Midweek Review

CP Chief calls for re-alignment of political forces to thwart Ranil

Published

1 year ago

2023/07/5

DEW Gunasekara at the Communist Party office last week (pic by Shamindra Ferdinando)

CP Chairman DEW G says lawmakers here should be aware of what is going on in the world. The Parliament cannot turn a blind eye to global developments, the former MP said, pointing out that the ongoing Ukrainian crisis underscored the need for greater understanding of international affairs as the rapid developments taking place with the US hegemony under threat. The crisis reflects the global power struggle.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Veteran politician Don Edwin Weerasinghe Gunasekara or DEW G, 88, wants left-wing political parties, including his Communist Party (CP), to join forces with centrist political elements to meet the growing future right wing challenge posed by ‘Pohottuwa,’ backed incumbent President Ranil Wickremesinghe.

The former CP General Secretary warned those opposed to the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa juggernaut to reach consensus on a tangible political strategy soon or be prepared to face the consequences.

As things stand, Gunasekara declared that UNP leader Wickremesinghe would be the SLPP’s candidate at the next presidential election, therefore urged, what he called, the genuine Opposition to take a stand.

The CP is represented in Parliament by just one MP Weerasinghe Weerasumana from Matara. The first time entrant to Parliament contested the last general election on the Sri Lanka Podujana Peremauna (SLPP) ticket.

Having parted company with the SLPP, or the Pohottuwa party, the CP is now a constituent of the Uththara Lanka Sabhagaya (ULS).

DEW G acknowledged that left-wing parties, including the CP, couldn’t anticipate any future political alliance with the Rajapaksas’ led party, especially with Basil, an arch right winger, like Ranil, playing such a pivotal role in the family and the party they lead. “Therefore, a realignment of political forces, opposed to the incumbent administration, is a must”, he said.

Gunasekara didn’t mince his words when he admitted that left parties lacked the wherewithal to take on the government, though the ground situation has changed quite drastically, owing to unprecedented public protests, engineered or not by the West, as in the case of the Maidan rebellion in Ukraine in 2014, forced Gotabaya Rajapaksa elected, with 6.9 mn votes, to flee.

A smiling Gunasekara asserted that the emerging world environment could be quite advantageous to Sri Lanka with the US and its fiat currency dollar likely to lose world dominant position, if proper repositioning of political parties and groups takes place here to ensure a Left and Centre combination surging ahead with the best global economic environment after 1945, Gunasekara assured.

In an interview with the writer at the CP’s recently refurbished office at No 91, Dr. N.M. Perera Mawatha, Colombo 08, last week, DEW G discussed a range of issues, both domestic and international, with the focus on the deteriorating economic-political and social crisis against the growing uncertainty caused by restructuring of domestic debt.

Unless left parties reached a consensus with those in the centre, the latter would move to the right to the advantage of Ranil Wickremesinghe, Gunasekera said. “At least 90 percent of the country’s capitalist class is with Wickremesinghe and unless something goes awry, the UNP leader is certain to be SLPP’s nominee with or without machinations by the West.”

The Island

sought the much respected politician’s views on current issues against the backdrop of the CP preparing to celebrate its 80th anniversary this week.

At the onset of the interview, one-time Rehabilitation and Prisons Reforms Minister, an Octogenarian himself, emphasized that what the country experienced was an unprecedented critical situation. “We are at a crossroads. We experienced crises in 1952 and in the ’70s, primarily due to external factors. However, though there were certainly foreign influences and interventions, we created the current catastrophe,” the former lawmaker said.

Gunasekara identified what he called an explosive combination of factors that plunged the country into its worst ever post-independence crisis, namely dearth of foreign exchange even to buy basics, like fuel, drastic drop in government revenue, coupled with a crippling debt due to borrowings at high interest from international bond markets, especially by the previous Yahapalana regime.

Referring to the times of JRJ’s Finance Minister Ronnie de Mel (1977-1988) who presided over Sri Lanka embracing a free market economy in the late ’70s, and his successor M.H.M. Naina Marikkar (1988-1989) at the height of the JVP-led second insurrection (1987-1990), the CP veteran pointed out that the erosion of government revenue began after 1978.

A calamity of unimaginable proportions

Pointing out that in 1978 the government revenue had been 24 percent of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) a gradual decrease began during JRJ’s reign and by the time Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in his capacity as the President, brought in his brother Basil Rajapaksa as the Minister of Finance, in July 2021, the state revenue had dropped to a poor six percent of the GDP. That the Rajapaksa family compelled Gotabaya Rajapaksa to accommodate BR in the Cabinet, even at the expense of the coalition, is a matter that should be addressed separately, the outspoken politician said. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa paid a very heavy price for exploiting the 20th Amendment to the Constitution to appease the family to bring in Basil Rajapaksa, he added.

The drastic drop of the state revenue to just six percent of the GDP meant that the government didn’t have sufficient funding in Rupees, especially due to a drastic cut in vital taxes, no sooner Gotabaya assumed office. “I have never heard of a disruption of an economy in a particular country for want of whatever local currency, though foreign exchange crisis is certainly not a new occurrence. We ran into trouble at a time when the then government was on a money printing spree.”

Gunasekara attributed the developing crisis to neoliberalist policies adopted in the wake of JRJ’s victory at the 1977 general election. “The change of tax policy in line with neoliberalist strategy brought about the crisis. The gradual change in direct and indirect taxes was nothing but a disaster. At the time of the late Premier Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike, the direct and indirect tax ratio was 70 to 30 percent. JR reduced direct taxes to 55 percent, Ranasinghe Premadasa to 45 percent, Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga to 35 percent, Mahinda Rajapaksa to 28 percent (during his first tenure as the President), then to 24 percent and subsequently to 18 percent and Basil Rajapaksa brought it down to 14 percent.”

The increasing loss of income, due to a sharp drop in direct taxes, was compensated by corresponding increase in indirect taxes, the former Minister said, added that finally the irect and indirect tax ratio stood at 10 and 90 percent, respectively. Instead of taxing the affluent, those struggling to make ends meet were further burdened, Gunasekara said, alleging that tax evasion at the moment was at its zenith. “There is no point in denying successive governments facilitated the tax fraud. The fraudulent process over the years became part of the system in place,” the ex-MP said.

Asked whether Parliament, as the supreme institution responsible for public finance, should be held responsible for the current predicament, a smiling Gunasekara said that was the position constitutionally.

“However, the actual situation is different or in other words Parliament is irrelevant. The Finance Minister takes decisions on behalf of the Cabinet of Ministers which exercises executive powers in Parliament. Whoever at the helm, exercises political authority thereby implements a strategy that may not be in the best interests of the country though appropriate as a political tool. That is the reality.”

Neoliberalism, or market-oriented reform policies, such as doing away with price controls, freeing of capital markets, and reckless lowering of trade barriers, as well as privatization, brought us to this pathetic situation, the former CP leader said.

Regardless of the recent crash, the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government seemed to be hell-bent on following the same wretched policies. “If not, President Wickremesinghe and his acolytes wouldn’t have considered USD 2.9 bn IMF loan facility as the panacea for our economic ills. In a way we are now in an irreversible situation,” Gunasekara said.

The one-time Chairman of the parliamentary watchdog COPE sarcastically declared without hesitation that he was too optimistic of the much-touted economic recovery plan, based on the much debated agreement with the IMF.

“Don’t forget we sought IMF intervention on 16 occasions previously. And the worst IMF intervention is now underway”, the still crisp thinking octogenarian said.

Parliament has deteriorated to such an extent that it no longer commanded the respect of the public. That, too, contributed to the overall decline, Gunasekara said, explaining how the Ranil-Maithree-led Yahapalana government borrowed heavily from international money markets during the 2015-2019 period, though they have conveniently forgotten their own role in the economic ruin. In foreign money markets, minimum interest was six percent and out of the USD 15 bn taken at such high interest rates as much as USD 12.5 bn was obtained by the Yahapalana rule within a short period of time, Gunasekara pointed out.

Perhaps if Mahinda Rajapaksa won the 2015 presidential election, he, as the Finance Minister, too, would have sought more loans from international money markets, Gunasekara said, asserting that the then Secretary to the Treasury Dr. P.B. Jayasundera may have pushed for early presidential elections as he was aware of the impending financial crisis. “But I tried unsuccessfully to convince President Rajapaksa not to face the electorate as he couldn’t have won under any circumstances,” Gunasekara said.

Bid to save Gotabaya

The former Minister recalled how representatives of political parties met at the residence of lawmaker Tiran Alles in the wake of the violent Mirihana protest, in March 2022, to discuss ways and means of saving Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s mandate. According to him, there had been a general agreement of an interim national government for at least a period of one year until some sort of stability could be restored. Among those who had been present were Dullas Alahapperuma and Maithripala Sirisena and other rebel SLPP MPs, Gunasekara said, adding that consensus couldn’t be reached as the President was not free to act as he desired.

“The President somewhat struggled to address never ending concerns of the Rajapaksa family,” the ex-CP boss said, expressing disbelief that the premiership was first offered to Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka and then SJB leader Sajith Premadasa before beleaguered UNP leader accepted the proposal in the second week of May 2022.

Gunasekara acknowledged the writer’s suggestion perhaps the UNP leader was the best choice, politically, at the time though he personally didn’t agree at all with the destructive market-oriented reform policies agenda pursued by the incumbent President to please the IMF.

In the run-up to the July 2022 calamity, Gunasekara had advised and warned Gotabaya Rajapaksa of the impending economic crisis but was ignored. “Obviously Dr. PBJ and Basil Rajapaksa were at the helm of economic matters. They shaped the damaging policy,” Gunasekara said, recalling him warning Gotabaya Rajapaksa regarding the impending economic crisis at the first public meeting held in Matara following the handing over of nominations for the 2019 presidential election. “The CP organized the Matara meeting where over 5,000 attended. Mahinda Rajapaksa and Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena were among those present. I handed over a printed booklet that dealt with the impending crisis and measures to be taken to Gotabaya. Obviously, he didn’t bother with it.”

Responding to another query, the one-time Prison Reforms Minister said that Gotabaya Rajapaksa was overwhelmed by the Rajapaksa family. “That is the ugly truth. The family didn’t allow the President to proceed on his own path,” Gunasekara said, explaining how the ill-advised Cabinet decision to abolish a range of taxes at the first Cabinet meeting chaired by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, enactment of the 20th Amendment to pave the way for Basil Rajapaksa’s re-entry into Parliament, chemical fertiliser ban and cancellation of the Japanese-funded Light Rail Project, without consulting the donor, caused immense damage.

The former Minister said that the unveiling of a comprehensive and far reaching alternative economic development programme that dealt with repositioning of Sri Lanka’s foreign trade and economic relations by the CP coincided with their 80th anniversary. Gunasekara emphasized the responsibility on the part of the decision-makers to focus on human resources development, especially against the backdrop of the brain drain and the general perception that there was absolutely no hope of an economic recovery.

Gunasekara said that the vast majority of those who now represented the Parliament, as well as the executive, refused to accept the heavy impact the restructuring of domestic debt was having on the public. Whatever the economic recovery plans under discussion or at the onset of implementation, we lacked the wherewithal and political consensus, Gunasekera said, adding that the issues at hand should be addressed accordingly.

Gunasekara also discussed the continuing failure of Parliament to respond to the growing threats, with quite formidable external interventions taking place right under the noses of the political leadership. References were made to USAID and UNDP interventions at the highest level.

Need for urgent reforms

Gunasekera urged political parties to give sufficient time for new entrants. The ex-lawmaker said that sufficient time should be allocated for new MPs to address Parliament on important issues. How could they deal with a particular issue within three minutes, Gunasekara asked, acknowledging that he wouldn’t have achieved current status if he was denied adequate time.

Gunasekera recalled how he entered Parliament in 1986 in the wake of the death of Sarath Muttetuwegama, 51, lawyer, killed in a car crash at Ratnapura. At the time of his death, Muttetuwegama, married to Manouri, daughter of Dr. Colvin R. de Silva, represented the Kalawana electorate.

Gunasekera said that the decision-making Central Committee of the CP nominated him to fill the vacancy created by Muttetuwegama’s untimely death. There had been provision for a political party to nominate a person to Parliament, within a month, following the creation of a vacancy, and Dew Gunasekera was the CP’s choice though not unanimous. One member of the decision-making body had voted to appoint Manouri Muttetuwegama. In case, a particular political party failed to reach a consensus within a stipulated period of time, the then Election Commission would have called a by-election.

Touching the table, at where he sat, Gunasekara said on the day he took oaths as an MP, the then CP Chairman Pieter Keuneman advised him how to conduct himself in Parliament right here. “We were in this room. I was told to address Parliament while looking at the direction of the Speaker to prevent being disturbed and distracted by opposing MPs. Keuneman stressed the need to be fully prepared to address Parliament. I was also told the importance of having the address in point form and being logical. Perhaps the most important advice was to keep in mind that as an MP he should address the electorate not members of Parliament.”

Towards the end of the interview Gunasekera said that he was not sure whether Gotabaya Rajapaksa wanted to contest the 2019 presidential election or the family fielded him due to Mahinda Rajapaksa being disqualified by the 19th Amendment barring a third term. Gotabaya was not like other Rajapaksas and his wife a humble and gracious lady who never stepped on the toes of anyone. They were never extravagant and basically lived a simple life but Gotabaya Rajapaksa never realized the pitfalls in the political party system here.

Referring to the Matara meeting, immediately after presidential nominations where he advised SLPP candidate Gotabaya Rajapaksa, ex-MP Gunasekera said that the President’s response to concerns raised by the CP at a meeting he chaired on 20 December, 2020, deeply disappointed him.

The meeting had been called to discuss the government response to the Covid-19 threat. “On behalf of the CP, our General Secretary Dr. G. Weerasinghe urged President Rajapaksa not to force Muslims to cremate Covid-19 victims as the decision was not backed by scientific reasons nor by the World Health Organization. The President and others present there were warned of dire consequences of such a drastic decision. But Dr. Weerasinghe’s plea was ignored.”

Gunasekera said that he took advantage of the opportunity to warn the President of the impending economic crisis again. The ex-MP recalled him telling the President that unless he addressed the issue at hand none of those 6.9 mn voted for him would remain when the troubles erupted. “The President didn’t say anything but smiled nicely.”

Gunasekera criticized the Mahanayake Theras’ response to the developing crisis. Underscoring the responsibility on their part to rein in politicians, Gunasekera said that the emergence of the likes of ‘Pastor’ Jerome Fernando and Natasha Edirisuriya should be examined against the backdrop of the pathetic conduct of politicians and most religious leaders.

Commenting on the Aragalaya and related developments, Gunasekera confirmed that the US Ambassador Julie Chung advised Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena to succeed President Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

He said that National Freedom Front (NFF) leader Wimal Weerawansa’s recent declaration to that effect was based on what he told the MP.

Wickremesinghe’s emergence as the President, an Office he couldn’t have won at an election, highlighted the ruination of the political party system and the dearth of leaders. The UNP, being restricted to just one National List seat, and the SLFP down to one elected MP (other 13 elected on the Pohottuwa ticket) highlighted the collapse of the political party system, as hitherto known, and further deterioration of the situation.

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

General election: The choice before the electorate

Published

6 days ago

2024/10/30

Sahan Weerasooriya

The key issue at the forthcoming parliamentary election should be economic recovery, based on the IMF formula, or whatever an alternative solution that the President AKD-led government can come up with if the existing remedy, already negotiated by the previous regime with one of the twin sisters of Washington, is far too difficult to swallow. All political parties, including the JVP represented in the last parliament, however, agreed to adhere to the IMF formula by endorsing the Economic Transformation Bill. Unfortunately, sufficient attention hasn’t been paid to the primary issue at hand at all as the NPP sought to consolidate its political power. The challenge before the executive and the legislature is how to turn around the ailing national economy to pave the resumption of debt repayment in 2028. None of the political parties in the fray seem to be prepared to face the daunting challenge.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The National People’s Alliance (NPP) and Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) are the main contenders at the forthcoming parliamentary election. At the last general election, held in August 2020, the NPP won just three seats, including one National List (NL) slot, whereas the SJB secured 54 seats.

The breakaway UNP faction, the SJB that had been registered under controversial circumstances in early 2020, but emerged as the second largest parliamentary group, with the UNP, the Grand Old Party that was reduced to a humiliating one seat and that, too, coming from a NL slot it managed to scrape. The SJB, in its inaugural electoral contest at the previous general election, managed to grab 54 seats, including seven NL members.

The Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), that won the election, secured a staggering 145 seats, including 17 NL slots.

But within five years, the NPP has turned tables on traditional middle of the road parties that clearly lost their grounds due to succumbing to political expediency for too long, which caused much of the electorate to lose their trust in them, with the NPP rightly playing up all the political chicanery they had been up to over the years. But it has to be mentioned that the NPP is still very much an old wine in a new bottle with its bulwark being the JVP that cannot easily erase its bloody past.

It is now poised to win the parliamentary elections, scheduled for Nov. 14. The NPP intends to win it primarily on the strength of NPP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s (AKD) comparative superlative performance for a Marxist, despite so much fearmongering, rightfully or wrongly, from the established order at the presidential election, even though he couldn’t obtain 50% + 1 of the total number of valid votes.

AKD polled 5,634,915 votes (42.31%) while SJB leader Sajith Premadasa (SP) obtained 4,363,035 votes (32.76%). AKD and SP received 105,264 and 167,867 preferences, respectively. With the preferences, their respective tallies were AKD 5,740,179 votes and SP 4,530,902 votes.

Therefore the masses definitely wanted a break with the past without further political horse dealings and a clear stop to ingrained corruption that is eating into every fabric of our society. In that sense the NPP can now start with a clean slate after the general election, if it maintains the no-nonsense discipline it has shown since the unlikely victory at the presidential election.

At the last parliamentary election, the SJB received 2,771,980 votes, whereas the NPP obtained just 445,958 votes and secured fourth place in terms of number of seats won. NPP’s elected members were (AKD, Vijitha Herath and NL member Dr. Harini Amarasuriya). Although Parliament has been dissolved in the wake of AKD’s victory at the presidential election, Herath and Dr. Amarasuriya constitute the caretaker Cabinet, with AKD as its head.

If we go by the presidential election result, the NPP will be able to obtain 105 seats. If it happens the NPP wouldn’t have at least a simple majority in Parliament. In other words, AKD will be at the mercy of the Opposition. Former SJB parliamentarian Mujibur Rahuman recently declared that the SJB-led Opposition could form a government under the premiership of their leader Sajith Premadasa. The Colombo district contestant asserted that the NPP would end up with 105 seats whereas the combined Opposition could obtain 120 seats. Rahuman is certainly not the only ex-lawmaker to think so. Unfortunately, that would be nothing but wishful thinking. For one thing indications are some key Tamil parties are likely to be in the AKD-led government, after the general election, as they to see the winds of an inevitable and much needed change. EPDP leader Douglas Devananda has already declared his intention to back an NPP government.

Parliament consists of 196 elected and 29 appointed lawmakers. Let me remind readers of the allocation of seats in the last Parliament.

The SLPP obtained 145 (17 NL), SJB 54 (07 NL), Illankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK) 10 (01 NL), NPP 03 (01 NL), Eelam People’s Democratic Party (EPDP) 02, Ahila Ilankai Thamil Congress (AITC) 02 (01 NL), Thamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal (TMVP) 01, Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) 01, Muslim National Alliance (MNA) 01, Thamil Makkal Thesiya Kuttani (TMTK) 01, All Ceylon Makkal Congress (ACMC) 01, National Congress (NC) 01, Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) 01, United National Party (UNP) 01 NL and the Our Power of People Party (OPPP) 01.

Fifteen political parties were represented in the last Parliament. What would be the outcome of the forthcoming parliamentary election? In spite of the Opposition assertion that the NPP may end up even without a simple majority in Parliament, the ground realities seemed to be quite different.

In addition to the main contenders, there are three other notable political parties in the fray in the South. In the Northern and Eastern regions, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) is the main party, while the Ceylon Workers’ Congress (CWC) contests Nuwara Eliya district under the UNP’s ‘elephant’ symbol.

UNP leader and former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, though not contesting the general election and also not in its NL, leads the New Democratic Front (NDF). That party had its symbol ‘swan’ changed to ‘gas cylinder’ recently to contest the general election. In spite of never having been represented in the Parliament, the NDF is not an ordinary political party. Since the end of the war, in 2009, the UNP fielded three presidential candidates in 2010 – the then retired General Sarath Fonseka (promoted to the rank of Field Marshal in 2015), 2015 Maithripala Sirisena and 2019 Sajith Premadasa.

Actually Sri Lanka’s type of democracy is a mystery. Having been involved in the UNP-led presidential campaigns in 2010 and 2015 and also part of that camp during the 2009-2019 period, the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) discarded its ‘bell’ symbol in 2019 to field AKD on the NPP ticket at the last presidential. Even prior to that, the JVP has had honeymoons with both Presidents Chandrika Kumaratunga and Mahinda Rajapaksa and helped them gain their electoral victories.

SLPP in tatters

The SLPP that won a near 2/3 majority at the 2020 general election is in tatters. The party had been so weakened, that Namal Rajapaksa (NR), widely believed to be the current SLPP Chairman Mahinda Rajapaksa’s chosen successor, sought the protection of the NL. Having polled just 342,781 votes (2.57%) at the recently concluded presidential election, NR must have realized his inability to re-enter Parliament from the Hambantota district by winning the required votes as a candidate.

At the last parliamentary election, the SLPP polled 6,853,693 votes (59.09%), the SJB a distant second with 2,771,984 votes (23.90%) and the NPP a hopelessly positioned third with a paltry 445,958 (3.84%). What really influenced the electorate to give such a mega boost to the NPP at the presidential election five years later?

The issue at hand is whether the NPP can attract more voters at the parliamentary election than it did at the presidential.

The SLPP has been badly divided into three groups, with the largest joining hands with Wickremesinghe, the failed independent candidate at the presidential election, to contest the parliamentary polls under the ‘gas cylinder’ symbol. Another group that included Prof. G. L. Peiris and Dallas Alahapperuma placed its faith in the SJB, leaving only a handful SLPPers with NR. Quite a number of former SLPPers had decided against contesting this time with the curtain coming down on war-winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s political career. Regardless of him putting a brave face the other day by declaring that he would be back and the SLPP could secure a simple majority, the dye was cast in wake of the humiliating defeat at the presidential election.

The possibility of the SLPP being reduced to just one NL seat cannot be ruled out. The UNP suffered a similar fate at the 2020 general election. The UNP that had 106 MPs in 2015-2019 (Yahapalana Parliament) was unceremoniously reduced to just one NL seat.

The SJB, too, despite putting on a brave face, is facing a huge challenge in at least retaining the same number of seats won at the last election. The SJB, beset by internal strife, may not be able to cope up with another heavy defeat at national level in less than two weeks.

Sarvajana Balaya received quite a significant media attention due to Pivithiru Hela Urumaya (PHU) leader and ex-parliamentarian Udaya Gammanpila’s battle with the NPP government over the refusal on the part of the latter to release two Easter Sunday reports commissioned by AKD’s predecessor Ranil Wickremesinghe.

Gammanpila earned the respect of many for taking an unwavering stand in the continuing controversy but it may not help Sarvajana Balaya at the general election. While the Catholic Church has thrown its weight behind the NPP government in continuing to seek justice for victims of the Easter carnage, without being politically neutral, at least in public, UNP leader Wickremesinghe strongly disapproved of the stand taken by the government and the Church. However, the Church has dismissed Gammanpila’s assertions, as well as the much touted committee reports, out of hand. Therefore, the NPP can be sure of receiving the backing of the influential Catholic belt at the general election.

The outcome of the general election must be examined taking into consideration the unbelievably huge number of voters who skipped the presidential election. About 1/5 of 17,140,354 registered voters refrained from voting at the Sept, election. Although some of them had been overseas, political parties, under any circumstances, cannot ignore the danger in a significant group of electors keeping away from polling booths. Of 17,140,354 electors, only 13,619,916 (79.46 %) had exercised their franchise and of them 300,300 (2.2 %) votes were rejected. The total number of valid votes at the presidential election was 13,319,616 (97.8 % of the total polled).

The NPP is confident that at the forthcoming general election it can definitely improve on its performance at the presidential election. Addressing rallies at Katunayaka (Oct. 20) and Polonnaruwa and Trincomalee (Oct. 23), President AKD called on the electorate to wipe out the Opposition at the general election. The writer was present at an NPP rally at Katunayake where AKD explained why the next Parliament should be overwhelmingly dominated by NPP lawmakers.

The NPP leader, who is also the leader of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (both are registered political parties recognized by the Election Commission), said that the defeat of no-confidence motions moved against Ravi Karunanayake (UNP), who, as a Minister giving evidence in the bond scam probe, claimed he could not remember the name of the person who had provided him with a luxury penthouse, and Keheliya Rambukwella (SLPP), in June 2016 and Sept. 2023, underscored the need to overhaul Parliament. That couldn’t be achieved unless the new Parliament was filled by members of the NPP, the President declared.

The Joint Opposition-led no-confidence motion against Karunanayake over the Treasury bond scams was defeated by a majority of 94 votes. The no-confidence motion received 51 votes in favour and 145 against, while 28 didn’t turn up at the time of the voting on June 09, 2016. Among the absentees were Mahinda Rajapaksa and the late R. Sampanthan.

The no-confidence motion moved against Keheliya Rambukwella, on Sept. 08, 2023, over corruption charges, pertaining to the procurement of medicine and surgical equipment, was easily defeated by the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government. The motion received 73 votes in favour, while 113 voted against it.

AKD repeatedly declared that the actions of the MPs resulted in Parliament earning the wrath of the public and widely considered as the most hated institution in the country.

Elpitiya PS result

Comments on the result of the Elpitiya Pradeshiya Sabha election, held on Oct. 26, indicated that politicians and other interested parties took advantage of the outcome to pursue their own agendas. Some asserted that the Elpitiya result meant that the NPP’s decline has started quite early and portends the likelihood of a significant setback for the ruling party at the parliamentary election.

Others asserted that the SLPP has done well at Elpitiya though the party suffered a humiliating defeat at the presidential polls.

Eight registered political parties, and one independent group, contested the Elpitiya Local Government election. The UNP was not among them. The 30-member Elpitiya PS was shared by NPP (17,295/15 members), SJB (7,924/06 members), SLPP (3,597/03 members), People’s Alliance (2,612/02 members), People’s United Freedom Alliance (1,350/01), National’s People’s Party (521/01) and Independent Group (2,568/02).

The NPP polled 17,295 votes whereas the seven registered political parties, and the one Independent Group, polled 19,010 voters.

However, pertaining to Elpitiya, the issue at hand is why out of 55, 643 registered voters only 36, 825 exercised their franchise in spite of growing interest in the general election. Of 55,643 registered voters, 18,818 didn’t turn up to vote.

Having compared the Elpitiya PS result with that of the Elpitiya presidential polls outcome, some have come to the conclusion that the SLPP has made a strong comeback by increasing its percentage of votes from 3.56% to 9.89% while both the NPP and the SJB recorded a drop in their respective percentages.

The security scares caused by the alleged threat on Israeli tourists visiting the east coast continues to dominate the media attention, with the Opposition and various other interested parties, too, seeking to exploit the developing situation.

The Opposition found fault with the government over the way the police and higher security authorities had handled the threat, whereas the incumbent administration stressed that the relevant alert was received on Oct. 07 and local authorities were in the process of addressing the threat when the US Embassy issued a public warning, almost three weeks later.

The crux of the matter is whether the Arugam Bay fallout can influence voters at the forthcoming parliamentary election. The issue has to be examined taking into consideration Sri Lanka’s response to the ongoing Israeli war on Gaza and Lebanon and the extremely dangerous developments in Iran-Israel lethal exchanges and the Houthi threat to international shipping.

Unfortunately, those who find fault with Israel for the continuing bloodshed are silent on Hamas invasion of southern Israel in October last year that created an environment conducive for the Jewish State to unleash war on Gaza and then extend hostilities to Lebanan and Iran with the backing of the US and the UK.

Recently, some interested party posted a video of a pro-Israeli march in Batticaloa. The video was meant to deceive the electorate that the AKD government has allowed such a controversial public display of support for Israel in the wake of the ongoing war and security crisis caused by alleged threat on Israelis here. However, inquiries revealed that the video had been taken in 2015 during the Yahapalana administration. A similar demonstration had been organized in 2019 by the same non-Roman Catholic Church group based at No 118, Bar Street, Batticaloa.

The government should be mindful of the accusations directed by the breakaway JVP faction Frontline Socialist Party (FSP), or Peratugaami pakshaya, regarding the government role in facilitating, what the party called, Israeli military tourism. The FSP insists that the project that had been launched during the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa administration posed a major security threat and the new government should re-examine the controversial decision.

The government should pay utmost attention to the developments pertaining to the Arugam Bay security threat or be prepared to face the consequences.

Midweek Review

The Western Gaze: Orientalism and Middle East Conflict

Published

6 days ago

2024/10/30

Sahan Weerasooriya

A file photo of Israeli attacks on Gaza

by Amarasiri de Silva

After moving to the United States a decade ago, I quickly noticed how people from Middle Eastern, South Asian, and Muslim backgrounds were often viewed through a peculiar, almost mystifying lens. In conversations, media portrayals, and even school settings, these communities were consistently depicted as fundamentally different—exotic, foreign, and, at times, dangerous.

Hollywood frequently portrayed Middle Eastern landscapes as barren deserts filled with shadowy figures, while news stories reduced entire cultures to images of conflict and chaos. This persistent thread of “otherness” seemed to frame anyone with my skin tone, a similar cultural background, or shared religious beliefs as unfamiliar and fundamentally separate from the Western norm. Over time, particularly after reading Said’s book ‘Orientalism,’ I understood that this wasn’t coincidental but part of a legacy of Orientalism. This framework has long influenced how the West perceives and engages with the Middle East. Examining the origins of this mindset, I began to see how these deeply ingrained misrepresentations continue to fuel political and cultural misunderstandings that shape conflicts to this day.

The Middle East conflict is a deeply rooted and multifaceted struggle involving political, religious, and territorial disputes that have spanned centuries. At the heart of many modern interpretations of this conflict lies the pervasive influence of Western intervention, particularly through the lens of orientalism. Edward Said’s groundbreaking work, Orientalism, provides a theoretical framework for understanding how the West’s imperialistic endeavours shaped perceptions of the East, particularly the Middle East, leading to centuries of misrepresentation, exploitation, and ongoing strife. By examining the Middle East conflict through Said’s concepts of Orientalism, we can better comprehend how Western ideologies of superiority and domination have exacerbated and, in many ways, sustained this protracted crisis.

In this essay, I will explore the historical context of the Middle East conflict, focusing on the influence of European colonialism and its lingering impact on modern-day geopolitics in the region. Drawing on Said’s theory of Orientalism, I will analyze how the West’s misrepresentation and dehumanisation of Middle Eastern peoples have contributed to the perpetuation of violence and instability. Through this exploration, it becomes clear that Orientalism, far from being an abstract academic concept, is central to understanding the ongoing power dynamics and struggles in the Middle East.

Historical Context of Western Involvement in the Middle East

To fully appreciate the relevance of Said’s theory to the Middle East conflict, it is essential first to understand the historical context in which Orientalism emerged. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, European colonial powers such as Britain and France expanded their empires into the Middle East, driven by economic interests, strategic motivations, and a desire for political dominance. The British occupation of Egypt, the French control of Algeria, and the carving up of the Ottoman Empire after World War I are just a few examples of how European imperialism shaped the region’s political and social landscape.

One of Said’s key assertions is that colonialism/orientalism was not just a physical act of territorial expansion but also an intellectual and cultural project. In Orientalism, Said argues that the West constructed an image of the “Orient” as backward, irrational, and barbaric to justify its colonisation. This process of “othering” created a stark dichotomy between the “civilised” West and the “primitive” East, allowing European powers to rationalise their domination over Middle Eastern societies.

The 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Ottoman territories between Britain and France, exemplifies how colonial powers viewed the Middle East as a region to be divided and controlled for their benefit. The arbitrary borders drawn by Western officials without regard for ethnic, religious, or historical realities have had long-lasting consequences, sowing the seeds for many of the conflicts we see in the Middle East today. For example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one of the most enduring and contentious disputes in the region, is deeply rooted in the legacy of colonial intervention and Western-imposed territorial divisions.

Orientalism as a Justification for Colonial Domination

At the heart of Said’s Orientalism is the idea that the West’s representations of the East were shaped not by objective observations but by a desire to assert dominance over a perceived “other.” Said explains that Orientalism served as a justification for colonial domination by portraying Middle Eastern societies as incapable of self-governance and in need of Western intervention to “civilise” them.

This sense of Western superiority is reflected in many of the cultural artifacts produced during the colonial era, from travel writing to scholarly works. European artists and writers often depicted the Middle East as a mysterious and exotic land, filled with danger and intrigue, but ultimately inferior to Europe’s rational, orderly world. These representations were not mere fantasies; they had real-world implications, shaping public opinion and government policy in ways that reinforced colonial power structures.

Said highlights the work of European scholars and colonial officers who produced knowledge about the Middle East, noting that this knowledge could have been more neutral. Instead, it was designed to reinforce Western hegemony and justify the exploitation of Middle Eastern resources and people. As Said states, “knowledge of the Orient, because generated out of strength, in a sense creates the Orient, the Oriental, and his world” (Said, 1978, p. 40). In this way, Orientalism became a tool for maintaining Western dominance over the region, as it allowed Europeans to assert control over the land and the narrative surrounding its inhabitants.

The Impact of Orientalism on Western Perceptions of the Middle East

Gaza Strip (Image courtesy of BBC, https://www.bbc.
com/news/newsbeat-44124396)

One of the most insidious effects of Orientalism is the way it has shaped Western perceptions of the Middle East and its people. By consistently portraying the region as violent, irrational, and backward, Orientalism has contributed to a widespread dehumanisation of Middle Eastern individuals and cultures. This dehumanisation is evident in the ways that Western media often depicts conflicts in the Middle East, focusing on images of chaos and destruction while ignoring the underlying causes of the violence or the humanity of those affected by it.

This Orientalist framework has played a significant role in shaping Western policies toward the Middle East, particularly in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the broader “War on Terror.” The United States, in particular, has frequently invoked Orientalist tropes to justify military interventions in the region, framing its actions as part of a broader effort to “civilise” or “democratize” the Middle East. However, as Said’s work clarifies, these justifications often mask underlying economic and political motivations, such as securing access to oil or maintaining geopolitical influence.

The American involvement in the Middle East post-World War II is deeply tied to Orientalism. The rise of the United States as a global superpower after 1945 coincided with the decolonisation of much of the Middle East. Still, rather than marking an end to Western domination, this period saw the U.S. take on the region’s ” protector ” role. According to Said, the U.S. approached the Middle East much like Britain and France, viewing the region as a place to exert control for strategic purposes, particularly in terms of oil. This is reflected in America’s foreign policies, which have often involved backing autocratic regimes in the name of stability or supporting Israel without fully addressing the complexities of Palestinian sovereignty.

The Middle East Conflict Through the Lens of Orientalism

One of the central components of the Middle East conflict is the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, a dispute with roots that extend back to the early 20th century, when Zionist migration into Palestine began. Western support for the creation of Israel in 1948 is often seen through a humanitarian lens, especially in the wake of the Holocaust. However, Said’s Orientalism allows us to view the establishment of Israel—and the subsequent displacement of Palestinian people—through the framework of colonialism. The Western powers, particularly Britain and the United States, treated Palestine as another piece of territory to be “managed” and divided without adequately considering the rights and aspirations of the indigenous population.

Moreover, Said’s work draws attention to how Western media and political discourse have framed the conflict. Palestinians, especially during periods of violent uprising, have often been portrayed as irrational and inherently violent, while Israeli actions are justified as necessary for self-defense. This asymmetrical portrayal mirrors the Orientalist dichotomy of a rational West versus an irrational, violent East.

In the broader context of the Middle East, Orientalism has also influenced how the West views and interacts with other nations in the region. The Gulf Wars, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the U.S.-led intervention in Iraq can all be seen as extensions of the Orientalist mindset that views the Middle East as a place in need of Western intervention, whether for “liberation” or “stabilisation.” The dehumanisation of Middle Eastern peoples through Orientalist tropes has allowed Western nations to engage in military actions that have had devastating consequences for the civilian populations of these countries, often with little domestic scrutiny or opposition.

Orientalism and the War on Terror

The events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent War on Terror offer a stark illustration of the enduring power of Orientalist thought in shaping Western policies and perceptions. In the wake of the attacks, the U.S. government launched a series of military interventions across the Middle East and Central Asia, framing these actions as part of a broader struggle between the civilised, democratic West and the barbaric, extremist forces of the East.

This narrative, deeply rooted in Orientalist tropes, ignored the complex political, economic, and social factors that contributed to the rise of extremist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, instead reducing the conflict to a simple clash of civilisations. The War on Terror not only perpetuated violence and instability in the Middle East but also reinforced negative stereotypes about Muslims and Middle Easterners in general, contributing to a rise in Islamophobia and xenophobia in the West.

Moreover, the War on Terror has had devastating consequences for civilian populations in the Middle East, with millions of people killed, displaced, or otherwise affected by the violence. Yet, these human costs are often downplayed or ignored in Western media, which tends to focus on the actions of “terrorists” rather than the suffering of ordinary people. This selective coverage is a direct result of the dehumanisation of Middle Eastern people fostered by Orientalist discourse.

Conclusion

Edward Said’s Orientalism provides a critical lens through which to examine the Middle East conflict, revealing how Western perceptions of the region have been shaped by centuries of colonialism and cultural imperialism. By constructing the Middle East as the “other,” Western powers have justified their domination and exploitation of the region, often at the expense of its people.

The Middle East conflict, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian struggle and the broader War on Terror, cannot be fully understood without recognising the influence of Orientalism. As long as Western nations continue to view the region through this distorted lens, the cycle of violence and misunderstanding is likely to persist. For true peace and stability to be achieved in the Middle East, it is essential to move beyond Orientalist stereotypes and engage with the region in a way that respects its history, cultures, and people on its own terms.