By H. L. D. Mahindapala –

Not surprisingly, the justification for the two illegal acts of (1) removing and appointing the Chief Justices and (2) removing and appointing the Prime Ministers with two strokes of President Maithripala Sirisena’s pen came from Prof. Carlo Fonseka who argued that these two acts represent “the will of the people”. For the sake of argument let us concede his logic which, of course, goes against the letter and the spirit of the Yahapalanaya (good governance) promised to the people. But, contrary to his justification, nothing in the election manifesto of Yahapalanaya promised to enforce illegal acts. On the contrary, it promised to be the pure opposite of the illegalities and corruption of the Mahinda Rajapakse regime. The English translation done by Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha went further and promised the creation of an “ideal state”.

Incidentally, Prof. Wijesinha was also the first to quit “the ideal state” when he discovered that it was going in the opposite direction promised in the manifesto he translated. When he took his concerns to Prime Minister Wickremesinghe, his first cousin, he was told to read R. A. Butler’s The Art of the Possible which is typical of Wickremesinghe’s self-serving, cynical politics. In dismissing Prof. Wijesinha he revealed his innate character. It was a brazen expression of the fact that the principles of “the ideal state” outlined in the Yahapalana manifesto concern him less than his urgent need to exploit the available state resources to consolidate his grip on power. In his quest for power he would rather kiss his erstwhile sworn political opponent, Chandrika Kumaratunga – a power behind the throne in the My-3 regime — rather than pay heed to his powerless cousin who is not useful to him as CBK is to prop him up with SLFP votes in Parliament.

Put another way, the exalted principles outlined in “the ideal state” to which Prof. Wijesinha contributed so naively in the beginning were no longer viable as a political instrument to retain power, nor valid to meet the challenges of the power struggle in post-January 8, 2015 equation. R. A. Butler’s Art of the Possible becomes the new Bible of the Yahapalana-yakos. In fact, references to the “ideal state”, free from corruption and illegalities, were sticking out like needles in their seats. The massive corruption growing out of proportion has dragged the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe regime into the depths of degradation. The promised Yahapalanaya has lost its credibility and shine.

Their smug pose of being holier-than-thou has been exposed for all to laugh. They have no defence. During the election the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe combo crowed that they will deliver a political nirvana in 100 days. Now, when their corruption and illegalities are exposed, Wickremesinghe’s defence is that the Rajapakses also did the same. In other words. he is saying it is okay for him to imitate the Rajapakases despite his solemn promise not to do so.

This is an inane defence that could come out of only a nincompoop like Wickremesinghe. In trotting out this lame excuse he is admitting that he is no better than Mahinda Rajapakse. When he asked the people to vote for him did he promise the people to imitate Mahinda Rajapakse or did he promise to carve out a new path to eliminate corruption and illegalities? Having posed as Mr. Clean at the hustings he has gone into reverse gear and is saying now that corruption is okay because Rajapakses also did it. He is now arguing to cover-up the corruption of his protégé planted in the Central Bank – the Singaporean who has created the biggest scandal since the Central Bank was established in 1950. He is virtually saying that his protégé has done nothing wrong because his predecessor also did it — i.e., sell Treasury bonds to his relative. If that argument is valid why was there a need for a change (when-a-suck)? Mahinda Rajapakse should have been allowed to continue doing what Wickremesinghe is doing now, isn’t it?

Now all this happened within the 100 days where the will of the people reigned supreme. Prof. Fonseka will agree, with all the logic he can muster, that any act outside the creation of the promised “ideal state”, or outside the parameters of the Yahapalanaya agenda, cannot be accepted as “the will of the people”. Only the acts that go to advance “the ideal state”, as promised to the people in the manifesto of the Yahapalanaya, can be considered as “the will of the people” for the simple reason that they were promised nothing less.

The will of the people expressed on January 8th, 2015 was for the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe regime to set right, as much as possible, the illegalities and corruption of the state at all levels. They were not given the licence to imitate/repeat the illegalities and the corruption of the regime they replaced. So how did Prof. Fonseka come to conclusion that the illegal appointments of the Chief Justice and the Prime Minister represent “the will of the people”? If these two illegalities are expressions of the “will of the people” shouldn’t he also include the rampant corruption of the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe also as integral parts of “the will of the people”? On what principles did he include the two illegalities as “the will of the people” and exclude the corruption as not being a part of “the will of the people”? The two illegalities and the corruption were done by the Yahapalana-yakos within the 100 days. So both act should be treated equally as expressions of “the will of the people”. But not all the logic can do that, eh Professori?

The inclusion of the appointment of Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister as “the will of the people” is a hilarious conclusion. For instance, in any parliament in the democratic world the appointment of a prime minister by an external authority (a presidential stroke of a pen in this case) when the nominee does not command a majority in the House is unsustainable by any moral, legal or political logic. Rightfully, the premiership should go to the person who commands a majority in the House. Besides, it is ridiculous to thrust a minority leader as the prime minister down the throats of the majority in parliament. By any standards it is an irresponsible and volatile act that is not conducive for stable governance. It may satisfy the expedient politics of Sirisena, Chandkrika Kumaratunga and Wickremesinghe. But how has it served the creation of the promised “ideal state” and the needs of a government to act with confidence without looking over their shoulder to see who is creeping up from behind to stab them? A wobbly government, unable to stand on its own two feet, becomes an open source for corruption and illegalities, as seen in the past 100 days.

It is also relevant to note that “the will of the people” was to last only for 100 days as the people were promised an election at the end of it. This implied that any unelected government after 100 days (like Ranil Wickremesinghe’s minority government) has no legitimacy, going by the standards set in their manifesto which is the endorsed “will of the people”.

Prof. Fonseka derives legitimacy for his justification from his phrase “the will of the people.” The origin of this phrase can be traced to Rousseau’s principle of “general will” which was claimed and distorted by the ruthless, dictatorial Jacobeans in the immediate aftermath of the French Revolution. The Jacobeans justified their Reign of Terror in the name of cleansing the decadent ancien regime.

The crimes committed by the Jacobeans, led by tyrannical and vindictive Robespierre claiming to represent the sans culottes, were illegal and immoral. Not all what is done in the name of “the will of the people” can be justified as legal and moral. Stalin justified the massacre of millions of kulaks in the name of the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. Hitler’s holocaust was justified in purifying the Aryan race. President Obama justifies killing more than what his predecessor, Bush, did, by invoking the higher principles of liberty, freedom and democracy.

Finding an abstract concept/theory/ideal to violate the rule of law, or international human rights law, is a common deception adopted to misdirect and misread expedient politics. Yahapalanaya was the slogan that deceived the Sri Lankan electorate on January 8th, 2015. Prof. Fonseka plays the same cynical card – he calls it “the will of the people” — to justify the illegalities and the immoralities of those who promised the people on January 8th not to go down the same path of their predecessors. The fundamental rationale of Yahapalanaya sold to the people on January 8, 2015 was to create a new moral order. If the Yahapalana-yakos fail to uphold their own sworn principles then the legitimacy of the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe comes down on their heads like an earthquake in the Himalayas.

I am not denying that at certain critical times violence has served as a legitimate means of resisting and reversing the entrenched evils of history. In fact, collective forces running into intransigent road blocks after reaching a peak point have invariably found a break through only through violence. Pontificating on non-violence as the means of settling conflicts, though desirable, is too airy-fairy and impractical because History will never cease to produce Hitlers and Prabhkarans and the living will have to face their threats to their way of life.

Hitlerite and Prabhakaranist violence can only be ended through superior violence. The controversy will be on the quantum of violence needed to end the greater evil arising from intransigent, implacable and irrational tyrants who refuse to read the grim realities facing them. There is no viable alternative to eliminate intransigent violence except through proportionate violence adequate to eliminate the evil. Choosing proportionate violence is the lesser evil to the greater evils of letting Hitlers and Prabhakarans run amok..

Moralities can attain its power and authority only by choosing the lesser evil. Going for unattainable ideals can easily exacerbate the prevailing evil and prolong the evil resulting in greater evil. Since there is no known way of vulnerable and fallible human beings living in a world without evil the only viable moral choice is to opt for the lesser evil, with proportionate counter-violence, to eliminate the greater evil.

But to justify illegalities to beef up the power bases of moral sadhus like Wickremesinghe and Sirisena is absolutely reprehensible. Mahinda Rajapakse did not promise a holy Yahapalanaya leading to an “ideal state” within 100 days. His mission was to restore democracy by eliminating tyrannical terrorism – a goal which has eluded the most powerful Western democrats who have been investing billions and fighting for decades without success. He as Commander-in-Chief and his General Sarath Fonseka did not set impossible deadlines of 100 days. Both said that they will deliver the nation from terrorism within three years and they achieved it. Compared to that what have the Yahapalana-yakos achieved for the people in their promised 100 days?

The “ideal state” promised by the Yahapalana-yakos was to usher in a political nirvana almost within 100days without a skerrick of corruption and illegalities. Maithripala Sirisena was projected as the principled upasakaya who would run the state with a clean sheet – as clean as the cloth he wears. But, (surprise! surprise!) within 100 days, he appoints his brother to a plum job, with a six-figure salary, in the state run Telecom. The Finance Minister’s brother-in-law, an ex-cop, is elevated to a six-figure salaried job in the directorate of the state insurance company, etc., etc. – all within 100 days.

On May 27, 2015 Colombo Telegraph reported : “ The Minister of Finance, Ravi Karunanayake asked the Director General of Customs Jagath P. Wijeweera to give sweeping duty concessions to his privately owned firm.” According to the logic of Prof. Fonseka this also should be included as an expression of “the will of the people? His logic collapses if he includes only the acts he thinks are right and exclude those acts that do not please him. For his logic to have some validity he must condemn the violations of the law as either illegal or corrupt. His logic runs aground when he selectively justifies only two illegal acts as “the will of people” and leaves out the corrupt acts in illogical silence.

So on what basis does Prof. Fonseka consider the illegalities endorsed by the President’s pen as the expression of “the will of the people”? The President’s two illegal appointments certainly have been urgent political necessities for the Yahapalana – yakos to secure their political power. But did the people hand over their collective will to the Yahapalana-yakos to commit, in their name, any illegal or corrupt act? Clearly, Prof. Fonseka has tied himself in knots in trying to justify the illegalities and corruption as “the will of the people”.

“O what a tangled web we weave / When first we practice to deceive”. – Sir Walter Scott (Marmion, )

On an earlier occasion I wrote that his real name is not Fonseka but “Con-seka”. Having read his latest cogitations on “the will of the people” I am afraid I have no reason to revise this opinion.

*To read the first part click here