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

Setting the agenda for cooperation

The scene was as touching as it was poignant. A Jewish rabbi running across nearly half of the room to embrace his imam friend as they met for the first time in 5 years. Oh the fact I regeretted not having my camera to witness such a kodak moment.

For the first time, I understood the power of the parliament. Here was truly an opportunity to embrace one another and truly forge relationships with each other across the great differences that exist between us. So you had priests and others attending the Friday congregational prayers whilst you had ladies in Hijaab and Imams attending programs presented by Jains and Native Americans. All in this spirit of cooperation

Shri Ravi Shankar in the opening plenary said that we can not negate the other person just because he/she is different to us. We need to be able to embrace and learn from each other. This is perhaps the greatest power of the parliament. Perceptions can be remoulded and stereotypes can be broken.

The film 'New Muslim Cool' can explore how a Latino American musician can convert to Islam and face the numerous personal and societal challenges on this journey or 'Not in God's Name' can show you the journey of the Dalai Lama. All of these stories, equally poignant and relevant and needed to reaffirm that we are on the ame journey, perhaps in different vehicles travelling at different speeds.

Of course, there is an element of cynicism that often goes with events like this. Katherine Marshall eloquently talks about such a cynicism that arises from gatherings of this nature. However in the space of watching that rabbi and that imam embrace each other, there is perhaps the hope that the parliament can move beyond the notion of tolerance to respect, understanding, and friendship.

Of course in doing this, the parliament will have to work towards the tasks of preventing conflict by anticipating it and addressing root causes, negotiating peace, and helping to build peaceful societies in the aftermath of conflict. This means that at some point contentious issues within and between religions will have to be tackled as Anwar Ibrahim eloquently put it in a dinner the other night. We may not agree with points of view that are put across, but we should be able to discuss it in an atmosphere of openness and humility with a view to agree to disagree. This is perhaps the key feature to take across. Whether it is the issue of Israel / Palestine; freedom of religious expression in some parts of the Muslim world; the rights of the traditional native people in Australia / America / Canada that have been eroded or negated with the excuse of democratic plurality (I met a Native American who told me about some of the issues found on the reservations) or what is needed for a greater push towards eradicating poverty and ending world hunger

If the traditional religious interfaith traditions can lead to this spirit of agreement and disagreement,then I think cynics aside, great strides would have been made. Yet much more needs to be done. The people who have come to this parliament will need to carry the message forward to others and more importantly engage new members into this new movement to be part of the change to make the world a better place.

Amjad Saleem