Daily News Online
 

Friday, 26 February 2010

News Bar »

News: Govt targets cheaper electricity ...        Political: Colombo Tamils’ Organization supports UPFA ...       Business: Tigo becomes etisalat ...        Sports: When ‘god’ Sachin wrought a batting miracle ...

Home

 | SHARE MARKET  | EXCHANGE RATE  | TRADING  | SUPPLEMENTS  | PICTURE GALLERY  | ARCHIVES | 

dailynews
 ONLINE


OTHER PUBLICATIONS


OTHER LINKS

Marriage Proposals
Classified
Government Gazette

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.

 

EMAIL |   PRINTABLE VIEW | FEEDBACK

www.lanka.info
Donate Now | defence.lk
www.apiwenuwenapi.co.uk
LANKAPUVATH - National News Agency of Sri Lanka
www.peaceinsrilanka.org
www.army.lk
Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka (TRCSL)
www.news.lk
www.defence.lk

| News | Editorial | Business | Features | Political | Security | Sport | World | Letters | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House Copyright © 2010 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.

Comments and suggestions to : Web Editor