A maiden innings of quality and style

A steam-roller majority of 144 Members in a Parliament of 225, where the Opposition has been humbled into near irrelevance by the voters in two nation wide elections - first for the Presidency and the next to Parliament - can give a heady feeling to a new Member of Parliament who stands up to make one's maiden contribution in an important debate.

The debate earlier this week on the extension the State of Emergency, was clearly one such occasion, with the added importance of being the first debate in the newly elected seventh Parliament under the Republican Constitution. In a worrying tradition of Parliamentary debates being reduced to slanging matches in recent occasions; it is not easy for a new member to stand out with a contribution that can be a pointer to the expectations of good debate in the new Parliament.

A welcome change

There was a welcome change in political trend when the new Prime Minister and the External Affairs Minister laid out the fresh thinking of the Government on the continuance of the state of Emergency, with many of its regulations that directly and often harshly affected the people being relaxed.

It was in this background that Namal Rajapaksa (UPFA 1 - Hambantota District) rose to speak in the debate last Tuesday. He was not carried away, as many would have been, by the tide of victory that brought him to Parliament at age 24. Instead he showed an unusual understanding of the importance of the occasion, not only for himself, but for the country, too.

There was plenty of personal history for him to be proud of. He also followed the tradition of representing the people of Hambantota in the national legislature begun in 1936 by his paternal grand-uncle DM Rajapaksa, who was known as the Lion of Ruhuna, and later his grandfather DA Rajapaksa who was the Deputy Speaker of the old pre-republican Parliament, at Galle Face.

If he reminded the House of these facts it was to bring a sense of partnership with the people that all of these persons had in common through the years. But his maiden contribution in the House was burnished by his understanding of the State of Emergency itself, which he said, was older than himself.

Over the years, the debate on the Emergency extension had been carried out with the sameness of tone that robbed it of much interest, as Parliament voted to extend it every month.

There was little semblance of the cut and thrust of debate over the issue, with the main Opposition mostly keeping away at the time of voting, or just unable to muster the courage or the political will to defeat it, and leaving it to the TNA to be the sole opponents.

But this was a debate where the new and young member from Hambantota brought in fresh breezes. He reminded the House of how the youth of this country, whether in the North, South or Central Hills, had been raised under the State of Emergency, and the pressing need to relax it; to give new meaning to the freedom won by the people with much sacrifice. But in his desire the see the Emergency removed from the entire country, as his father and his uncle Lakshman, too had wanted in their own day, under different circumstances, he stressed the necessity to prevent the causes that lead to imposition of emergency in the country.

A compelling message

It was a compelling message that he gave in stating that the conditions should never be allowed to exist under which the villages of this country and the rural youth, wherever they may be, would be turned into guerilla or militant cadres, and the villages not be made the breeding grounds for insurgency or anti-state violence.

His quotations on the importance of acting in time to resolve the problems facing the people to prevent a resurgence of guerilla or armed activity against the State and society extended from the teachings of the Buddha, down to Ernesto Che Guevara, which showed his grasp of thinking on issues that face both the youth and society in countries such as Sri Lanka.

It was a polished innings which hopefully would set new standards for debate in Parliament, and also gave a new meaning to the concept of representing the aspirations of youth, in whose name so much of violence has been carried out both in the North and South of the country; which compelled the State of Emergency with its many harsh provisions to continue for so long. The relaxation of the rules is a new beginning in Sri Lanka, and hopefully points to a new direction in political thinking.

If Namal Rajapaksa made his mark in his first entry into parliamentary debate, it is also necessary to note the good contribution that another new member Dr Sudarshini Fernandopulle (UPFA - 2- Gampaha District) made, in a speech that was heavy with her own personal tragedy of losing her late husband to the killers of the LTTE, and yet her understanding of the great loss that the women of this country suffered under the prolonged period of terror.

If Namal Rajapaksa spoke of the feelings and aspirations of the vast numbers of youth that are emerging as a force in the new democracy of Sri Lanka, Sudarshini Fernandopulle had her ear to the women of our country, with a commitment that no more should mothers, sisters, wives and children should lose their loved ones to the senseless violence as what gripped our society for so long. Kudos to her too, for bringing a fresh outlook into the debate without being carried away by the burden of her personal grief, which remains enormous.

One hopes these openers have set the trend for future debates in parliament in both substance and style, which would do much for the strengthening of representative democracy in Sri Lanka.