Acting out

By Rajpal Abeynayake

(February 21, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) No doubt the debate about whether General Fonseka should or should not have been arrested and subject to a court martialhogs the discourse, and there appears to be a deepening consensus that he is being made a martyr of sorts by his incarceration.

In the meanwhile, though there seems to be a constriction of the democratic space for free expression etc., ordinary people seem to be happy that what happens to journalists and “political activists’’ does not necessarily affect them.

But here is something that should affect ordinary people. Hundreds are vying for some 224 seats in the Sri Lankan parliament, and this year we have perhaps the most colourful crop hoping to get elected.

Out of these, there is the professional politician category, and then those others who are seeking election on the basis of previous popularity. For reasons of brevity, these are the PP candidates.

Into the PP candidate category fall cricketers, athletes, movie stars and now some who have been in the wider arts arena including onetime thespians on stage.

The actors and actresses — each one of them bar almost none - - tout themselves as PP candidates who are special, and have a special mission that makes them stand out from the rest of us mere mortals. They are given to making statements such as “I am doing this for the love of the common people’’’ and “there is a lot that I can do for the people’’, implication being that there is a lot that he or she can accomplish, that no other ordinary mortal could not.

Personally, I consider this a lot of horse-manure which should in the main be seen as such - - and this is conceding the fact that both major parties are exploiting popular actors and actresses and their popularity to attract votes.

First and foremost, though parliament is already peopled by all types of unsavoury if not downright criminal elements, there is still no reason to trivialise parliament by making it a repository for aged or aging actors and/or other retiring performers.

For one thing, the plethora of people vying for seats in parliament due to the reflected glory of having excelled in acting or being in some sport, would serve to keep out others who are more suited to being MPs, because they have potential skills of statesmanship.

If somebody has proven ability to organise and marshal people towards achieving certain goals beneficial to society, those people should be in parliament definitely, and should have preference over actors and other performers, for example.

But we see that vanity has trumped the whole business of statesmanship, despite the fact that politics has been called show- business for the ugly.

Now, we have the ludicrous situation of politics being show business for those who are already in show business; politics as show business in seasonal re-runs.

You can take this from me, I for one would not vote for any actress or actor who says that he or she is god’s gift to mankind because he or she is going to be a different politician and has the interests of the “people’’ at heart.

For starters all politicians say this, and all politicians say they are “special’’ or “different’’ but we find the more they say this, it’s even greater confirmation of the fact that they are the same old charlatans in new guises, all old wine poured into new bottles.

Sickening same

I’d say, if a politician genuinely thinks of himself/herself as being different, he or she should prove that with deeds and not with words, and this of course would take time and effort.

On the contrary, some actor or actress being in politics, and touting herself as a champion redeemer of the masses smacks to me to be more of the sickening same ——- these are after all those who are about to enjoy the ride in politics because they are already popular in some other field.

Worse are the PPs who tinge their pre-campaign pronouncements with words suggestive of sacrifice, such as “I could have been enjoying my money and fame but I am coming into this to serve the people.’’

The rationale seems to be that they already have made their money which means that they are a cut above the rest of the run of the mill politicos who are in it for the baksheesh, and that they therefore should be elected as persons who have done some extraordinary or outstanding service to the nation.

First up, I do not know what extraordinary service some ham actress given to dancing around trees, or even an actress with a reasonable record, has done for the people save for bringing some excitement to the masses to interrupt routine lives of excruciating boredom or ennui.

The other thing is that even some who may not be ham actresses would have been identified with some sort of ham acting at some point in their lives, which is why any honour they should derive should be what the industry offers them - - such as industry awards or peer awards. That these “stars’’ should be further honoured with seats in parliament is not only an insult to the intelligence of the masses who already know that they make up nomination lists because the parties putting them forward want vote magnets —— it is also an insult to many other able and capable men and women who have better skills that can be useful to the country, if they have the opportunity to be elected peoples representatives. The rationale that people will reject them if these folks are not wanted does not cut; what choice do the people have when the major parties make their nominations lists look like the movie credits?

Most of all I would not vote for any actors or other performers simply because I do not want parliament to be a circus that is peopled by B grade, B movie persons —— and others who do amazing athletic stunts on a sporting arena.

To me parliament even though traduced in value in the recent past due to the quality of those in it, is still a place where I expect people of some standing to get in and do a job of work for people who are aching for astute leadership.

Unmentionable places

I do not think that fading thespian talent of yesteryear and retiring sporting talent can stand the test of that kind of astuteness, even though they may stand on their heads and say that they are the most qualified to be in parliament, because they somehow ache in their most unmentionable places for the poor long-suffering masses.

Frankly, I do not see why the long suffering masses should suffer for one more minute the pantomime acts of these pretenders who should, if they have any integrity at all, first declare at least honestly that they are in it because they fancy themselves as vote magnets —— and would like to get into parliament because it satisfies their giant size egos, and god knows what other carvings for further personal aggrandisement.

For the rest of you, I think it’s good to ponder the nominations list and think about doers rather than actors or statesmen who can potentially perform.

If we wanted pretty faces and athletic bodies in our parliament we would have called it the vaudeville-show or the palladium or something like that, and not the House of Parliament.

I mean I can stand an actor or two in the House, or a stray good sportsman who got in due to other personal attributes, but not a whole bimbo eruption in the backbench, or the whole NCC or Bloomfield dressing room sitting there, making the quorum bell sound as if it is an intermission bell in the cinema near you, or the sound of the umpire bringing down bails at tea.