By Vishwamithra –

“Let them think what they liked, but I didn’t mean to drown myself. I meant to swim till I sank — but that’s not the same thing.” ~ Joseph Conrad

The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) survived the demise of Rohana Wijeweera, its charismatic leader. Despite the failure of two explosive uprisings engineered by Wijeweera himself and his murderous politburos, aimed mainly, one against a center-left and the next at a right-wing government respectively, the JVP managed to come to the top of the people’s choice after renaming the political forces that the JVP originally created. The new identity is National people’s Power (NPP). The objective conditions on both of those occasions were not conducive to a revolutionary replacement of the government at the time. Karl Marx‘s sterling analysis of historical evolution of the working class could not have been more accurate.

However, the second or more accurately, the third coming of the revolution assumed totally different characteristics and dimensions. Aragalaya-22 in opposition to the perverse and obscene abuse of power by the Rajapaksas was too much for any sociopolitical circumstance to avert; a crisis of which the birth, its evolution and its own resolution came to a climax with the departure of he then President Gotabhaya Rajapaksa from office. An uprising by the people, either violent of otherwise, can generate the desired results if such an uprising could be sustained for a reasonable amount of time and intense emotional surge.

Nonetheless, after Anura Kumara Dissanayake‘s election to office and his NPP gaining control of the legislature with more than a two thirds majority of MPs, the people’s expectations reached a new high. A system change that was pledged on the election platform appeared more doable and within reach. Yet AKD and the new government had to operate within the confines of given circumstances and a given framework of the Constitution of Sri Lanka. Although the possibility of changing or introducing new amendments to the existing Constitution was very much in the realm of the real, AKD and the government chose to  stay within the existing frame of governance.

In the context of the NPP’s broad ideological allegiance to Marxian-socialist thinking, it would have been totally unthinkable for them to tread along a path of quasi-capitalism in which the notion of  ‘profit’ is the key and critical driving force behind the pursuit of economic goals of the country. Yet, AKD, being a very rational and pragmatic thinker, after assuming the controls of the switch of Executive power, had to adopt fresh methods of satisfying not only his immediate entourage of JVP power-brokers, he had to think and act in consonance with the broad needs of the masses who elected him. Those who elected him did decide to do away with the status quo, yet they did not vote for him to breach their trust that was eminently resident in broad democratic principles and policies.

The trust and faith the masses reposed in democratic principles were not unconditional, yet they did not desire to cross the notorious line of violence and discarding of the old in an absolute sense. In other words, AKD and the NPP were faced with performing a brand new experiment with the sociopolitical, cultural and economic life of the nation. There couldn’t have been a more onerous task than that.

When SWRD Bandaranaike was elected in 1956, his revolution was basically a one of cultural one founded on language and ethnic genre. Secondly, SWRD’s task, for all purposes than one, was decidedly subordinate to AKD’s ventures. Of the two, AKD’s authenticity and commitment to the cause is far superior to that of Bandaranaike. Bandaranaike’s hypocrisy was more than evident on many occasions. Sending his children to overseas schools while preaching local education to the children of the land and being completely unaccountable for many a misdeed and political malpractice by his Cabinet Ministers were a few. The broad masses were no more hoodwinked by his superior oratorical sills and it was evident in the fact that even after his assassination, his ‘common man’ party was defeated at the next general election in March 1960. Only his widow Sirimavo gained power in the election in July, 1960 election, entirely on the sympathy issue and she being portrayed as a graceful woman of the twentieth century-Ceylon.

Nevertheless, coming back to AKD and his NPP, the factors that influence and guide the modern Sri Lanka are much more intricate and complex. The birth of the social media has fundamentally changed the way one sees and feels the events and personalities that govern our existence today. SWRD could be playing billiards at the famous Orient Club while the country was aflame with ethnic fires in ’58 and even thereafter; AKD can hardly afford such luxuries of spare time or leisure indulgences.

That is why AKD has to learn new subjects such as economics and taxes; not what he has learnt in school or University. He has to learn these new subjects, not at a superficial level, but rather profoundly and meaningfully and convey his understanding, his polices on such matters and his methodology of execution and monitoring those policy directives to the country.

AKD stands alone amongst the current crop political leaders in that sphere. Before AKD, only tow first-level leaders could address experts expertly; Dudley Senanayake and JR Jayewardene. However, at the next level, there were no more than three. They were Felix Dias Bandaranaike, Gamini Dissanayake and Lalith Athulathmudali. Al these five men could tackle any subject at any level and convince an audience. All five had the education, discipline and ability to communicate their understanding and policy directives to the people at large and any expert audience who had the patience and desire to listen to them. To be included in that exclusive club, AKD is deservedly privileged and he is capable too.

Yet, all the previous five, Dudley, JR, Felix, Gamin and Lalith may have failed to deliver the ultimate goals for the country’s advancement, both economic and sociocultural. But in that narrow scope of terrain of being able to study a subject and convince an audience or an electorate, they could be classified with AKD. One might ask why is R Premadasa omitted from this group. Yes, R Premadasa himself was a self-made, self-educated man with enormous potential to have been a great leader. But in the writer’s view, Premadasa’s motivation was much too narrow and too self-centered than the others I mentioned. Premadasa’s indulgence beyond the realm of reasonableness and compassion made him a very cruel and nasty leader. Despite the massive media operation he ran around himself,  he remained the only leader after whose assassination the very people whom he was supposed to have helped came to the street and celebrated his death with fire-crackers baila-dance. No person deserves such nasty reaction from his or her own followers.

AKD’s speech which is under review today is one of extraordinary clarity and purpose. His analysis of the issue, its potential resolution and his commitment to see an end to this nagging problem of corruption at all levels of governance is remarkable. The very statistics he used to drive home his own arguments for greater devotion to an incorrupt society went beyond all expectations. It looked like a professor teaching to a classroom of brilliant yet undecided students. Will the professor succeed, not in convincing his students and the greater audience at large, the masses, but fundamentally converting the unconverted, reforming the unwilling and both metaphorically and in literally to be practitioners of an incorrupt and incorruptible society? That, of course, is an impossibility. But we must decide to tread that path. The commitment of our political leaders and their very sociopolitical postures do matter.

With all his candour and apparent authenticity and empathy, AKD has failed to allow the masses to identify the government and its policies independent of AKD. For them the government and its policies tend to start and end with AKD. That, of course, is a dangerous formula for abject failure. The NPP and its government must be able to sustain itself beyond AKD. This same problem occurred with Premadasa in power. His MO was more sinister and cynical of the decency of democratic way of ruling. Has AKD succeeded in portraying himself and his government beyond the superficial, mundane and un-nuanced operations of statecraft?

Asking the people to bear the brunt of taxes and convince them that their contribution to the economy goes beyond mere taxes and law-abiding is an unforgiving demand. Taking them as equal partners of the running of the machinery without making it look suspicious with ‘people’s committees’ (Janatha Committee) of the Sirimavo-NM era is a hard undertaking.

And on the most momentous issue at the moment in Sri Lanka goes beyond just economic inequality. It is racial and ethnic discrimination and its defacing, vandalistic and malicious behavior in public and in private. What has been lingering in the annals of our short history since Independence, ever since 1947’s first parliamentary elections, all our Sinhalese leaders have deliberately followed policies of discrimination and ethnic malpractice. The plight of the Northern brethren is as bad and as miserable as it was with the majority Sinhalese rural masses. Yet the proverbial ‘ball’ has always been in the Sinhalese’s court. It was they who wielded power and it was they who declared policies and principles of governance. And it was their policies that lent themselves to the creation of tension and mistrust and lack of faith in the system as a whole.

Can AKD lend the same energy and commitment to the resolution of this deep and soul-destroying issue? Can it be solved once and for all, at least that would last a couple of centuries so that there is no mistrust, lack of faith nor air of suspicion between the two communities living within the same island and under same sky? AKD has not yet reached that brutal sphere  where his words would not carry any meaningful weight. Can he convince the majority Sinhalese to compromise on the issue of ethnic equality and ethnic harmony. Not just words and superficial accords and meaningless agreements or memoranda of understanding (MOUs); policies and their enactments which will change century-old attitudes and mutually disadvantageous and mutually destructive conduct.

*The writer can be reached at vishwamithra1984@gmail.com