Enormity of greed

Wednesday 13th July, 2022

Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s presidency became a huge problem, and his resignation is also likely to be problematic, for it has led to a dogfight for the post of Acting President. It is said that two dogs at the same bone seldom agree. Ambitious bipeds thirsting for power could become far more ferocious than the canines fighting over bones. There are said to be several presidential contenders, and a fiercely-contested election is expected in Parliament come 20 July. A divisive election is something the country needs like a hole in the head amidst the ever-worsening politico-economic crisis, the resolution of which requires a concerted effort.

What is most desirable at this juncture is for the party leaders to get themselves around the table and select the next President unanimously and thereby obviate an election, which will only fuel the crisis with some political leaders refusing to join the caretaker government to be formed. The JVP has already sounded a warning; it says it will not be party to any interim administration headed by either Sajith Premadasa or Dullas Alahapperuma. It wants Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardene to become the Acting President. The JVP has to be roped in for the proposed collective effort to overcome the crisis.

Ironically, the politicians who are vying for the presidency were at the forefront of the campaign that forced Gotabaya to agree to step down. Given their enormous greed for power, which has now become obvious, one wonders whether any of them would have quit in view of protests if he had been the President.

Speculation is rife in political circles that the SLPP has been instructed to leverage its parliamentary majority to determine the outcome of the election expected in the House next week. It will be a huge mistake for the SLPP to try to manipulate Parliament in a bid to have a person of its choice elected the Acting President. Such a move is bound to trigger another wave of protests. The SLPP MPs must not lose sight of the fact that the Rajapaksas, who used them unflinchingly, are running away, and there will be hell to pay if they continue to do as Basil says. At least now, they must act sensibly and follow the dictates of their conscience and do what is good for the people, and future generations.

The party leaders must shed their political differences, overcome their insatiable greed for power and reach a consensus on the appointment of the next President, for the sake of the country.

Ideals vs individuals

The political parties with parliamentary representation have invited a group of representatives of the Galle Face protest campaign, which has come to be dubbed Aragalaya, to talks. What is the basis on which they have selected the representatives of the protesters? There is no cohesive entity that represents the resentful people who readily respond to calls to arms from time to time, and the movement they have cobbled together via social media is eminently fissiparous and chaotic; there are several political groups claiming to represent their interests but they obviously lack control over the protesters, as evident from the acts of rowdyism, which is so uncharacteristic of an organised mass movement calling for a change for the better. Yesterday, two groups of Aragalaya activists clashed at Temple Trees, which they are currently occupying, and some of them were rushed to hospital.

So, let it be asked again how the party leaders have identified the ‘representatives’ of the Galle Face protesters. However, the common objectives of the protesters are clear—a system overhaul, a progressive political culture, the institutionalisation of good governance, the dethronement of the political class, as it were, the provision of relief to the public, the confiscation of stolen public funds, etc. Some of these objectives may seem utopian ideals, but they provide an insight into the thinking of the youth who have a different worldview. The political party leaders should uphold the ideals that Aragalaya represents instead of inviting its self-appointed ‘representatives’ with camouflaged political agendas.

The party leaders’ invitation at issue is likely to lead to the formation of a vertically-nested organisational architecture in the Aragalaya movement, with self-proclaimed leaders emerging from the fluid yet strong and effective social movement, which derives its unity and strength from the absence of a unified leadership. Hierarchisation is known to have a corrosive effect on the unity of any organisation consisting of ambitious members with competing interests, and conflicting ideologies and agendas.

It will be either the JVP or its off-shoot, the Frontline Socialist Party (FSP), which will come forward, claiming to represent the Aragalaya activists although most protesters do not subscribe to their ideologies and policies and are averse to the politicisation and monopolisation of the protest movement; they are the silent majority.

Aragalaya is best left as it is—a non-hierarchical entity appealing to citizens across the political spectrum. Are the political party leaders trying to create a schism therein by inviting its representatives and thereby causing its stratification, which will chip away at its unity? Or, in other words, are they trying to give Aragalaya the kiss of death on the pretext of recognising its representatives?

Meanwhile, former President Maithripala Sirisena has spoken very highly of the Aragalaya activists. He has stressed that they should take part in discussions on the interim government to be formed. But he has appointed a former strongman of the Rajapaksa regime, Mervyn Silva, as an SLFP organiser.Silva earned notoriety for attacks on the media and suppressing democratic dissent during the Mahinda Rajapaksa government.

Sirisena must be ashamed of himself for stooping so low as to handpick the likes of Silva as organisers of his party. How can he reconcile his much-advertised affinity for the Aragalaya activists who demand clean politics, with the appointment of Silva? This duality is coterminous with duplicity.