By Vishwamithra –

“Chaos was the law of nature; Order was the dream of man.” ~ Henry Adams

One must be careful when one talks about toppling a regime, especially in a democracy. In a democracy, only the people, the voters, can topple an incumbent government. And it is by exercising their fundamental right of vote at the polls, held in every four or five years as the case may be. There has been only one occasion on which an existing government had collapsed before its time and that was in 1964 when the then Sirimavo Bandaranaike-led government was defeated at a no-confidence motion brought against it by the then Opposition led by the United National Party (UNP). However much a government was unpopular, never before or never since has a government fallen before the prescribed time. It is a marvelous testimony to the deep rooted faith that our people have in the democratic structure of political administration of the country.

Therefore, when I begin talking about toppling the current Rajapaksa regime, my arguments, either for or against, would invariably be within that framework of accepted norm of changing the government, from one political party to another, inside the framework of democracy. Venturing outside that frame of democracy is essentially traitorous and could be prosecuted as a treasonous crime. Yet when the objective conditions in the country become exhaustively burdensome to the majority of the people, a well-organized minority group of activists resorting to paramilitary means to ‘topple’ a regime could be considered philosophically justifiable but in the ultimate analysis, such methods and means of changing regimes are self-defeating. In fact, it is against such self-defeating mechanisms the majority of our people have time and time again responded so calmly, once in 1971 and later in 1987-1989 periods.

In such a confusing context, how can the majority of our people who are being subjected to untold socio-political misery and cruel economic hardships express their displeasure and actively take part in a regime-changing process? That is the sixty four million dollar question.

On top of the harsh objective conditions, our voters are also confronted with a docile and unorganized Opposition, which on the other hand and in every sense of the word, could be called legitimate and legal. That Opposition lacks focus; it suffers from a severe dearth of charismatic leadership; it has lost the fundamental factor that often becomes the decisive determinant- planning and execution. Moreover, this tragic status of the country’s Opposition has contributed to the emergence of individuals and sporadic movements which are basically a byproduct of such a chaotic political environment. Such confusion and chaos in turn gives rise to further strengthening of the government’s oppressive machinery and methods. The Rajapaksas welcome this chaos; they welcome this status quo and they most certainly embrace this political indeterminate state.

Nevertheless, recognition of a leader or a group of leaders amongst this political barrenness is a hard process, even for a well-versed political strategist. Yet, we find in today’s political landscape only two men who may not have necessarily the inner strength and character, but palpable support of some people (I dread to use the word masses as both these leaders do not qualify to be called leaders of the masses). They are Anura Kumara Dissanayake, the leader of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and Sajit Premadasa, the leader of the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB).

In character, in mastery of oratorical skills, in authenticity and humility AKD is relatively way ahead of Sajit Premadasa. AKD’s focus has not faltered; his characteristic competence in gathering facts and figures on any subject that he is speaking about has not suffered any setbacks, at least not yet. But AKD’s woeful disadvantage is the rotten baggage he carries on his youthful shoulders- Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna’s past and its outdated economic philosophy. The youth of today might be attracted to the JVP’s leader’s marginal charisma, but their commitment would be basically dependent upon AKD’s oratory and apparent steadfastness in the political stance and unwavering consistency in his pursuit of a political goal. Those followers would not remember the failed revolution of the seventies and macabre death-dancing of the ’87-’89 era.

Focus on the future and discarding a malignant past is a must for any follower of any political leader. But that elementary principle must not be limited to the mere followers only. It must be applicable to the leaders too. However, AKD’s initial relative success as a clever political strategist is evident in the fact that, in order to galvanize people behind his thinking, he resorts to a basic essential in political activism- driving his opponents crazy. AKD has apparently identified this fundamental element of political strategy. Driving his opponent, the Rajapaksa clan, to the threshold of patience and even beyond that threshold, where a counter-revolution by the State becomes imminent. This is an oft-used tactic by most successful political leaders. J R Jayewardene in the mid-seventies against Sirimavo Bandaranaike and Felix Dias and Gamini Dissanayake and Lalith Athulathmudali against R Premadasa in the early nineties remains classic examples of this political tactical process.

Where AKD becomes successful, Sajith Premadasa fails miserably. Sajith’s lack of consistency and faltering oratorical competence are further signs of mediocrity. As a matter of fact, when the two protagonists, AKD and Sajith, are compared, one against the other, AKD scores an absolute win over Sajith. But, when it comes to the strength of their respective political parties, JVP is way behind the SJB, at least as per the Presidential Election results in 2019. It is true that almost two million UNP voters did not go to the polls in the Parliamentary elections that followed the Presidential Elections, Sajith secured 5,564,239 or 42% of the total poll while AKD just managed, as I remarked in my previous column, a mere 418,553 or 3.2% of the total poll.

It is entirely possible that if the Presidential Elections are held today, AKD will score much more than 3.2%, but securing a majority in a three-cornered fight, that is, one vote more than 50%, is an impossibility. In the same vein, it is impossible for Sajith to secure majority of one more than 50%, given the current conditions of his declining popularity and the growing public perception that he is not totally committed to hurling attack after attack on the Rajapaksas.

In other words, Sri Lankan voters of today are being entrenched in an unenviable position of a political dilemma. That dilemma is entangled in an ever-tightening web of indecision after indecision of SJB or JVP. This Hamlet-style ‘to be or not to be’ indecision-mentality is testing the political stamina of our educated pundits more than the average voter. The usual black vs. white dual could lead the average voter to the polls without any vacillation or hesitancy, yet the resultant effects of the weighty verdict so made at the polls could produce drastically inopportune days and months to come.

In the writer’s view, there is only one path open for both these leaders, AKD and Sajith. It is too early to announce as to who should be the candidate of a common platform and if and when such a platform is constructed. It is even too early for a common program and policy direction for such an elemental process. Yet it is not too early to begin a dialogue to strategize as to how to make the current regime even more unpopular than it is today. That is not asking much from our political leaders. Saner and more sober minds should address this issue asap and both the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna and Samagi Jan Balavegaya have within themselves clever and crafty political minds to understand this fundamental need and execute a seemingly workable strategy.

However, constant and consistent focus on driving the Rajapaksas crazy and near-madness, especially President Gotabaya who has time and again exhibited a manifest vulnerability to criticism, needs to continue from all quarters of these two parties. In this monumental struggle to keep Sri Lanka safe and its economy healthy, failure or hesitancy is not an option. Gotabaya Rajapaksa has betrayed the very principles of decency and justice. Appointments of Duminda de Silva, a convicted killer, as Chairman of the National Housing Authority and Galagoda Atthe Gnanasara, another convicted criminal in saffron robes as the Head of One Country One Law, a legal reform task force, are a brutal attack on the conscience of a nation.

These two appointments were made on top of some other lucrative jobs being offered to some ‘half-past-two-thirty charlatans, those who were supposed to have worked for Gotabaya’s victory at the elections. To make matters worse, Gotabaya went on record saying that the only qualification he considered in some of these State-appointments was whether he or she who was bestowed with these enormously responsible jobs was working for his victory at the elections. Decorum is out of the window; decency has suffered irreversible repercussions and dignity has become a thing of the past.

But our leaders in the Opposition must realize and they must do that fast that whatever that is left of Sri Lanka’s pride needs to be restored at whatever cost. If they fail to accomplish that simple but enormously significant task, they would be as brazen, if not more, as the ones who rule today.

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