Swan song to Aung San, politics of martyrdom

Soon after the resounding victory of President Mahinda Rajapaksa in the election for a second term as President, there were hopes expressed in some opposition circles that the defeated candidate Sarath Fonseka could be bestowed with martyrdom following a widely expected arrest, to make use of him bolster the Opposition’s difficult cause.

The feeling in opposition circles, waiting for the proverbial straw to clutch at to overcome their desperate situation, was such that stories were being spread of Sarath Fonseka being arrested for the murder of Lasantha Wickramatunga, with the certainty of it being swallowed even without a sprinkling of salt by both the local and foreign media.

With that line having failed, and Fonseka taken into custody on different matters that are under investigation, there are important sections in the Opposition who still think of the political mileage and marketability of Fonseka.

The strongest supporters of the Fonseka martyrdom scenario even believe that a situation could develop when he could be made the Aung San Suu Kyi of Sri Lanka, making a comparison with the leader of the democratic Opposition in Myanmar, who has been held under house arrest for lengthy periods, time and again, ever since her movement for democracy won the national election nearly two decades or more ago.

What is missed by these Opposition strategists in despair is the key difference between the Burmese symbol of democracy - Aung San Suu Kyi - the daughter of Aung San, famous leader of the Burmese independence movement, too - and the defeated Sarath Fonseka.

Aung San Suu Kyi’s martyrdom began and continues after she won an election, which rejected the military rulers of Myanmar. In contrast General Gardihewa Sarath Chandralal Fonseka, lost his first electoral bid for the presidency of Sri Lanka, with a huge margin.

While organized demonstrations can take place demanding his release and appeals can also be made to Buddhist prelates based on incorrect and misleading reports of his arrest in the context of the democracy that prevails here, unlike in Myanmar; it will be a really hard climb for those who are hoping to enrich themselves with votes at the coming General Election through the so-called martyrdom of Sarath Fonseka, quite apart from the absurdity of making any comparison to the symbol of Myanmar democracy.

Military dictatorship

A fundamental difference is that Aung San Suu Kyi opposed a military dictatorship when she won, while what the people of Sri Lanka defeated through Sarath Fonseka was the certain threat of the establishment of a military dictatorship here, to judge from the many statements he made while on the campaign.

There are many questions being raised today about the timing of the arrest of Fonseka.

The most frequent question is why the Government had to wait until his defeat to go ahead with the arrest, and not do it earlier. Of course such questioners are ready to ignore that there is the necessity to collect sufficient evidence when making such an important and high profile arrest.

The other question arising from these same queries is what would have been the reaction if he had been arrested just before the Presidential Election even with sufficient evidence, when he, for the first time made a show of his political ambitions? Would it not have the been said that he was arrested, even with adequate evidence, to prevent him from contesting the Presidential Election and thereby assure Mahinda Rajapaksa of a cakewalk in his bid for re-election?

Political rights

What those who question the timing of Fonseka’s arrest have to bear in mind is that, while investigations may have been going on about his actions during his period as Army Commander and later as Chief of Defence Staff, he was totally free to contest an election, held nationwide, and accepted as peaceful by none other than his strongest backer Ranil Wickremesinghe of the UNP; and also accepted by all but a few disgruntled and desperate politicians who were hoping to gain the seats of power by riding piggy-back on Fonseka, that it was also a free and fair election.

That was the view of all independent election monitors from here and abroad, and it is now being endorsed by the congratulatory messages the President is receiving from national leaders the world over and heads of international organizations.

It is also moot to bear that if it had been the intent of the ruling coalition to prevent Fonseka from contesting the Presidential Election it could have been done very easily by not accepting or delaying to accept his resignation from the office of Chief of Defence Staff, when he had made it known very clearly that he was doing so to enter politics, and that too with a shot at the highest office in the country.

Fonseka is now in custody and lives in the comfortable residence at Navy Headquarters. He has unhindered access to his family and lawyers, and is treated with all the courtesy that his position demands.

Contrast

The treatment that Fonseka receives today, is very much in contrast to what he promised to do to his opponents, when the Opposition hype, promoted by a section of the political press and other sections of the media that preferred to ignore the reality of voter preference in the country, made him believe that he was on the way to victory in a close contest.

A bungalow at Navy Headquarters is much removed in the availability of comforts and conveniences from the Bogambara Prison to which he threatened to send all his opponents; having stated in public that he would empty the historic prison to hold those who worked against him in the election, and even warned them to have mats ready to sleep on while incarcerated.

No one tore out his white shirt of political opportunism when or after arrest, in the manner he said it would be done to the uniforms of police officers and constables who he alleged had worked against him, or rather did not comply with his every request.

The person in custody today and under investigation for a range of charges regarding acts allegedly committed while in uniform, is none other than the person who almost launched his campaign by telling the people that he could lay siege to Colombo by ordering a few battalions of the Army to close all entry and exit points to the city to deal with his political opponents.

It is the same man who was open in his repeated statements that no sooner he wins he would have the Bandaranaike International Airport closed down to prevent his opponents, who his campaign alleged were guilty of various acts of corruption with not even an iota of proof, from fleeing the country through fear of what would happen to them if arrested.

One is not interested in judging whether what has happened to Fonseka could amount to the just desserts for the fear he drove into the people, of a ruthless military leader who would brook no opposition to him in the country.

The main response to this was his defeat in an avalanche of votes for his opponent, the incumbent President and his own Commander-in-Chief who he challenged, with the least regard for the courtesies of a decent campaign.