Growing scepticism greets political leaders
The promised transformation of the political landscape into one that is orderly, fair and open remains a wilderness with only patches of change made in the last three years or so. The original enthusiasm for reform has faded as the coalition partners concentrate more on safeguarding their own territory in the face of growing castigation by even those who once supported them.
One does not need to rewind history too far. It would be sufficient to go back to what was promised during the presidential and parliamentary election campaigns and what has been achieved since then, to understand the feeling of a great letdown and public frustration.
There are those who believe that the highly respected Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera, the beacon round which those who desired a change in our political culture rallied to oust the incumbent government, passed away prematurely, because he was increasingly disillusioned with the direction in which the yahapalanaya administration was heading.
He passed away only a few months after the moral leadership he provided to achieve clean and responsible government was ebbing away, thanks to those who were voted in by a public anxiously waiting for the new dawn.
It was to be an era of clean politics where moral governance would prevail. During the election campaigns the numerous organisations and civil society bodies that came together demanding a clean break with the past and a new moral code for the rulers to abide by, lent their active support to the potential leaders.
Those seeking to lead the country promised to eschew nepotism, family clannishness and cronyism. Instead the people were promised accountability, meritocracy and transparency. In short the public looked forward to a reform programme based on democracy and good governance.
Two and a half years later the Sri Lankan public and the world outside can see how all this has panned out with government leaders making a plea for more time. That would drag on until the time runs out for them.
Late last week a picture appeared in a website of President Sirisena at the United Nations in New York where he was to address the annual General Assembly sessions.
There is nothing wrong with that. But what the picture shows is the entire Sirisena family including son Daham who a couple of years ago occupied a seat meant for an official Sri Lanka delegate in the assembly hall and was seen being introduced to world leaders.
Were the photographs taken for the family album or for daughter Chathurika’s next book, which according to one website, was actually authored by one of her colleagues. One cannot vouch for the veracity of that claim.
For a leader who promised clean governance and rejected clannishness, it seems that the UNGA is turning into a family junket. The question before the people, many of whom are struggling to pay their domestic bills as the government keeps playing around with taxes and the prices of essentials like gas, who is paying for this holiday at the Big Apple? It is, after all, a holiday for the family which has no official duties, except for President Sirisena. Does it come out of public funds, be it the President’s Fund or from the Foreign Ministry allocation like in the past?
That is not all. The UNP which donned itself in the garb of honesty, transparency and political purity found itself involved in the Treasury bond fiasco so shortly after a new President was installed and the party entered the government.
Judging by what is going on in the inquiry into the bond issue it was not just one auction in February 2015 but another the next year which has attracted official attention. And who nominated Mahendran to the position of Central Bank Governor? It is said to be the leader of the UNP Ranil Wickremesinghe who has also filled other posts in the cabinet and the state apparatus with cronies and school mates apparently casting aside the meritocracy he said would serve as the criterion for selection.
Transparency and accountability, words which were bandied about in order to attract voters to its agenda for clean government, have all but disappeared from the lexicon of the UNP and its coalition partner.
It took a deputy minister of the UNP Harsha de Silva to lament the other day about corruption in Sri Lanka. Good for him. Even belatedly he has come round to accept what many knew all along.
Admittedly it is not only in Sri Lanka that an expectant public has been sold down the river by a “unity government” which is jettisoning pledges held out to the voters.
In neighbouring Southeast Asia another Theravada Buddhist country with which we have had close historical ties going back hundreds of years, Burma or Myanmar as it is now called, is abandoning its Buddhist principles of ahimsa as its leaders allow ethnic politics to supersede moral commitments.
For two decades or more Oxford educated Aung San Suu Kyi, the daughter of Aung San the father of modern Burma, was the darling of the western world. When she was placed under house arrest by Burma’s military junta, Suu Kyi who had married a Britisher and had also served in the UN system, naturally won the hearts of western nations and human rights activists who carried on a sustained campaign on her behalf.
After 15 years when her house arrest was lifted and she was allowed to return to politics, the National League for Democracy (NLD) she led scored a resounding victory at the November 2015 election capturing 86% of the seats.
Some observers believe that the military leadership that then ruled Myanmar as the country was later called, relaxed its stranglehold on the country because sanctions and the international isolation of the country was beginning to tell.
That was only partially true. Myanmar was a member of ASEAN and Myanmar’s turn to chair ASEAN was due in 2014. But even within ASEAN there were rumblings and views that handing over the chair to Myanmar would bring disrepute to the organisation.
I was working in Bangkok then and the criticisms of Myanmar were gathering momentum as the time approached for Myanmar to take over the leadership. Some ASEAN members were unhappy and called for commitments from Myanmar that it would lift restrictions and abide by human rights norms.
It was in these circumstances that the military rulers, anxious to chair ASEAN for one year, started a process of relaxation at home so that it could break out of its international isolation. Among the beneficiaries was Aung San Suu Kyi who won the elections on a platform that promised constitutional change, ethnic reconciliation and peace, and democratic freedoms.
Since that political victory she has been the de facto leader of Myanmar as State Counsellor, a position approximating to that of a prime minister.
But now the world sees her in a different light. The military action against the Rohingya minority in the country’s north, the burning of their villages and the killing of individuals has caused a mass exodus into neighbouring Bangladesh where a humanitarian crisis is in the making with over 400,000 Rohingyas of the one million in Myanmar, placing impossible burdens on Bangladesh.
Although this has been happening since late August Suu Kyi’s silence over the plight of the Rohingyas has drawn international fire, especially from the very human rights groups that once held her in high esteem as a great leader who would bring peace, stability and reconciliation to Myanmar as she promised to do in pre-election campaigns.
Her silence until a couple of days ago brings back memories of Sri Lanka’s ‘Black July’ in 1983. While houses and shops of Tamils were set on fire and black smoke was billowing into the skies in many areas of Colombo and its suburbs, President Junius Jayewardene kept silent. So did his government until four days later a minister went on television appealing for calm. By that time the foul deeds had already been done.
Suu Kyi’s silence is largely because she is not entirely in control of the country. To criticise the army which was mainly responsible for burning and killing would place her in jeopardy not being able to achieve constitutional change and ethnic reconciliation with military support. The military leaders control home affairs, defence and border affairs. Suu Kyi cannot meddle in those affairs except at her own peril.
Moreover 25% of the seats in parliament are controlled by the armed forces.
But what valid reason did ‘JR’ and his government have to maintain a “deafening silence” as Lalith Athulathmudali might have said? Like Nero long before him, Junius was fiddling while Colombo and its environs burnt and people died. Unlike Suu Kyi today, he had all the power then.
The lesson is that between appearance and reality falls a shadow. It is difficult - and even dangerous - to judge politicians by what they say especially the pledges they make prior to elections and the later reality.
Promises of accountability and transparency are ephemeral, but good enough to hoodwink people to vote for them. When people discover that the ‘appearance’ or the image that politicians present to the public is often nothing more than a masquerade, it is too late. The mask of respectability, of genuineness disappears before long. The reality of their character lies exposed.
As Duncan says in Shakespeare’s Macbeth “There’s no art to find the mind’s construction in the face”.