Democratising Laws and Minds

by Tisaranee Gunasekara
No questioning
arises from subservient lips. Andre Chedid (For Salman Rushdie)
( May 18, 2015, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) In a recent satirical column, American
humorist Andy Borowitz reported the discovery of a new strain of fact-resistant
humans. These humans appear to have all the faculties necessary to receive and
process information And yet somehow they have developed defences that, for all
intents and purposes, have rendered those facilities totally inactive As facts have
multiplied their defences against those facts have grown more powerful[i]
Mr. Borowitz is writing about American climate change deniers. But his new discovery
is a perfect for the (mercifully) small group of Lankan politicians who dream of
restoring Rajapaksa power.
Lankan fact-resisters are no less delusional than their American counterparts. Their
starting point is a refusal to admit the outcome of the January 9th presidential election.
They perform amazing feats of contortionisms in order to reject the simple fact that
Mahinda Rajapaksa lost an election he himself called, even though he contested as

the incumbent and abused state power and resources with unprecedented liberality.
The former president himself heads the fact-resisters. In his message to the Bring
back Mahinda meeting in Kurunegala, Mr. Rajapaksa defined his electoral defeat, yet
again, as a conspiracy. He also alleged that Western imperialists divisonists may
have snatched his life without the love and protection of his supporters!
Other fact-resisters try to evade the election results by claiming that the outcome is not
legitimate because more Sinhalese voted for Mahinda Rajapaksa than for Maithripala
Sirisena. A direct line is visible between that Apartheid-type argument and the national
flag fiasco. The Rajapaksa-patriots who demonstrated outside the Bribery Commission
office, in violation of a court order, were caught on camera waving a distorted national
flag. Though some of them claimed that this too was an international conspiracy, the
truth is that they were waving the national flag of their Sri Lanka a country in which
minorities do not count, politically or electorally.
Another favourite delusion of the fact-resisters is that they live in a police
state sansfreedom or rights. In his Kurunegala speech, former minister Dinesh
Gunawardana vowed that the Bring back Mahinda struggle will not be abandoned
even if they fall dead, one on top of the other. Since Rajapaksa supporters enjoy the
full benefits of restored democracy and are not being treated like the hapless
protestors of Weliveriya, there is no reason for any of them to fall dead, except from
some natural cause, including a fit of apoplexy.
The nature of the political project of the fact-resisters can be understood by the five
demands they presented, as the basis for Sirisena-Rajapaksa talks. They wanted Mr.
Rajapaksa to be declared the UPFA prime ministerial candidate and given a decisive
role in picking candidates for the next parliamentary election. They wanted to lengthen
the lifespan of local government bodies (dominated by Rajapaksa supporters). They
wanted the FCID to be scrapped so that corruption investigations will cease. And they
wanted the UPFA to form a government of its own. In other words they wanted what
they lost total power, total control and total impunity.
The fact-resisters persist in regarding Maithripala Sirisena as a man of negligible
quantity, a mere puppet who can be forced or manipulated into compliance. They
obviously believed Mr. Sirisena could be threatened and bamboozled into building an
expressway back to power for the defeated Rajapaksas. In the end, not a single one of
the demands were conceded (according to some reports when Mr. Rajapaksa
threatened to walkout, Mr. Sirisena, instead of falling over backwards to prevent him,
bade him a polite goodbye!).
Since President Sirisena cannot be duped or forced into re-enthroning the ancien
rgime, Mahinda Rajapkasa has two realistic options. He can stop being a fact-resister
and retire from politics, at least for the time being. Or he can forge ahead along the
only path open to him, and slice the largest possible chunk off the SLFP, thereby
giving the UNP a free run. As the Central Bank bond issue demonstrated, no ruling
party can be trusted too much. A spirited opposition is a democratic necessity. That is
precisely what the fact-resisters will destroy with their harebrained schemes.

Marx and Engels described feudal socialism as .half echo of the past, half menace
of the futurebut always ludicrous in its effect, through total incapacity to
comprehend the march of modern history.[ii] This definition is an ideal-fit for the
Rajapaksa restorationist project. The best way to deal with this retrogressive project is
by changing the socio-political and psychological soil which created it. Change the
system and change the minds; let democracy and rule of law take root, so that
Rajapaksas become pass, and fade away into a barely remembered and hardly
lamented past.
Paring down the Political Caste
Sri Lanka is a world-leader in legislature burden (the ratio of parliamentarians to
populace)[iii]. Lankan parliamentarians constitute a privileged caste. Most are addicted
to publicly funded high-life and this renders them extraordinary corruptible and
extraordinary manipulable. They have no commitment either to the people they claim
to represent or to democracy. Their main perhaps sole concern is to retain their
privileged positions and to increase their perks. This insalubrious situation is
reproduced in provincial and local councils.
A single example would suffice to illustrate the extortionate freebies Lankan
parliamentarians are entitled to a large portion of our workforce is not entitled to a
pension, even after labouring for a lifetime; but parliamentarians get a pension after
being in parliament for just five years!
And like any privileged caste, our parliamentarians too are infused with a sense of
entitlement. This sense of being a breed apart has reached such ludicrous levels that
some parliamentarians even think that the law of the land should not apply to them.
(Recently former minister Bandula Gunwardane argued that by issuing notice on him
for violating a court order, the judiciary breached his parliamentary privileges!). The
Rajapaksas deliberately used this situation to their advantage. In return for slavish
obedience, acolyte parliamentarians, provincial and local councillors were guaranteed
innumerable benefits, from financial perks to de facto impunity .This strata cannot exist
without the corrupt and corruptive lifestyle they have become addicted to; and to
maintain that lifestyle they need the Rajapaksas back in power. It is not ordinary
people but these parasitic politicians with a world to lose who drive and sustain the
Rajapaksa restorationist project.
20th Amendment is a necessity. The preference vote system has created a vicious
cycle of electoral overspending and political ber-corruption. The need for a new
electoral system, which is an optimum combination of the PR system and the firstpast-the-post system, is undeniable. But if this change requires an increase in the
number of parliamentarians, it must be balanced by a substantial reduction in the
unconscionably massive privileges the legislators currently enjoy.
Democracies cannot survive without democrats. Most of our current crop of
parliamentarians are not democrats, as became obvious during the debates and
discussions over the 19th Amendment; a de facto monarchy rather than a restored
democracy is to their taste. If this slavish political culture is not changed, it can

become a serious hindrance to the ongoing re-democratisation project. An important

step in this direction would be to reduce some of the completely unjust perks and
privileges of parliamentarians and other elected officials which make them easy prey
for leaders with monarchical/dictatorial longings. (Incidentally, if extortionate freebies
are pared down to a decent normal, a career in electoral politics will become less
attractive to human parasites who love a strong leader they can latch onto.)
Jean Paul Sartre talks about the existence of different ethics in different epochs[iv].
The Rajapaksa era created its own brand of ethics, a noxious brew of quasi-tribal and
semi-feudal, with infallible leaders and unquestioning acolytes, the whole masked
behind a virulent form of majoritarian supremacism. The post-Rajapaksa era needs a
different commonsense, something less unfair and unjust, less parasitic and servile,
which values reason, justice, compassion and ordinary decency.
Neither Saviours Nor Censors
The Fourth Eelam War (like the Second and the Third) was unavoidable given the
nature of Vellupillai Pirapaharan. But as President Sirisena stated in his Independence
Day Speech, it was also a particularly barbaric war, a no-holds-barred conflict in which
neither side cared a tuppence for the civilians caught in the middle.
Had the Rajapaksas responded to the victory with humanity and humility, many of the
national and international problems the country encountered in the subsequent years
could have been avoided. Instead the Rajapaksas succumbed to Sinhala-Buddhist
supremacism and wallowed in merciless triumphalism. Even something as basic and
time-immemorial as mourning ones personal dead was branded an act of treachery,
for Tamils.
The democratisation project requires the replacement of this violently intolerant ethos
with a different commonsense which places a premium on compassion, justice and
tolerance. The new governments decision to transform May 18th from a day of
triumphalism to a day of commemoration is a necessary step in this direction. As
Minister Karu Jayasuriya pointed out, allowing Tamils to personally mourn their
personal dead is a basic act of civility. But much more needs to be done, in order to
create a new morality which does not venerate physical strength or see violence as
the best and first solution to any problem.
Fact resisters are also myth creators. The abuse of history to exacerbate ethnoreligious divisions became an officially mandated/assisted endeavour during the
Rajapaksa years. Of particular efficacy was a series of popular movies which
disseminated the Host and Guest concept the depiction of Lanka as the chosen land
of Sinhala-Buddhists and all minorities as perennially untrustworthy enemy aliens.
For myths to flourish, facts must be banished. For example, the myth that only
Sinhala-Buddhists fought European invaders is being maintained by completely
ignoring well-documented historical facts. For centuries, Wanni was divided into
several independent principalities, over each of which a Malabar prince of princess,
under the title of Wanniya orWaninchi presided. Soon after the Dutch became masters

of Jaffna, they prevailed on some of the Wanniyas to pay them an annual tribute of
elephants, and when this was withheld, they invaded their territory, which they
ultimately subjected to their government, after making MARIA SEMBATTE, the chief of
the Waninchis, a prisoner, and banishing her to Colombo, where she died. The English
took possession of the country on the expulsion of the Dutch from the Island, and the
Wanniyas and their dependents remained quite till 1803, when PANDARA WANNIYA,
(one of the original Wanniyas) raised a formidable insurrection against the British
government; and being assisted by the Kandyans, they at once overran all the
Northern districts, and had the temerity to penetrate even into the province of Jaffna,
as far as the Elephants Pass. His object was to recover the independence of Wanny,
and to render himself as head of all its principalities; but he failed entirely, for, though
he possessed uncommon bravery, his undisciplined troops did not equal him[v].
Here is proof contrary to the only Sinhala-Buddhists fought European invaders myth.
The story of Pandara Wanniya is particularly important because it not only provides an
example of Tamil resistance to the British but also of Sinhala-Tamil cooperation in
resisting colonial rule. Muslims too often came to the aid of Sinhala rulers in their
struggles against European invaders. Such stories of inter-racial/religious cooperation
against a common enemy should be highlighted in the media and taught in our
schools, because they can become important building blocks of a future Lankan
identity. Unfortunately the history taught in our schools is a Sinhala-Buddhist Only
history, which deliberately ignores any facts contrary to dominant majoritarian
supremacist myths.
Democracy in this country can flourish only if the various ethnic and religious groups
living in it develop a democratic modus vivendi. An important precondition for this is an
end to the habit of looking at everything always via an ethnic/religious lens. The
Wilppattu controversy is an excellent example. Deforestation is not a Muslim crime (or
Tamil or Sinhala crime). It is a human crime. And it is a crime irrespective of the
primordial (or political) identity of the perpetrators. Opposing deforestation or
defending it on the basis of primordial identity is equally unacceptable. According to a
recent news report, 75 acres of Yala Sanctuary have been occupied illegally for sugar
cane cultivation. The ethnic/religious identity of the perpetrators is not mentioned in the
story. And rightly so, because it is as irrelevant as the ethnic/religious identity of
Wilpattu deforesters. A democratic commonsense will be impossible, if we insist on
using the distorting lens of primordial identity to analyse the past, report the present
and shape the future.
The Presidential election of January 8th was not just a contestation between two
political camps but also a contestation of ideas, including between two readings of
Lankan present and two visions of Lankan future. The victory won on January
9th cannot be safeguarded unless the battle of ideas continue, not just against those
who seek to monopolise political and economic power but also against those who
seek to limit rights and freedoms of others on various ruses including religion. There is
nothing much to choose between Bodu Bala Sena and those Islamic fundamentalists
who are threatening the life of social activist and writer Sharmila Seyyid for exercising

her constitutional right to express her opinion[vi]. Fundamental rights are universal;
they cannot be compartmentalised. The Rajapaksas deserve every right guaranteed to
Lankans constitutionally, no less and no more. Ms. Seyyid has the right to express her
opinion about any matter; others have the right to disagree and debate with her but not
to threaten her. The era in which ideas were opposed with censorship, threats,
imprisonment, abduction and death came to an end on January 9th. No one must be
allowed to resurrect it, in any form or under any banner.
[i] http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/scientists-earth-endangered-bynew-strain-of-fact-resistant-humans
[ii] The Manifesto of the Communist Party
[iii]http://www.economynext.com/Legislator_burden_on_Sri_Lanka_citizens_to_climb_to_19_times_t
hat_of_India-3-1724-10.html

[iv] Between Existentialism and Marxism

[v] The Ceylon Gazetteer 1834; italics/capitals in the original
[vi] http://rethinkingislam-sultanshahin.blogspot.com/2015/04/hounded-by-mullahsmuslim-woman-writer.html
Posted by Thavam