Cacophony of lies from purveyors of political vendetta

By Lucian Rajakarunanayake

(February 06, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) “January 26 was an historic day for Sri Lanka. It was the first presidential election for more than 25 years that was unaffected by the terrorism and intimidation of the LTTE. The overwhelming majority of Sri Lankans who exercised their democratic right last Tuesday voted for an end to division, an end to terrorism and for a new beginning of peace and prosperity. I am proud that the election was well fought, but peaceful on voting day. All who wished to participate, could.” That is how President Mahinda Rajapaksa described the Presidential Election that brought him a historic and resounding victory, in an Opinion Column in the Wall Street Journal; of February 3, 2010.

It is fitting that the WSJ published this on the eve of Sri Lanka’s 62nd anniversary of Independence, at a time when there was a cacophony of voices within Sri Lanka and wholly expected noises from the pro-LTTE Tamil expatriates in the West, challenging the very legality of the election, based on a range of unsubstantiated charges, in the same manner that vile rumour was made the stuff of politics of Fonseka & Co in the Presidential Poll.

President Rajapaksa added: that this victory is merely the start for Sri Lanka. “After removing terrorism from our country, I sought a full mandate from my people. Now I shall seek to work to build our nation for all of them; to make the nation stronger and more able to succeed in today’s globalized world,” he said.

Commenting on critics of his policies that saw the final rout of the LTTE militarily, he states: “I know that there are some people and policy makers abroad who have criticized what we did to bring an end to violence and terrorism. They said our measures threatened the people and undermined democracy. This election has shown that the reality is very different. The people of Sri Lanka, democratically and very clearly, have shown that they are free of threats, fear and terrorism, and that they want to embrace the future that could only be achieved through the decisive measures taken last year.”

He also made an important request to the international community, that is being courted by all those opposed to him, his Government and Sri Lanka to achieve their aim of a regime change here: “I call on the international community to support us as we build a peaceful and successful Sri Lanka, united in our resolve to achieve the progress denied for decades. My Government will work hard for all its people. Our economy will grow and the highest standards of rights will be upheld. I can say with confidence that Sri Lanka is ready for the new decade.”
Candid Commissioner

It is also more than propitious that the WSJ ran the President’s Op-Ed on the same day that the Sri Lankan and foreign media gave wide publicity to the defence of the conduct of the Presidential Election by the Elections Commissioner himself, who bared the deliberately misleading propaganda being pushed by the defeated Swan Lake Brigade, better known now as the Katakatha or Rumour Brigade. The Commissioner gave the lie to all claims of computer manipulation in producing a result that gave such a large and convincing majority to President Rajapaksa for his re-election, and also exposed how those who spread these rumours do not bother to have even a modicum of truth in what they state. The allegations are infantile in nature, and causes grave disrespect to the intelligence of the voters of Sri Lanka.

The Elections Commissioner echoed the thoughts of most Sri Lankans, both among the winners and losers, as to why those who have to make such serious charges of vote manipulation and the house arrest of the Commissioner himself, do not bother to go to the Supreme Court with their allegations, and allow the apex court of this land to decide on the veracity of their charges. What we see instead is a naive attempt to make judicial officers of learned and respected Buddhist prelates, in moves meant to further mislead the public on the seriousness of the charges being made.

Sri Lanka has been known for both violence and corruption in elections. But, the recent election has by far been the least violent and, due to the various measures taken by the Elections Commissioner’s Office with the experience they have gathered in previous polls, was also the least corrupt with regard to actual voting and counting. There were no instances of stuffing ballot boxes, and we can now see that with the insistence of ID cards for voting the instances of impersonation are rapidly on the decline. Commissioner Dayananda Dissanayake being candid in his observations did not mince his words in comments he made about the conduct of the sections of the media in not providing fair coverage to the main candidates. He was bold enough to criticize the Government for turning a blind eye to directions given both by him and the Supreme Court on this matter.
Striking silence

It is interesting that at the meeting that he had with heads and editors of the media - both State and private - at Temple Trees on January 28, fresh after his re-election, President Mahinda Rajapaksa also echoed some of these same sentiments. Interrupting one head of State media who began to comment on the Commissioner of Elections, the President said that he had the highest regard for both the office and person of the Commissioner of Elections, who was carrying out a very responsible and difficult task, and it was important for all to respect him and pay due importance to any and all directions given by him in the course of an election.

It is noteworthy that this observation by the President did not seem to strike as important to those from both branches of the media that were present that day. It is a matter which draws attention to the need for a new look at the entire gamut of media practice during elections in the country, instead of just pointing accusatory fingers at one branch or the other, when an election is on, and then remaining silent until the next round of polls related media manipulation gets going.

If the role of the media - be it State or private, is one area of concern during an election, we now have another area of serious concern in the post election phase, which compelled the Elections Commissioner to come out in public to defend the verdict of the people and the victory of democracy. It is the attempts by a section of political groups aided and abetted by some sections of so-called civil society to overturn the will of the people, for ends and purposes that must suit the losers rejected by the people, and no doubt their backers outside the country.
Warnings of legitimacy

In a January 30 statement by the Centre for Policy Alternatives titled “Protecting Democracy Post-Election: An end to political violence and revenge”, the CPA not unexpectedly cites what it claims to be a series of acts of revenge and vilification of the main defeated candidate.

While the CPA statement’s comments on the media and journalists deserve consideration, its complete disregard or amnesia of what and how Sarath Fonseka had threatened his main rival, his family members and supporters, as well as key public servants who were carrying out their stipulated duties, was indeed strange from an organization so much concerned about post-election violence and revenge. What we had was an election in which revenge was the very stock in trade of the Fonseka camp, led by Fonseka himself, openly boasting of his capability to block the four or five entrances and exits to and from Colombo with a few battalions, and how he would close down the International Airport to stop the corrupt family members from fleeing, as well as how he would fill the Bogambara Prison with his rivals.

To expect his opponents who won the poll not to take note of such warnings, especially by a man who had considerable influence in the Armed Forces, and plead for magnanimity instead, can only be called frivolous if not deliberately cunning. If the people had not rejected Fonseka so decisively at the polls, we could well have seen a wholly different scenario of post-election violence and revenge. Also, no one, not even the CPA, can explain why Fonseka was the only candidate in the history of Sri Lankan polls to hire whole floors in leading hotels and move his political cum military corps to them soon after the voting was closed, in an election where he did not even have a vote.

But the most chilling note in the CPA statement is the warning about the “legitimacy” of President Rajapaksa’s administration. This is how the paragraph reads: “It is in the President’s interest, for the legitimacy of his administration as well as our post-war future, to provide the leadership essential to ensuring that democracy is protected, the Constitution and the Rule of Law is respected, fundamental human rights are upheld, and that the temptations of political persecution and victimization are firmly resisted.”

We must not forget that we live in the post- Iran scenario, when a president re-elected with a huge majority has had to face mounting protests, which are so avidly reported and delightfully encouraged by the western media. The warnings by organizations such as the CPA, and its polls monitors, who have little regard for those who maintain that this was by and large a free, fair and very peaceful election, and move into the area of revenge and post-election violence to warn of the legitimacy of the re-elected President’s administration, is far too close to the possibility of making the streets of Colombo seem like those of Teheran, and also the various other rose or orange “revolutions” that have taken place with direct US and Western influence in parts of Eastern Europe.

Fonseka may be defeated, but the forces that propped him up and gave him such a salvo of support as to fool him too into a belief in victory, and were crying foul from the beginning, are still around, mainly under the cloak of civil society. It is necessary to take note of such dangers to democracy, which could be far worse than the post-election violence and revenge complained of, which if they are only as described with no roots in a revengeful campaign, are admittedly not in the best interests of democracy.