by Nalin de Silva

Has there been any government free from blame for corruption, bribery, undemocratic in the sense defined in the text books, partiality towards favourites including relatives, suppression of the press etc. in this country? What can be observed is that the so-called good governance has deteriorated over the years and if by some chance (in a dream world) Maithripala Sirisena became the President we would have a government worse than the present with respect to good governance. Already Maithripala Sirisena has said that when he became the President he would close down the Katunayake Airport and would allow only his people to leave the country. He has said that the others, implying his opponents, would be punished after midnight of Jan. 08.

He is dreaming of obtaining fifty percent of the votes and taking the law into his hands even before being sworn in as President. He has also said that he would take to streets and lead a mass uprising (keralla) on Jan. 08. The admirers of good governance in the so-called civil society, the paid servants of western governmental organisations (so-called Nongovernmental organisations), some academics who think that they have big brains in comparison with the rest of us who have only little brains and who are nivatayas and thakkadiyas, the left out leftists, various fora, the JHU (The JHU leaders were never nationalists and we have criticized them since nineties; once they said that the Jathiya meaning Sinhala nation is a dead body (mala kandak) that cannot be “marketed”. These leaders have tried to come to power on the shoulders of people such as Tilak Karunaratne, S L Gunasekera, Ven. Ellawala Medhananda etc., and today they think that they can come to power using Maithripala Sirisena. They are silent of the statements of Maithripala Sirisena. Either they know that Sirisena is an empty container (his tin ekak) whose utterances should not be taken seriously or they are not serious about good governance.

It is unlikely that all the above pundits and “civilized people” consider their common candidate of a non common opposition as a his tin ekak, and we have to come to the conclusion that these people are not serious about good governance. Since the very first UNP government in 1947 there has been corruption and there has been no good governance. It is not difficult to give a list of names of people who abused power even while in the opposition. The UNP was referred to as the Unge Nedeyange Pakshaya (Party of their relatives) and in the first SLFP-led government there were ministers who were found guilty by the bribery commission. There was criticism of Felix R Dias Bandaranaike, for being a “pocket dictator” and J R Jayewardene and R Premadasa are not remembered as exemplary democrats.

The executive presidency is another bogey. What we are debating is whether executive presidency as found in US and France is better or worse than the cabinet system with a Prime Minister as they have in England. The recent crossovers shows that MPs can be manipulated and they are no better than pawns on the chess board. The Parliament has been devalued (if it had any value previously) and it is clear to the “non civil society people” the vote of the people in case of Parliamentary elections has no value at all with the manipulators both foreign and local moving the pieces on the chess board.

However, it does not mean that the executive presidency is safe from the manipulators and others who apply pressure and it depends on the person who is elected as the executive President to insulate himself from manipulators and pressure groups. During the times of J R Jayewardene, R Premadasa, Chandrika Kumaratunga, the Gandhi family and westerners applied pressure on “war and peace” and except for the pundits and the civil society people others saw how the Presidents of Sri Lanka succumbed to the pressure.

Thus, when it comes to manipulation and applying pressure there is no difference between the Parliament and the Executive Presidency before Mahinda Rajapaksa, and the vote of the people, which is supposed to be sacred, has no value. What we should have debated was the creation of a system that cannot be manipulated by the external agencies based on Sinhala tradition, where the so called wish of the people cannot be changed. Two hundred years ago in 1815 when the English signed a pact with the Sinhalas, that goes erroneously by the name given by the English as the Kandyan Convention, they had to have two clauses whereby the English undertook to rule the country according to the Sinhala way and to protect Buddhagama and Devagama, meaning nothing but Sinhala Bududahama with its plethora of gods. This Bududahama may not be to the liking of puritan Theravadins but that is the way Bududahama has existed in the country for more than two thousand five hundred years. The English being gentlemen abrogated the pact unilaterally and it should be the intention of the Sinhala people to make sure that the country is governed according to Sinhala customs again commencing at least from 2015.

So far there is no talk along those lines and we are left with executive presidency with a parliament of 225 MPs, and until we evolve our own system we have to manage with the present system by electing a suitable President who can stand up to pressure and MPs who cannot be manipulated. If foreigners and their agents can reduce to nothing the will of the people then there is no sovereignty of the people and the “civil society people” should have addressed their minds to this aspect before they talk of good governance and so called democracy, which remain only as concepts even in the western world that are supposed to be democratic countries.

We have to approach the Presidential elections on Jan. 08 in the above context. What we have to think of is neither good governance nor democracy, which will deteriorate if the so-called common candidate is elected but the sovereignty of the country and its history. The “civil society people” are not concerned with any of these, and in fact they are against them. The problem of this country ever since the Portuguese arrived as conquerors is giving the rightful place for the Sinhala Buddhist culture with its political structures and economic models.

The defeat of the LTTE has made the west and the Global Tamil Forum to defeat Mahinda Rajapaksa, who stood up to western pressure, at the Presidential elections and send him to gallows. This has reinforced the anti-Sinhala attitude of some belonging to minority communities and they are all out to undermine the Sinhala Buddhist culture. The Sinhala majority has during the last five hundred years have protected the Muslims, the Catholics and Hindus and during the history of more than two thousand five years of history have never suppressed the rights of the others who lived as migrants and not as permanent citizens of the country.

The “civil society people” use the good governance and democracy as Trojan horses to destroy Sinhalathva in the country and to make nidahasa a non issue at the elections. We should not be dictated or even guided by the “civil society people” and nidahasa and protection of Sinhalathva should be the main issues at the Presidential elections. It is true that Mahinda Rajapaksa, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa and the Ranaviruvas (armed forces, police and civil defence) have defeated terrorism but there are LTTE groups overseas, the “civil society people”, the TNA and other political parties that continue to adhere to separatist policies. The thirteenth amendment is more important to people than the eighteenth amendment unlike in the case of the “civil society” and it is the thirteenth amendment that has to be curtailed electing a strong President who can stand up to international pressure. So-called good governance and democracy and the executive presidency should not be the issues to be discussed but what should be debated are moves to take Mahinda Rajapaksa to the international tribunal, the thirteenth amendment, protection of the country, separatism, human rights of the Ranaviruvas etc.