Will there be a ‘change’ in Sri Lanka?

On the 26th of January, Sri Lankans will be heading to the polls to elect a new President. Given the pre poll violence that has overshadowed the campaign so far, it is evident that this has not only been one of the most bloodiest elections in recent history but it is also evident that the results will be carefully monitored both local and internationally.

Yet the process of elections in Sri Lanka is a superficial attempt to paint a picture of democracy in action. For the last 60 plus years, the two main parties between themselves have held power with very little difference in policy, approach and effect. There has been a trend of ‘political upmanship’ where the main opposition party would wreck attempts by the party in power to ensure that the country would not benefit from decisive decisions made at critical junctures. As a consequence,when rival parties came to power, they tended to undo what has been done by the previous opposition government much to the detriment of the country.

Hence, this election rather than focussing on policies or issues or anything of substance, ability and reality, has boiled down to how many false promises, allegations and counter allegations can be made to convince the naïve voter. Support has thus been garnered based on much one can get out of each candidate, and so there have been crossovers and counter crossovers (from each party) like musical chairs, as ‘horse deals’ ensure that politicians and their supporters needs are met.

The politics of Sri Lanka is actually a Shakespearean comedy of errors. Where else would you find one of the chief architects of the final conflict pitted against its chief engineer? Where else would you find almost laughable unholy alliances? For example, you have the JVP, who are seen as a Sinhalese Nationalist party, pitted with the very party who brutally crushed them in the 1980s, against the very man and party they helped to bring to power in 2005. Then, the headlines were very different as President Rajapkase was accused of being a Sinhalese hardliner. Circumstances have now changed and former allies have become enemies and former enemies have become allies with accusations being thrown between the two sometimes bordering on the point of absurdity in some cases.

Yet this kind of unsubstantiated cross-vilifcation is not just the past time of the candidates and their key backers. It seems to be an affliction of the ordinary Sri Lankan who has the uncanny ability to pick up lies and spread them around, often adding their own creative spices to the mix. The result is a ‘Chinese Whispers’ game of immense magnitude.

There seems to be very little appetite for any intellectual analysis of the situation on the part of the general public, especially those that live in Colombo, which is as far removed from the realities of the country as it can be. Everyone is advocating for a change, tired of the cost that the conflict has inflicted upon the nation, tired of the corruption of the political system, tired of how Sri Lanka has become as a nation and society. But you dig a little deeper and you notice that frankly despite all the illusions of grandeur, nothing will change. Speaking to people in Sri Lanka, there are only two camps. Those who want the incumbent and those who want the main opposition candidate with very little room in between. There is not really a middle pat h or alternative and no avenue for a middle path, as the recent violence at the polls have shown. Those that advocate it are a silent majority on the sidelines. Yet dig further and you will find that people have absolutely no clue as to why one should vote for the incumbent or the opposition. ‘Well we need to get rid of Mahinda so that is why we want Sarath’ has been the most common argument that I have heard. ‘Mahinda liberated the country from war and Sarath is a traitor’ has been the other one. No one talks about the policies.What of their policies? How are they going to take the country forward?

Of course, because no matter who wins the presidency, he will have an uphill struggle on his hands. First there will be the task of resettling all the displaced people from the 20 years of war, and focussing on rebuilding the war torn north and east. There will be the task of ensuring a political solution to the grievances of the minorities in a way that ensures that the country moves forward after 20 years of conflict. There will be a need to contain the Sinhalese Buddhist elements who seem intent on hammering the Sinhala nationalist identity home. However more importantly there will be the task of arresting the moral and intellectual corruption that seems to not pervade the political scene but has also seemed to have trickled down into society as a whole. Yet neither of the main candidates has presented a clear proposal for the reconciliation and integration of the society.

This then begs the question; will there be a change if the main opposition candidate is voted in ahead of the incumbent? Whilst a new face will get into the driving seat, the vehicle and direction will be the same. The paradigm will not have shifted!

Therefore the concept of being ‘principled’ by picking either the incumbent or the main contender becomes laughable. Both these candidates and the parties and alliance they represent are two sides of the same coin and at this critical juncture in Sri Lanka’s history may not be able to offer anything of value for taking the country forward especially as it moves towards post conflict reconciliation and reconstruction. Picking either one of them would be at best, frantically grasping for a last minute consolation prize and it would be based on a limited understanding of the ground realities and ingrained prejudices. There will be nothing pure or principled about the choice.

If people want to make a principled choice and vote for ‘change’, then there will need to be a paradigm shift . Variations on the same old themes should not be the order of the day. They will have to make a radical choice on the candidate that they choose. There are 18 other candidates in the running, but are all dismissed, because they have no chance of winning. This is not the point. The point is that you vote for an alternative because you want this change without compromising your principles. Some commentators have even advocated to spoil the vote, if you can not find a decent candidate who voices the concerns of those without voice or those whose have been robbed of voice or have had their voices purchased . This might seem to some a bit extreme but under the circumstances in Sri Lanka, extreme measures are called for.

Regardless of who wins in the election, no one doubts that now is the time for reconciliation. Petty rivalries will need to be forgotten. Past grievances will need to be looked into and addressed. This requires the support of all concerned from within Sri Lanka and outside of it.

Amjad Saleem

Guest Blog: Why Interfaith Dialogue?

I saw two groups demonstrating against the Parliament of World Religions at Cape Town University in South Africa in 1999. One was of white Christians and the other of Indian Muslims. They were standing apart from each other despite their common cause against the Parliament. What probably inspired them to oppose the Parliament was also that which kept them away from each other.

After a couple of days, I noticed that they were standing closer to each other and even talking to each other. Ironically, it seemed like the Parliament had even forced its opposition into dialogue.

Silence may not kill, but dialogue definitely heals.

The two groups of protestors thought the Parliament was attempting to create a new faith. This was not true. Those of us who had convened in South Africa that day were and remain proud followers of our respective faiths. However, we also believe dialogue among faiths is essential for the benefit of all.

Almost daily, our news media hits us with a barrage of negative news about Islam and Muslims. This explains why a large number of Americans hold negative views about Muslims. This negative opinion is not just a statistical reality but it has some real life implications. But the poll that confirmed this dislike for Muslims in the United States also noted that there are a large number of Americans who continue to hold a positive opinion of Islam and Muslims. They are the people who have met a Muslim in real life. That is power of dialogue.

In Chicago, I have seen how interfaith conversations have led to churches, mosques, and synagogues working together for real civic change. Illinois used to ranked 47th among states in terms of healthcare. Today, it holds second place in the nation, thanks to the power of interfaith dialogue engaging each other in action.

The Parliament of World Religions is in essence a big conversation. About 8,000 people are expected to gather in Melbourne, Australia at our next meeting this December. They will spend one-third of their time sharing information about their faith -- honest, straightforward perspectives from believers, not pundits or detractors. They will spend the next third of their time talking about the state of their relationship with people of other faiths, interfaith that is. The last third of the time will be used to discover concrete ways to change the world with a focus on poverty, climate change, the rights of indigenous people, and peace.

Climate change, hunger, and peace are issues that concern all of humanity. These challenges are also large enough to require focused attention from all religions and spiritual traditions. But how can faith help when people of faith are not in conversation with each other? Dialogue is crucial for the tremendous changes needed for humanity to move forward, especially today, where conflict and war have become a lifestyle for millions around the world. We cannot promise that we will resolve all of the conflicts. But we do believe that dialogue will reduce the chance of warfare and increase the possibility of reconciliation. It was a series of dialogues that Nelson Mandela started with his captors at Robben Island that convinced them of a brighter, apartheid-free future for both whites and blacks in South Africa.

Dialogue opens minds and the human touch opens hearts.

With open hearts and minds, the Parliament's participants will be returning back to their neighborhoods in our shared global village enriched with new experiences, new friendships, and new success stories after a joyful six-day long intensive listening and learning experience. Many of them will be making their personal commitments in writing on how they plan to change the world.

by Abdul Malik Mujahid for patheos.com
Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid is the Chair of the Council of World Parliament of Religions

Originally published here