Presidential Elections And Quest For Justice

| by Laksiri Fernando
( November 26, 2014, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) I was extremely pleased when
Maithripala Sirisena, the common candidate of the opposition, emphasized the
importance of adopting a Gandhian policy for Sri Lanka in his appearance at the
Satana program of the Sirasa TV on 22 November. He showed a tiny booklet to the
audience written by the renowned writer, W. A. Abeysinghe, titled Gandhi Example
for Sri Lankan Politics, written in Sinhala. For those who are not familiar with
Abeysinghe, he is a popular writer and a literary figure whose many essays became
interestingly published in a Tamil title, Satyam Shivam, Sundaran (Truth is
Beautiful), edited by his daughter, Dipachandi Abeysinghe, in 2011.
Let me call Maithripala Sirisena, MS.

Opposition Declaration
In his concluding presentation, MS emphasized the importance media freedom for
democracy and vouched it would be re-established after a victory, of course among a
gathering of many journalists and media personnel. One may discount it as a media

stunt. However, he also outlined the basic tenets of a program that the United
Opposition Front might unleash in a few weeks time. That was impressive. His
emphasis, as he said, was on unity and harmony of ethnic and religious communities
on the one hand, and alleviating the grievances of the low income earners one the
other.
These twin approaches would be underlined by the respect for and protection of all
human and fundamental rights, he said. He gave an emotional promise to end the
corrupt family rule, re-establish rule of law, reinstate democracy and change the
existing political culture. All these were in addition to the abolition of the executive
presidential system within 100 days, which is the main plank of the opposition.
He agreed with the JVP leader, Anura Kumara Dissanayake, who was another panelist
at the program, that benevolent dictatorship (Sonduru ekadipaathiwadaya) is now
turning or has turned into a malevolent one (Kuriru Ekadipathiwadaya). The
emphasis came from Dissanayake.
It is in respect of changing the political culture that he referred to Mahatma Gandhi
and his principles, and also referred to Nelson Mandela of South Africa, Dr. Martin
Luther King of US and our own SWRD Bandaranaike. I would have preferred him also
to mention SJV Chelvanayakam, along with Bandaranaike, who were the two main
advocates of Gandhian principles in our country, whatever the deviations of their
followers or themselves. He said our policies will be based on these principles.
He emphasized that Nelson Mandela was in prison for 27 years, but after he came to
power or office, he held the presidential position only for 4 years. Alas, that is not the
case in Sri Lanka.
A President for 100 Days!
There are those who have asked the question Why should anyone vote for Maithripala
if he is not going to be the president after a hundred days while Ranil is going to be
PM?
Obviously, this question is asked not because of any ignorance. Let me first ignore the
clear personal antipathy against the person who is supposed to become the PM. There
will be a strong UNP constituency who would vote for MS merely in order to appoint
Ranil Wickremasinghe as the PM. That is one strength of this strategy. Leaving that
aside, what is behind the question is a particular perception of politics. That is my
main concern in this article. Let me reduce the question to the following: Why should
anyone vote for Maithripala if he is not going to be the president after a hundred days?
The clear and simple answer is to abolish the presidential system and bring good
governance and caring administration in the country. It may be a puzzle for those who
think politics and elections only in terms of power and position. However, the time has

come to think politics and elections in terms of justice, fairness, righteousness, honesty
and integrity. That is the cry of the most enlightened ordinary people. When one traces
the history of the present movement for the abolition of the presidential system, it
started with the formation of the National Movement for Social Justice (NMSJ)
initiated by Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha Thero particularly after the 18th Amendment.
Of course, the presidential system can be abolished through extra-electoral or extraparliamentary means and one may think that is the logical procedure than contesting
for the presidency and then leaving the position in 100 days time. But the results
would be worse than what we have at present.
Contesting the presidency to renounce the position in 100 days may appear
contradictory to some. But it is the most dialectically logical and consistent
proposition. As the popular proverb goes, it is only through the mouth of the well that
one can escape when one falls into it. There is no other way.
Philosophical Underpinnings
There is a philosophical underpinning to what is happening in Sri Lanka today, if I
may become little abstract. Hitherto almost all societies considered politics as matters
of power between various classes, ethnic or social groups, dynasties, individuals or
ideologies. And as a result questions of justice had to take a back seat. The newest
theory is about clash of civilizations (based on religious beliefs). The consequence of
power politics has been war, violence and destruction of life and property, with
immense human suffering. This has been common to national as well as international
politics, but Sri Lanka has been a classic example of this predicament in recent times.
Do we need to or can we go on the same lines in the future? Cant we take a reverse
turn and understand the common human peril and make a determination to stop the
lunacy and take a more rational and a reasonable path?
What can we call the new way? I would call it the quest for justice, while admitting its
own limitations or misunderstandings. Justice to one can be an injustice to another in
some circumstances. This is a contradiction that we have to resolve. When some call
for justice they sometimes mean vengeance. This urge also should neutralized. These
are however some exceptions than the normal understanding. Normal understanding
of justice is good enough to make a departure from destructive power politics and to
make politics reasonable, peaceful and more responsive to peoples needs and
aspirations.
Permit me for a personal note. I have been advocating or holding the above ideas for
some time and two landmarks can be mentioned. Once when the University of
Colombo was engulfed in student violence between different political factions, the
Centre for the Study of Human Rights (CSHR) issued an educational leaflet on my

initiative requesting the students to change their minds about the purpose of politics.
Consideration of politics as power was identified as the primary cause for student
violence. That was somewhere in 1998. Later when a new Department of Political
Science and Public Policy was established in 2001 at the University of Colombo, an
emphasis was given to reconsider, in research and teaching, politics as a struggle or
movement for justice and not as a struggle for power. That mission however was not
taken root.
I was not completely going against Lasswells characterization of politics, who gets
what, when and how? but rather expanding on it. At the same time, I was not
completely denying or rejecting the power aspect of politics. If I were to recognize
power as an important dynamic, I would rather go along with Max Webber who
characterized power as the chance of a man or a number of men to realize their will in
a communal action, adding that for a justiciable object, also revising the terms man
and men also to mean woman and women.
Two Contestants: MR and MS
What is the object of Mahinda Rajapaksa seeking a Third Term as the Executive
President of Sri Lanka? Is it personal, family, party or country? Why couldnt he
handover the baton to another person within his party or even within his own family?
Why is the family (or the acolytes) hiding behind him without allowing a democratic
succession within the party and country? What is there to hide and safeguard? These
are some of the questions that the people should ask before voting for MR or MS at the
presidential election.
It is clear that MR is contesting to preserve and safeguard power.
Posted by Thavam