidential election for more than 25 years that was unaffected by the
terrorism and intimidation of the LTTE. The overwhelming majority of Sri
Lankans who exercised their democratic right last Tuesday voted for an
end to division, an end to terrorism and for a new beginning of peace
and prosperity. I am proud that the election was well fought, but
peaceful on voting day. All who wished to participate, could.” That is
how President Mahinda Rajapaksa described the Presidential Election that
brought him a historic and resounding victory, in an Opinion Column in
the Wall Street Journal; of February 3, 2010.
It is fitting that the WSJ published this on the eve of Sri Lanka’s
62nd anniversary of Independence, at a time when there was a cacophony
of voices within Sri Lanka and wholly expected noises from the pro-LTTE
Tamil expatriates in the West, challenging the very legality of the
election, based on a range of unsubstantiated charges, in the same
manner that vile rumour was made the stuff of politics of Fonseka & Co
in the Presidential Poll.
Elections Commissioner Dayananda Dissanayake echoed the
thoughts of most Sri Lankans. Picture by Sumanachandra
Ariyawansa |
President Rajapaksa added: that this victory is merely the start for
Sri Lanka. “After removing terrorism from our country, I sought a full
mandate from my people. Now I shall seek to work to build our nation for
all of them; to make the nation stronger and more able to succeed in
today’s globalized world,” he said.
Commenting on critics of his policies that saw the final rout of the
LTTE militarily, he states: “I know that there are some people and
policy makers abroad who have criticized what we did to bring an end to
violence and terrorism. They said our measures threatened the people and
undermined democracy. This election has shown that the reality is very
different. The people of Sri Lanka, democratically and very clearly,
have shown that they are free of threats, fear and terrorism, and that
they want to embrace the future that could only be achieved through the
decisive measures taken last year.”
He also made an important request to the international community,
that is being courted by all those opposed to him, his Government and
Sri Lanka to achieve their aim of a regime change here: “I call on the
international community to support us as we build a peaceful and
successful Sri Lanka, united in our resolve to achieve the progress
denied for decades. My Government will work hard for all its people. Our
economy will grow and the highest standards of rights will be upheld. I
can say with confidence that Sri Lanka is ready for the new decade.”
Candid Commissioner
It is also more than propitious that the WSJ ran the President’s
Op-Ed on the same day that the Sri Lankan and foreign media gave wide
publicity to the defence of the conduct of the Presidential Election by
the Elections Commissioner himself, who bared the deliberately
misleading propaganda being pushed by the defeated Swan Lake Brigade,
better known now as the Katakatha or Rumour Brigade. The Commissioner
gave the lie to all claims of computer manipulation in producing a
result that gave such a large and convincing majority to President
Rajapaksa for his re-election, and also exposed how those who spread
these rumours do not bother to have even a modicum of truth in what they
state. The allegations are infantile in nature, and causes grave
disrespect to the intelligence of the voters of Sri Lanka.
The Elections Commissioner echoed the thoughts of most Sri Lankans,
both among the winners and losers, as to why those who have to make such
serious charges of vote manipulation and the house arrest of the
Commissioner himself, do not bother to go to the Supreme Court with
their allegations, and allow the apex court of this land to decide on
the veracity of their charges. What we see instead is a naive attempt to
make judicial officers of learned and respected Buddhist prelates, in
moves meant to further mislead the public on the seriousness of the
charges being made.
Sri Lanka has been known for both violence and corruption in
elections. But, the recent election has by far been the least violent
and, due to the various measures taken by the Elections Commissioner’s
Office with the experience they have gathered in previous polls, was
also the least corrupt with regard to actual voting and counting. There
were no instances of stuffing ballot boxes, and we can now see that with
the insistence of ID cards for voting the instances of impersonation are
rapidly on the decline. Commissioner Dayananda Dissanayake being candid
in his observations did not mince his words in comments he made about
the conduct of the sections of the media in not providing fair coverage
to the main candidates. He was bold enough to criticize the Government
for turning a blind eye to directions given both by him and the Supreme
Court on this matter.
Striking silence
It is interesting that at the meeting that he had with heads and
editors of the media - both State and private - at Temple Trees on
January 28, fresh after his re-election, President Mahinda Rajapaksa
also echoed some of these same sentiments. Interrupting one head of
State media who began to comment on the Commissioner of Elections, the
President said that he had the highest regard for both the office and
person of the Commissioner of Elections, who was carrying out a very
responsible and difficult task, and it was important for all to respect
him and pay due importance to any and all directions given by him in the
course of an election.
It is noteworthy that this observation by the President did not seem
to strike as important to those from both branches of the media that
were present that day. It is a matter which draws attention to the need
for a new look at the entire gamut of media practice during elections in
the country, instead of just pointing accusatory fingers at one branch
or the other, when an election is on, and then remaining silent until
the next round of polls related media manipulation gets going.
If the role of the media - be it State or private, is one area of
concern during an election, we now have another area of serious concern
in the post election phase, which compelled the Elections Commissioner
to come out in public to defend the verdict of the people and the
victory of democracy. It is the attempts by a section of political
groups aided and abetted by some sections of so-called civil society to
overturn the will of the people, for ends and purposes that must suit
the losers rejected by the people, and no doubt their backers outside
the country.
Warnings of legitimacy
In a January 30 statement by the Centre for Policy Alternatives
titled “Protecting Democracy Post-Election: An end to political violence
and revenge”, the CPA not unexpectedly cites what it claims to be a
series of acts of revenge and vilification of the main defeated
candidate.
While the CPA statement’s comments on the media and journalists
deserve consideration, its complete disregard or amnesia of what and how
Sarath Fonseka had threatened his main rival, his family members and
supporters, as well as key public servants who were carrying out their
stipulated duties, was indeed strange from an organization so much
concerned about post-election violence and revenge. What we had was an
election in which revenge was the very stock in trade of the Fonseka
camp, led by Fonseka himself, openly boasting of his capability to block
the four or five entrances and exits to and from Colombo with a few
battalions, and how he would close down the International Airport to
stop the corrupt family members from fleeing, as well as how he would
fill the Bogambara Prison with his rivals.
To expect his opponents who won the poll not to take note of such
warnings, especially by a man who had considerable influence in the
Armed Forces, and plead for magnanimity instead, can only be called
frivolous if not deliberately cunning. If the people had not rejected
Fonseka so decisively at the polls, we could well have seen a wholly
different scenario of post-election violence and revenge. Also, no one,
not even the CPA, can explain why Fonseka was the only candidate in the
history of Sri Lankan polls to hire whole floors in leading hotels and
move his political cum military corps to them soon after the voting was
closed, in an election where he did not even have a vote.
But the most chilling note in the CPA statement is the warning about
the “legitimacy” of President Rajapaksa’s administration. This is how
the paragraph reads: “It is in the President’s interest, for the
legitimacy of his administration as well as our post-war future, to
provide the leadership essential to ensuring that democracy is
protected, the Constitution and the Rule of Law is respected,
fundamental human rights are upheld, and that the temptations of
political persecution and victimization are firmly resisted.”
We must not forget that we live in the post- Iran scenario, when a
president re-elected with a huge majority has had to face mounting
protests, which are so avidly reported and delightfully encouraged by
the western media. The warnings by organizations such as the CPA, and
its polls monitors, who have little regard for those who maintain that
this was by and large a free, fair and very peaceful election, and move
into the area of revenge and post-election violence to warn of the
legitimacy of the re-elected President’s administration, is far too
close to the possibility of making the streets of Colombo seem like
those of Teheran, and also the various other rose or orange
“revolutions” that have taken place with direct US and Western influence
in parts of Eastern Europe.
Fonseka may be defeated, but the forces that propped him up and gave
him such a salvo of support as to fool him too into a belief in victory,
and were crying foul from the beginning, are still around, mainly under
the cloak of civil society. It is necessary to take note of such dangers
to democracy, which could be far worse than the post-election violence
and revenge complained of, which if they are only as described with no
roots in a revengeful campaign, are admittedly not in the best interests
of democracy. |