Font size:

The two most outstanding features of President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s reelection were the big margin of victory that caught many by surprise and the cleavage between voting patterns in the former war zones of the Northern and Eastern provinces and most of the country. The election result itself gives a hint of how the cycle of Tamil separatism might start turning again.

Many have commented that the electoral map where Rajapaksa lost resembled the map of Tamil Eelam that the government under his leadership defeated on the battlefield. Therefore, it was heartening that soon after the announcement of his victory Rajapaksa reaffirmed that he was the president of all Sri Lankans including those who did not vote for him.

Rajapaksa also pledged to utilize his new period in office to develop the country and its institutions after the war. Nevertheless, one of the major problems with governance in Sri Lanka has been the increasing gap between what its political leaders say and what they do.

During the election both presidential candidates promised that high security zones in the north and east that had displaced well over 100,000 people, some for over two decades, would be dismantled. But after the elections, little seems to have been done about these.

Rajapaksa faces a formidable challenge of delivering on his promise to treat all persons equally and attending to their concerns, which is an essential feature of governance that needs to be enshrined in Sri Lanka’s political practice and at all levels of governance.

Statements by government leaders who said that those who did not vote for the president are unpatriotic and traitors should be condemned rather than encouraged, especially by the president.

If the country is to achieve the stability and unity necessary for its progress toward development and prosperity, there is a need for all people, including opposition parties and ethnic minorities, to feel confident that promises will be kept and that they will be treated equally under the rule of law.

The most positive aspect of the election was the faith that the vast majority of people cast in the democratic process. Large numbers turned out to cast their vote, which they believed to be their most important right as citizens in a democracy.

During the elections, the Tamil people from the war-affected Northern and Eastern provinces also showed their willingness to put the past behind them and participated in the elections. Those that deliberately exploded bombs in the early hours on the day of the election did so to keep the people away from exercising their democratic right. That was a travesty of the government’s oft-repeated reassurance that the war was fought to restore democracy to the people who lived under the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam’s undemocratic rule.

It is noteworthy that both presidential candidates received Tamil votes, which indicates a willingness of Tamil voters to be part of the political mainstream. Of the Tamil votes, the majority went to Fonseka, reflecting a remarkable flexibility in the attitude of Tamil voters. A mere six months ago, Fonseka was one of the most feared people in war zones on account of his ruthless prosecution of the war and the severe collateral damage inflicted upon the civilian population.

However, the willingness of Fonseka to align himself with opposition political parties and the endorsement he received from the Tamil National Alliance, along with the apparent change in his attitude toward ethnic issues, caused Tamil voters to view him in a new and positive light. This shift in attitude and readiness to change for the better did not take years to come about, but occurred virtually in an instant. If Fonseka was able to do it, there is no reason to believe that Rajapaksa cannot do the same.

The likely reason for a smaller proportion of Tamil votes going to Rajapaksa was the disappointment of many Tamils with the slow pace of rebuilding of the north and east and the rehabilitation of the people there. They believed that Rajapaksa, as head of the government, had the power to speed up and prioritize their concerns, but did not do so. So they blamed him for their continuing plight. But this can clearly change.

However, the fact remains that the vast majority of Tamil voters did not vote for the Tamil presidential candidate who stood apart from mainstream politics. Instead, they showed that they wished to join mainstream politics, even if most voted for the candidate who ultimately lost.

Unfortunately, signs of change in attitude and approach by Rajapaksa and his government are slow in coming. Strangely, after the election, the government appears to be rather insecure although it was a magnanimous victory.

Some of its first acts after the election have been to send several top army generals and other high-ranking officers on compulsory retirement, and to institute sweeping changes in the police as well. Government spokespersons have said that they feared a coup, although evidence has yet to be made public.

After the victory over the LTTE, which ended the need for counter-terrorist operations, Rajapaksa seemed well positioned to rid the country of the culture of fear. But this has not happened.

The rule of law may be operative for most people in terms of their daily lives. But this is not the case with political activists and those who dissent from the government’s conduct of national affairs.

People who are critical of the government are afraid to communicate even via SMS after it was reported that some persons were arrested for spreading anti-government propaganda. In such circumstances, the country appears to be in danger of sliding toward a black hole in which black is said to be white and peace is unsustainable.

--

(Dr. Jehan Perera is executive director of the National Peace Council of Sri Lanka, an independent advocacy organization. He studied economics at Harvard College and holds a doctorate in law from Harvard Law School. ©Copyright Jehan Perera.)