Fake Diogenes’ On The Move

By Gamini Weerakoon

(March 07, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) History has the story of Greek philosopher Diogenes the Cynic, walking around town in broad daylight with a lantern in hand in search of an honest person.

Speeches of some pro Rajapaksa politicians and their votaries in the Rajapaksa press — state owned and otherwise — indicate that some latter day Diogenes’ have emerged and are also engaged in a similar quest of finding ‘clean and honest politicians’ supposedly to be elected to parliament at the April elections. This was evident in last week’s press reports and comments. There will no doubt be strong objections made by classics scholars when the legendary Diogenes is compared with present day seekers of honest men.

Diogenes was no bootlicker. It is said that when Alexander the Great introduced himself to Diogenes as: ‘I am Alexander the Great,’ Diogenes had replied I am Diogenes the Dog (Dog in Greek meaning, cynic). Alexander the philosopher king had then said: ‘If I was not Alexander, I would like to be Diogenes’. Of course kings and philosophers have changed with the times.

Unnamed scoundrels

A striking feature about this talent quest now on is that today’s bad eggs have not been identified. And this cry for clean and honest legislators has come after candidates have been selected! Thus, the logic behind this attempt to cleanse the future legislature is difficult to comprehend unless of course by pretending to search for honest men they are attempting to hide their sins.

And no ‘bad eggs’ have been singled out. Perhaps laws on libel and election laws would have acted as deterrents.

Only two opposition politicians have been selected for bashing by the government hit-men: Gen. Sarath Fonseka and Ranil Wickremesinghe. Fonseka may have lost the presidential election but his achievement in the victory over terrorism is undeniable. That is perhaps why he was able to muster four million votes in 40 days of campaigning and he is still considered a holy terror in the Rajapaksa camp.

Ranil Wickremesinghe despite his many defeats as leader of the UNP, is the one of three politicians who have been successfully returned to parliament with thumping majorities in all elections held after 1977. The other two are UNP’s Sarath Rajakaruna from the Gampaha District and TNA’s R. Sampanthan from Trincomalee.

If modern day Diogenes’ want to chose ‘honest, clean political leaders, they need not look afar.

Same arrack in the same bottle

Going through the nominations made by the UPFA it does appear that the voters are to be presented with the same old arrack — or rather the same old kassaaya — in the same old bottles. Will we see any changes if the UPFA wins as they shout from roof tops today?

Will it be Rajapaksa, Rajapaksa, Rajapaksa & Co as before and today? Even the middle order batsmen appear to be more or less the same.

In Colombo we have those veterans A.H.M. Fowzie, Jeevan Kumaratunga, Gamini Lokuge, Champika Ranawaka, Bandula Gunawardena, Rohitha Bogollagama and two new notable additions Thilanga Sumathipala and Duminda de Silva. These two new comers certainly need no introduction about the kind of politics they have pursued while the old stagers in our opinion have little to show to justify their return other than some grandiose claims in illegal posters on streets, some claiming on how they saved the nation! No comment is also needed on UPFA nominees from the outskirts like Mervyn Silva.
Will the glory of victory last?

It does appear that the successes in the eight provincial council elections and the January presidential election were solely due to the victory against terrorism which of course Gen. Sarath Fonseka still claims is his victory and that of his soldiers. What outstanding claims can individual ministers make as their contributions in the past four years? And there were well over one hundred ministers in the Rajapaksa cabinet.

A reason for Rajapaksa government’s ministers’ inability to show a good end-of-term report card could be because the President and his brothers sat for most of the subjects on behalf of the other cabinet colleagues! It has been said that the President alone accounted for a near 75 per cent of the budget allocation for his ministries. This, also perhaps explains why President Rajapaksa claimed that his entire mandate — Mahinda Chinthanaya-1 had been fulfilled.

No change?

The government and its supporters also seem averse to a call for ‘change’. Gen. Fonseka’s call for ‘change’ infuriated all Rajapaksa fans because Fonseka’s obvious query was: Are you going to have this same set of jokers around?

If we are to go by the nomination lists which have undergone little change since last parliamentary elections, the UPFA appears to be quite cocky about winning with the same team and are crowing of a two third majority victory. A two third majority can come only if the glory and sacrifices made in the battlefield by the soldiers can still be transferred to ministerial representatives who with their kith and kin are still lapping it up in the luxury of ministerial comforts. A change in the status quo can indeed be disastrous to them.

Those who do not believe in ‘change’ are indeed living in fools’ paradise. ‘Change’ is not an invention of Barack Obama at the last American presidential election campaign. The Buddha spoke of ‘aniccha’ — impermanence of all living beings while Greek philosophers of that time like Heraclitus too spoke of change — ‘You can’t step into the same river twice’; ‘the same sun does not rise each day’. Biological evolution of Darwin and political evolution too cannot be wished away however joyous parasitic life at state expense may be.

Change may or may not come on April 8. A sincere and genuine search for ‘honest and clean politicians’ and electing them to parliament may help in reducing the adverse impact of change but pretence for a search for such men as a smokescreen for one’s corruption can only be of short duration.