A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Search This Blog
Back to 500BC.
==========================
Thiranjala Weerasinghe sj.- One Island Two Nations
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Sunday, September 9, 2018
Rajapaksa scion stages janabalaya, UNP reaches old age at 72

Namal Rajapaksa, the politically aspiring Rajapaksa scion, has called
his protest in Colombo last week,the largest ever in Sri Lanka’s
history. That can only make sense if Sri Lanka has had no history before
him, or if he is ignorant of any and all of the country’s modern
political history before the Rajapaksas collectively arrived in Colombo.
Only the latter can be true. Politicians with no knowledge of history
are no longer strange animals, courtesy the Donald Trumps of America and
elsewhere. Even before the Trump phenomenon, the bar for success in
politics in Sri Lanka had dropped to rock bottom. All you need is to be a
member of a political family. Imagine if the children of doctors,
lawyers and engineers are allowed to obtain professional licenses merely
because one of their parents is a professional in one of those fields.
Although, some might say that even the non-doctor children of old school
doctors will show greater empathy to patients than the current GMOA
doctor upstarts. But in Sri Lankan politics, you only need to be a son,
daughter or a sibling in a political family to become a professional
politician.
The grand old party of uncles and nephews had a feudally cultivated way
for distributing offices, perks and privileges among its contenders.
They had learnt well from their colonial masters not only the art of the
possible but also the limits of their possibilities. They conducted
themselves more democratically and less brutally than, say, the Saudis.
The other Sri Lankan family party had a martyr figure in its founder to
successfully navigate the political waters. The parliamentary system
also enabled, just as it had done in Britain, the co-existence of feudal
relations and modern democracy.
The two parties, the UNP and the SLFP, have run their course. One of
them, the SLFP is at a dead end. The older UNP, now 72, is said to be
preparing a new line of leaders for 2030. That’s what Prime Minister
Ranil Wickremesinghe told his followers at the Party’s 72nd birthday
party. What about 2020? Or even 2019? That’s the problem with too much
visioning. The Rajapaksas, the new major family of politicians, have a
different problem.
There are one too many of them, Rajapaksas, contending for the country’s
singular political office – the presidency. Ay, there’s the rub, for
Lanka’s modern prince, Namal Rajapaksa, who too has uncles to contend
with. The prince might be undercooked for high office, but he is not
unprepared to flex his muscle in public to send a message to his family.
He might not be ready for the next presidential election, but his path
to the office should remain clear. A Gotabhaya presidency might be too
risky for eventual succession by Namal Rajapaksa. And alternative
scenarios have their own problems.
The trial balloon floated to test the air for another Mahinda Rajapaksa
run burst open no sooner than it was released. GL Peiris and Sarath
Silva have gone quiet after their unsolicited and ill-advised advocacy.
And Dr. Nihal Jayawickrema seems to have given up on his somewhat
far-fetched interpretation of 19A after seeing the chorus of criticisms
that he had generated. That leaves the option of getting Maithripala
Sirisena, who is still Sri Lanka’s President, to run again as an
SLPP/JO/SLFP candidate. No one knows where this option will go, unless
we get some creative writing from our new Ambassador in Moscow on a
second Sirisena presidential run in Sri Lanka.
Protest to what end?
This is the rather banal political backdrop to the janabalaya protest in
Colombo. Even the claim that this was the largest protest in history is
banality at its worst. At the end of it all, no one could remember what
the whole fuss was about. I am not the one who is saying this. The
Sunday Island political columnist took time to monitor the protest
perhaps to say something about its historic significance. But this is
what he wrote in The Island, yesterday, and it is worth quoting for its
own significance:
"When the demonstration ended at midnight the buses were on hand to take
them away, and the cleaning parties were on standby to clean up after
them. This was supposed to be a protest, a demonstration against certain
issues. The biggest weakness in the organization was that nobody was
shouting slogans on the issues that were to be highlighted. They were
supposed to be demonstrating against the proposed new constitution,
against the Singapore-SL FTA, the high cost of living, the increasing
tax burden, and many such issues. The whole purpose of a demonstration
is to display banners and placards highlighting the issues and to shout
slogans. Given the media coverage received, all the issues would have
received a great deal of publicity. But as it turns out, even the
slogans that were shouted out were lost in the crowd, the placards and
banners were rendered ineffective. Having been at the venue, this writer
can’t remember a single slogan written on the placards or banners."
It was not merely an organizational failure. It was a protest without a
purpose and was staged as a show with no substance. That’s what
differentiates this protest and all Rajapaksa led protests from the
political protests of earlier times. As JVP MP Vijitha Herath described
it, "the janabalaya protest march … has undermined the people’s genuine
protest against the government." Worse, as the MP said, "Wednesday’s
protest was a comedy with the people partying on the street after
consuming liquor. What happens in such cases is the diluting of the
protest against the government. That is why it became a failure with
even the organizers admitting it is a failure."
Tellingly, the day after the protest, parliament was forced to adjourn
proceedings for want of a quorum. In the past, there was a real
connection between proceedings in parliament and the protests on the
streets. The Left Parties provided that connection and it was that
connection that gave the parliamentary system whatever effectiveness it
had. The Joint Opposition does have an argument in not being recognized
as the official opposition party. But that should not prevent the JO
from attending parliament in full force and dominating proceedings. In
their glory days, the LSSP and the CP dominated parliamentary
proceedings regardless of the status they were given in parliament. The
LSSP was not always the official opposition party, the CP was never the
official party, but the two worked as independent units to provide a
common opposition to the government. The two parties had exceptionally
brilliant parliamentarians but their real source of strength was in the
mass support they were able to mobilize outside parliament between
elections.
There is another difference between now and then. The Left Parties and
even the other political parties in times past did not have any
skeletons in their cupboards. They did not have to launch political
protests as a firewall against potential prosecution, which seems to be
the main purpose behind the Rajapaksa protests, from the Nugegoda rally
in 2015 to the janabalaya protest last week. And the protests seem to
have had some scaring effect on the present government at different
levels. For that reason, albeit a wrong reason, one might call the
Rajapaksa protests a historic achievement.

