It was reasonable to expect the aftermath of the Presidential election
to usher in a period of political stability. The large majority of
votes secured by President Mahinda Rajapaksa was impressive on its
face and promised benevolence in his decisions after the elections.
His unchallenged command over the levers of state power, made it
unlikely that there could be any viable opposition to his rule. But
the evidence of presidential insecurity had already manifested itself
in the dramatic events that unfolded even as the votes were being
counted. This was the surrounding of the hotel in which his chief
opponent and former army commander, General Sarath Fonseka, had set up
temporary office along with other leaders of the opposition coalition
that had backed him.
The next step in the unfolding political drama was the crude arrest of
General Fonseka by the very soldiers he once led in the army. The
manner of his arrest was lacking in any grace or finesse, which has
unfortunately and most distressingly become the hallmark of government
rule in Sri Lanka at this time. The overturned furniture and torn
lapel of a soldier on the floor testify to the brute nature of the
struggle. The arrest was bluntly described as disgraceful by the
leaders of the political parties he was meeting with at that time.
They had watched him helpless and in fear themselves, too afraid to
intervene, as their colleague was literally dragged away into waiting
military vehicles.
At the time of the arrest, General Fonseka and the opposition leaders
had been discussing the possibility of extending the political
alliance they had forged for the Presidential election, and extending
it to include the forthcoming General Elections on April 8 as well.
The incarceration of General Fonseka within a military camp without
access to his political colleagues will be a severe blow to the
fledgling alliance. Their failure to win the Presidential election
was itself a major setback, but now the loss of General Fonseka and
with it his striking qualities of leadership can be a death blow to an
effective opposition. The government is now well poised to attain
their proclaimed objective of a 2/3 majority at the forthcoming
General Elections.
It appears that the government is seeking to prove that General
Fonseka was part of a vast conspiracy that involves foreign powers,
and included the assassination of the President and his family, and
staging a coup along with a section of the military and the opposition
JVP. Statements by government spokespersons suggest that the
government is building up a case against General Fonseka in a
systematic manner. Although opposition leader Ranil Wickremesinghe
met with President Rajapaksa to intervene on behalf of the captive,
the response appeared to be lukewarm. There was no presidential
largesse that even permitted the opposition leader to meet with the
defeated presidential candidate who is in solitary confinement.
SKILLFUL WEAVING
The government’s case appears to rest on a series of factual
observations that will be skillfully woven together in the days ahead
to build a conspiracy. If the recent past is any guide to the future,
the government will utilize the state media to the fullest to induce
the voters to once again place their trust in the safer hands of those
who rule over them at present than to take a risk with the unknown,
especially those who are charged with heinous crimes. Some elements
of the case against General Fonseka include the fact that during his
tenure as army commander, he promoted army officers on a criteria of
merit that he defined, and not on the more objective one of seniority,
which enabled him to promote his favourites to positions of
importance.
There are now media reports that the JVP itself may enter into the
conspiracy theory being developed by the government on the grounds
that General Fonseka, both as army commander and as presidential
candidate maintained a close relationship with them. The JVP has
publicly expressed fears that its leadership may soon be arrested.
During the height of the war when casualties were high the JVP was
given permission to go into army camps and give morale boosting talks.
Even at that time there was apprehension about the infiltration of
the JVP, which is a cadre-based left party, into the military and that
this would give the JVP inordinate influence beyond its voter base in
the political decision making processes of the country.
There is a possibility that the government may link these several
facts together into an account of a conspiracy to illegally topple the
government. Responding to opposition leader Ranil Wickremesinghe’s
plea on behalf of General Fonseka, President Rajapaksa is reported to
have said that he will have to prove himself innocent before the
courts of law. Once again Sri Lanka will have to rely upon its courts
to be the last bastion of justice. A similar phenomenon took place
during the period of President Ranasinghe Premadasa in the early
1990s, when the government became feared for its injustice, and the
courts became the last refuge of those who were being persecuted.
However, even as the legal process goes forward only a court order
might be able to stop the government propagandists and state
controlled media from going on the offensive, as occurred to the
severe disadvantage of the opposition during the Presidential
election. While the legal process is dragged on, the propaganda
organs of the government may well spread the story of conspiracy and
seek to influence the people’s vote at the General Election, which is
less than two months away. According to government spokespersons their
goal at the forthcoming general elections is to accomplish what many
have said is impossible, and to obtain a 2/ 3majority notwithstanding
the proportional scheme of electoral representation which so far has
been a protection against that danger.
TWIN GOALS
By obtaining a very large majority at the Parliamentary polls the
government may believe that it will confirm the authenticity of the
large majority obtained by President Rajapaksa at the Presidential
election and lay to rest the allegations of rigging at the
Presidential Elections. Many opposition supporters continue to believe
that rigging at the Presidential election deprived General Fonseka of
his victory. This has caused a deep polarization and sense of anger
within society and has also caused some doubts to arise in the
international community regarding the legitimacy of the President’s
victory. The problem for the government is that another big election
victory by questionable means will not cause those doubts to go away.
On the other hand, a 2/3 majority in Parliament would enable the
government to change the constitution at its will. It can change the
constitution in any way it thinks fit, even without the support of the
opposition political parties, including those representing the
majority of the ethnic minorities. Such a unilateral changing of the
constitution will accentuate the partisan and ethnic divisions in
society. This was also the case in the unilateral promulgation of the
new constitutions of 1972 and 1978, both of which increased the level
of conflict in society and set the stage for the violent LTTE and JVP
insurrections that followed. In the present case the potential for
any unilateral constitutional changes to be perceived as being
illegitimate will be greater if the manner in which the elections are
won are themselves seen to be illegitimate.
The question of political legitimacy takes on urgency due to the
constraints being placed upon dissent and the intimidation of the
opposition. A healthy opposition is critical to a functioning
democracy, providing an alternative voice and acting as a check on
those in power. Although the opposition did not secure a victory in
the most recent elections, it is clear that this alliance of political
parties was able to speak to the needs of at least 40 percent of the
country’s electorate and the great majority of ethnic minority voters.
The arrest of the opposition candidate, the intimidation of opposition
supporters and the violent attacks on opposition public rallies that
followed their defeat will thus have grave consequences for democratic
participation in the future. This is even more alarming considering
how the erosion of faith in the democratic process has transformed
itself into violence in the past.
Over the past weekend, I took part in a seminar in Trincomalee in the
east coast on the role of media in facing the current challenges. The
group that met, many of them regional correspondents of national media
institutions, felt themselves to be powerless in the face of the
crisis. There was fear to publicly express themselves, not knowing
who would report to whom. There was concern about freedom of
expression in the face of the disappearance of one journalist and the
arrest of another without charges for several weeks. But one
participant in the seminar made the role of this small gathering seem
relevant when he said that in other countries too, though perhaps in a
different century, there had been small groups that kept alive the
ideals of democracy in their thoughts and ideas, and it is those
values that prevailed in those countries in the end.