Winning over the 4.17 million
There are some nice words in the English language, good to say but
hard to obtain. I am thinking of words such as consensus, agreement and
unanimity. We hear them a lot in political circles. Sometimes we are
even told that important people have reached ‘agreement’, ‘consensus’
etc., but that doesn’t really fool anyone. We know that in politics, for
example, there is arm-twisting, backroom deals, ignorance, naivet‚ and
even innocence, all or some of which go a long way in securing
agreement.
It is not easy of course. Take ten people, ten friends that is, and
try to fix a plan for next Sunday. Chances are there’ll be two or three
who will tag along with the majority decision. Take two people, a
husband and a wife. Take something simple, like the preferred colour for
a room. White or pink? If white, then lily white or apple white? If
pink, fairy pink or baby pink? Not easy. This is why ‘democracy’ is
about majority preference and not unanimity.
Majority
We just finished electing a president. Out of 14,088,500 electors,
10,495,451 cast their votes. A total of 10,393,613 valid votes were
cast. Mahinda Rajapaksa got 6,015,934 votes (or 57.88%) while Sarath
Fonseka polled 4,173,185 (or 40.15%). The magnitude of victory is truly
historic when one compares this result with those of previous elections.
Still, 4.17 million remains a magnificent number and any person with
whom such a number of people stood even if only for one single day can
feel justifiably proud. To get back to the issue of preference, of
majority decision and democracy, the bottom line is that the winner gets
it all and the loser gets zilch. It is that which the winner gets that
concerns me right now. Mahinda Rajapaksa got 6 million, Fonseka got 4
million. Mahinda became President of the 10 million that voted, the 3
million that could have but didn’t and everyone who didn’t have the
vote.
He is the President of every man and woman who voted for Fonseka and
every man and woman who either voted for a third candidate, refused to
vote or didn’t have the vote. He would lose nothing, politically, if he
went about ‘presidencing’ as though only the 6 million who picked him
existed. He would then rule over the other 4 point something million
citizens. That would make him ‘politician’. There’s another way. He
could rule with the other 4 point something million citizens. That would
make him ‘statesman’.
Mandate
When 6 point something million voters picked Mahinda Rajapaksa over
the rest of the field, they were endorsing his performance over the past
four years and giving him a mandate to accomplish whatever he promised
in the manifesto he took before the electorate. In many ways, the other
4 point something million voters both were giving him a vote of
no-confidence and rejecting his manifesto. It would be silly for them to
expect the President to drop his manifesto and pick up that of an
opponent rejected by the majority.
For example, it would be patently undemocratic if Mahinda Rajapaksa
decided to adopt Fonseka’s economic policies, which are essentially
those of the UNP. The majority did not vote for him so that he could
proceed to sell national assets such as the People’s Bank, the Bank of
Ceylon, the Eppawela phosphate deposits or lease out Hambantota and
Trincomalee to foreign interests. The majority did not vote for him so
that upon election he could embrace Sampanthan’s agenda, that of
re-merging the North and East and putting in place conditions so that
Eelamists can have a post-LTTE last hurrah. He was not voted President
so that he could become a pawn serving the interests of the snobs who
seem to have a preference for Colombo 3/7 residencies.
Benumbed
He should not and he should not be expected to either. On the other
hand, this is to say that there is no common ground possible. Mahinda
Rajapaksa will not be Ranil Wickremesinghe and no one can blame him for
refusing to be like him either. But Mahinda Rajapaksa can remain Mahinda
Rajapaksa and still deliver a certain ‘something’ to the 4.17 million
who voted for Sarath Fonseka without compromising the mandate he
received from the majority.
This is how I feel Mahinda Rajapaksa can rule with the 4.17 million
as opposed to ruling in spite of them. First, Rule of Law. We have been
benumbed by Emergency Regulations and part of our post-terrorism
re-awakening and resurgence must include reverting to normal laws. We no
longer have ‘extraordinary’ situations calling for extraordinary
measures. The President enjoys unprecedented popularity. Post-election,
Sarath Fonseka, is an isolated and largely discredited individual
shunned now by his closest political associates. Mahinda Rajapaksa has 6
million people behind him. He, unlike any other leader in recent times,
can afford to dump Emergency Regulations.
More meaningful
Democratization is not just about re-instituting the Rule of Law. It
is also about putting in place checks and balances, about insulating the
citizen from politicians so that citizenship can flourish and become
more meaningful. I am not talking of the 17th Amendment. I know it is a
flawed document and although I believe flawed as it is, it is
nevertheless the best thing we have at the moment, there is logic in
wanting to trash it. On the other hand, there is nothing to say that the
President cannot or should not come up with a set of democratizing
mechanisms that are superior to those contained in the 17th Amendment.
President Mahinda Rajapaksa has unified the country. He has
demonstrated that he is a leader who has the pulse of the ordinary
people of this country, has a sense of history and heritage and enough
national pride not to genuflect before nations with superior military
and financial clout at the drop of a hat like many of his predecessors
and current opponents have done and do. He, more than anyone else in the
contemporary political scene in Sri Lanka, is ideally positioned to
deliver these things and thereby bring about the kind of social cohesion
and unity that we’ve needed for many decades.
Question
Today he is engrossed in another election campaign, but once that’s
done, he will have to return to the question that I will keep asking
him: ‘what kind of legacy do you want to leave behind; how do you wish
history to remember you?’
There are 4.17 million people out there Mr. President. They are all
Sri Lankans, citizens, people who will be impacted by your decisions.
They can’t expect you to do what others promised to deliver, but they
can legitimately expect to live in a country where ‘citizen’ means much
more than it does today. Do it for the 6 million who stood with you. The
rest will applaud. That will be the difference between history
remembering and forgetting you.
All the best.
|