Midweek Review

IN JULIUS CAESAR,THE SHAKESPEAREAN PLAY

Published

3 years ago

2021/09/29

Sahan Weerasooriya

Moral Depravity in Politics on Display

By DR. SIRI GALHENAGE
PSYCHIATRIST [Retired]
[sirigalhenage@gmail.com]

It is a measure of Shakespeare’s stature that he explores the complexities in human nature, so skilfully. For him, the ‘political theatre’, where humans compete with each other for power, provides a fertile ground for such exploration.

Vying for power in affairs of the state, exercised inappropriately, is a favourite theme of Shakespeare. Drawing from history, he gives dramatic expression to such a scenario in his popular play, ‘The Tragedy of Julius Caesar’, in which the nature of politics and those who participate in it, and their motivations, seep into every aspect of the drama.

The plot depicts the assassination of Julius Caesar as the pivotal event of the play, preceded by the rationalization of the action by the conspirators, and the political consequences thereof. The propensity to manipulate the truth in political machinations is the prominent mode of the play – one of the most rhetorical in all Shakespeare. “Men may construe things after their fashion/ Clean from the purpose of things themselves” [Cicero: Act1- 1.3.34 – 5]. It brings forth the moral depravity in politics, making the main characters and their patterns of behaviour, the focus for interpretation – the purpose of this essay.

HISTORICAL BACKDROP

The Republicans had governed the city of Rome and its territories for over four centuries. The Roman Republic was founded by the inhabitants of the city who drove away the hereditary kings and took over power by electing their own to the Senate. The Senate was initially controlled by the patricians, the city’s aristocratic class, but in time, the plebeians, the common folk, campaigned for and achieved a greater say in the assembly by appointing their own representatives [tribunes] to safeguard their interests. Yet, the common folk remained a hapless lot, poor and disgruntled, and averse to any ruler gaining too much power.

The aristocrats continued to dominate the Senate, but with time their quality and integrity declined due to their extravagant life style and corrupt practices. Two of the generals who prevailed and formed the First Triumvirate – a cabal of three rulers – were Pompey and Julius Caesar, along with Crassus. Pompey was a defender of the Republic and statesman, and Caesar, a military expansionist. The alliance was put to the test as Caesar gained power following his successful campaigns in Europe, expanding the Territories of the Roman Republic. He became Governor of the vast region of Gaul [north-central Europe] where he commanded a large army. The contention for leadership of the Roman state, in its entirety, between Caesar and Pompey led to a bitter civil war. Following the defeat of Pompey and his progeny, Caesar emerged as the formidable leader of the Roman territories.

THE PLAY

Shakespeare’s play begins at this point with Caesar’s triumphal return to Rome accompanied by his followers, including the military and political figures – Brutus, Cassius and Antony – to be welcomed by scores of cheering Romans.

CAESAR

Caesar dominates the drama from the start and his spirit lives on even after his departure in Act 3, justifying the title of the play. He was a man with a paradoxical mixture of characteristics: arrogance and towering authority on the one hand and a blemished physique on the other, with partial deafness and prone to attacks of epilepsy. ‘He fell down in the market-place, and foamed at mouth, and was speechless’. [Casca: Act 1. Scene 2.]

While the plebeians celebrate the arrival of their new leader from his military expeditions, bringing ‘many captives home to Rome….whose ransoms, did the general coffers fill’, there is growing concern among some of Caesar’s close associates that their leader may use his supreme power to override the Republican form of governance to establish a new monarchy. The two senior Generals – Cassius and Brutus – who too had leadership ambitions, were particularly concerned about Caesar’s rise to power: whether he will ‘soar above the view of men’, as the tribunes grudgingly described.

Cassius and Brutus fought with Pompey against Caesar in the civil war. Caesar, in his magnanimity, was merciful towards his defeated opponents, but was insightful about Cassius. Astute in his judgement of character, Caesar once remarked: ‘Cassius has a lean and hungry look/ He thinks too much: such men are dangerous’.

CASSIUS

Cassius harbours a personal resentment towards Caesar: ‘So vile a thing as Caesar…he doth bear me hard’, at the same time being envious of his might: ‘Bestride the narrow world’ like a ‘Colossus’. He instigates a plan to remove Caesar from power and hatches a plot to draw Brutus and others into the conspiracy. He believes that his liaison with Brutus is beneficial, in order to avoid any accusations of self-interest and to lend respectability to the project, as Brutus is held in high regard by the populace.

Cassius is malcontent and conniving, reminiscent of Iago in Othello. Alerting his fellow conspirators to the danger of Caesar returning Rome to monarchical rule, also questions his fitness to govern in view of his infirmities. He tries to win over an ambivalent Brutus by planting forged letters of public discontent about Caesar in his house knowing that Brutus is receptive to the voice of the populace.

BRUTUS

Brutus is faced with having to balance his personal friendship with Caesar against the general good of the Republic. Mark Antony, a strong ally of Caesar, wishes the new leader to be crowned. But, if crowned, broods Brutus, will he change his current nature and turn dangerous? How could it be stopped?

‘It must be by his death’. And for my part/ I know no personal cause to spurn at him,/ But for the general. He would be crowned./ How that might change his nature, there’s the question./ It is the bright day that brings forth the adder,/ And that craves vary walking, Crown him: that!’ [Brutus: Act 2. Scene 1]

Brutus’s dissonance of thought crystallises into a sense of resolve. At a meeting of the conspirators, a decision is made to assassinate Caesar. Brutus takes control of the plot. ‘Let not our looks put on our purposes/ But bear it as our Roman actors do/ With untir’d spirits and formal constancy’.

‘Let’s kill him boldly, but not wrathfully/ Let’s carve him as a dish fit for the gods’ [Brutus: Act 2. Scene 1]

THE IDES of MARCH

Caesar, on his arrival at the Senate on ‘the ides [or 15th] of March’, which celebrated the first full moon of the New Year with festivities and sacrifice, is stabbed to death by the conspirators, one after the other. Before his last gasp, Caesar turns to Brutus, the last to attack, and utters his last words: ‘et tu Brute?’, [even you Brutus?], in bewilderment of his friend’s act of betrayal. The assassins bathe their hands with the blood of Caesar, an act suggestive of taking responsibility for bringing down a potential dictator, which they anticipate would be perceived by the masses as a deed of heroism.

JUSTIFICATION

In a funeral oration at the Forum that followed, Brutus explains to the masses his reasoning behind Caesar’s assassination: that despite his love for Caesar, he loves Rome more, and that Caesar’s ambition posed a danger to the Liberty of the nation. The speech pacifies the agitated crowd.

MARK ANTONY

Mark Antony grieves the death of Caesar. A loyalist of Caesar, Antony, while harbouring the thought of avenging Caesar’s death, skilfully negotiates an opportunity for a funeral oration by engaging with Brutus by shaking his bloodied hands in a gesture of amity. Brutus grants him permission to speak despite the reservations of Cassius. Antony outdoes Brutus in a rhetorical speech with an energising opening triad: ‘Friends, Romans, Countrymen’ [Act 3. Scene 2], the memory of which lives on as captivating lines. In his speech replete with irony, Antony repeatedly referring to Brutus as ‘an honourable man’ refutes the latter’s claim that Caesar acted out of ambition and self-interest. He declares that Caesar brought much wealth and glory to Rome and that he, on three occasions, turned down the offer of the crown [perhaps a theatrical demonstration of humility!]. Coming down from the pulpit, Antony exposes Caesar’s wounded body to the public and reads [after an initial reluctance] the dead leader’s deed bequeathing his [plundered!] wealth to the masses.

Following the stirring funeral oration by Antony, Cassius and Brutus are driven away by an enraged crowd, calling them traitors.

In exile, the two assassins raise an army to combat a newly formed alliance of Antony, Lepidus and Octavius, the latter, the adopted son and appointed successor to Caesar. Cassius and Brutus regroup after an initial dispute over funding, and Brutus is grief-stricken by the news that his wife, Portia, has committed suicide in his absence. Undeterred, Brutus is ready to march on to combat the enemy at Philippi:

‘There is a tide in the affairs of men,/ Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;/ Omitted all the voyage of their life,/ Is bound in shallows, and in miseries…’ [Act4. Scene2]

But the tide did not lead to plain sailing. Cassius and Brutus witness the poor performance of their men at the Battle of Philippi. Cassius misconstrues an event in the battlefield as signalling defeat and falling into the shallows of despair gets one of his men to kill him with his own sword.

‘Alas, thou hast misconstrued everything’ [Titinius: Act 5 – Scene 5]

Brutus, learning about the death of Cassius, and facing defeat, commits suicide by running through a sword held by a colleague. He ended his life to avoid further dishonour.

ANTONY and OCTAVIUS

Antony and Octavius celebrate their victory. Antony speaks over Brutus’s body in a powerful closing speech eulogising the defeated Brutus as ‘the noblest Roman of them all’ [5.5.68], who acted ‘not in envy of great Caesar’ but ‘in honest thought/ And common good to all’. ‘This was a man!’. Octavius orders an honourable burial for Brutus.

The power sharing alliance by the three victors – Octavius, Antony and Lepidus, appear shaky. Octavius and Antony discuss how to eliminate Lepidus, and the struggle for supremacy between the first two continues. At the end, Octavius, exercises his authority by calling it a day: ‘So call the field to rest, and let’s away/ To part the glories of this happy day’ [5.5.80 -1].

CONCLUSION

‘The play’s thing’ in Shakespeare, as Prince Hamlet showed us in his play within the play. Through the portrayal of characters, and the situations they create, the playwright endeavours to alert our senses and raise our conscience about humanity, with all its strengths and weaknesses. He does not take sides, but prompts us to look into the patterns of behaviour that lie beneath the ebb and flow of history and politics that are deeply rooted in our collective psyche.

In Julius Caesar, Shakespeare goes back to ancient Rome to discover a story with underlying themes that capture the imagination of his contemporary audiences at the end of the sixteenth century. He brings to life the so called heroes, the traitors, the conspirators, the betrayers, the assailants and the opportunists, who appear to cluster on the political stage; not to mention the gullible masses that constantly get carried away with the tide of rhetoric. The themes that emerge include: anticipatory anxiety about authoritarianism and militarism; fact and fiction in political rhetoric; personal interest against common good in the quest for power; war as a continuation of politics, as Clausewitz aphorises; and the lack of permanent friends or enemies in the affairs of the state. Shakespeare is, as always, our contemporary! Isn’t he?

And also, in Julius Caesar, the play, he conveys a few eternal truths about humanity: that beneath the bravado of a hero is a flawed man; that men of intellect who ought to show the way may be lacking in wisdom; that passion to save a nation may turn to hatred; and the so called honourables are prone to fall from grace. And, as the curtain comes down, one may recall [with apologies to Prospero in Tempest], ‘These our actors‘… ‘are such stuff as dreams are made on, and their little life is rounded with a sleep’.

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

War crimes issue largely discarded from Prez poll platform

Published

5 days ago

2024/09/11

Sahan Weerasooriya

General (retd.) Gunaratne responds to a query from the audience at the launch of Rajali Sandeshaya (Pic courtesy MoD)

Sri Lanka needs to examine the Indian intervention here in the early 80s. The origins of terrorism here cannot be studied or properly presented unless a no holds barred inquiry is conducted into the Indian military misadventure here that cost it nearly 1,500 officers and men and double that number wounded between July 1987 and March 1990. The assassination of one-time Indian Premier Rajiv Gandhi, in May 1991, just over a year after the Indian pullout from Sri Lanka, is a grim reminder of the New Delhi’s overreach gone very wrong, with terrible consequences. Those demanding accountability on Sri Lanka’s part in its war against the LTTE never asked for India’s culpability in launching a terrorist war here with a view to creating an environment for its direct intervention. That is the ugly truth. Or was it a case of the same West drawing India into a quagmire here by making her believe that if she does not look after Tamil interests here there could be growing repercussions in Tamil Nadu as the Western media continued to stir the pot with exaggerated accounts against Sri Lanka.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa was among the guests, at the Nelum Pokuna theatre, recently. at the launch of Defence Secretary Maj. Gen. (retd.) Kamal Gunaratne’s ‘Rajali Sandeshaya,’ a poetic reflection of experiences from the times of Sinhala kings to the eradication of terrorism in May 2009, The author of the widely read ‘Ranamaga Osse Nanthikadal’ and Gajaba Regiment veteran also dealt with his battlefield experiences through his latest literary work declared as the longest kavya sandeshaya, written entirely in Sinhala verse (2579 poems).

During the fourth phase of the Eelam War IV (Aug 2006-May 2009), Maj. Gen. Gunaratne served as the General Officer Commanding (GoC) of the 53 Division that was stationed in the Jaffna peninsula at the time of the outbreak of the final phase of the war in 2006. Present Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Shavendra Silva, who was then the GoC of the celebrated Task Force 1/58 Division and later GoC of 57 Division that was tasked to regain Kilinochchi, were among the invitees.

Among the notable absentees were war-winning Army Commander Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, Admiral of the Fleet Wasantha Karannagoda, Marshal of the Air Force Roshan Goonatilleke and wartime Defence Secretary and former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, another pioneer combat veteran of the battle proven Gajaba Regiment, who has literally accused the military top brass of failing in their duty as Aragalaya mobs chased him and his government out of power with plenty of covert and overt foreign inputs in the form of funding, intelligence, outright diplomatic interference, etc.

Ven. Induragare Dhammarathana and Prof. Praneeth Abeysundara briefly discussed the importance of ‘Rajali Sandeshaya’ authored by Maj. Gen. Gunaratne who serves as the Secretary, Ministry of Defence since Nov 2019.

The event held on Sept. 06 coincided with the author’s 63rd birthday and was meant to be a glowing tribute to the sacrifices made during the conflict. During his brief remarks at the event, the author dealt with the final phase of the war. Without hesitation, the author contradicted the primary accusation directed at the then Lt. Gen. Fonseka’s Army that 40,000 Tamil civilians perished, while pointing out the successful reintegration of thousands of LTTE combatants, who surrendered, back into the society.

Against the backdrop of the Defence Secretary’s latest public denial, let us examine the status of the controversial UN Human Rights Council Resolution 30/1 co-sponsored by the then Yahapalana government wanting to please the West and settle scores with the war-winning Rajapaksa administration, which achieved a dream victory against “the most ruthless terrorist force on earth”, on Oct 01, 2015. Without doubt some of the leaders, who led the Yahapalana lot, were the types who could not even say boo to Tigers. In terms of 30/1, Sri Lanka was humiliated as it was made to pledge before the entire world to undertake promotion of reconciliation, accountability and human rights as if we were under an Idi Amin when the war victory was achieved. Sri Lanka repeated these commitments in the 2017 and 2019 Resolutions.

Now that the Defence Secretary referred to a high profile claim of 40,000 civilian deaths, in a matter of weeks, in 2009, it would be pertinent to reproduce the relevant paragraph from the UN Secretary General’s Panel of Experts (PoE)…was more like a kangaroo court all out to fix the war-winning Army and the country…on Accountability in Sri Lanka, released on March 31, 2011.

The following is the relevant paragraph bearing number 137: “In the limited surveys that have been carried out in the aftermath of the conflict, the percentage of people reporting dead relatives is high. A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths. Two years after the end of the war, there is no reliable figure for civilian deaths, but multiple sources of information indicate that a range of up to 40,000 civilian deaths cannot be ruled out at this stage. Only a proper investigation can lead to the identification of all of the victims and to the formulation of an accurate figure for the total number of civilian deaths.”

The UN had no qualms in making this uncorroborated declaration that 40,000 civilians perished in just a matter of weeks on the Vanni east, while acknowledging that a proper survey conducted by UN Colombo, that dealt with the period from August 2008 to May 13, 2009, placed the number of dead at 7,721 and the wounded at 18,479. The PoE, in paragraphs 134 and 135, discussed how meticulously the UN-led project involved the ICRC and, what it called, ‘networks of observers operational in LTTE- controlled areas’, to gather information. The PoE report could have easily been the basis of Sri Lanka’s defence. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka leadership lacked post-war foresight to cleverly use the UN report to counter their obvious anti-Sri Lanka project. It begs us to think whether we have capable diplomats or diplo-muts to speak on our behalf. In other words, the UN contradicted its own report but President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government simply squandered an opportunity to expose the much propagated lie of 40,000 civilian deaths, despite ironically having an illustrious law professor serving as his Foreign Minister.

Fatal omission

Less than three months after the release of the PoE report, the US, unintentionally, contradicted the UN report, thereby presenting Sri Lanka with further opportunity to build its defence on the basis of the UN report and the US declaration that countered the very basis of the primary accusation.

The first sign that uncorroborated war crimes accusations can be successfully countered was seen at the first ever Colombo Defence Seminar, conducted in late May-June 2011 during Lt. Gen. Jagath Jayasuriya’s tenure as the Commander of the Army (July 2009-July 2013).

On the first day of the seminar, the then US Defence Advisor in Colombo, Lt. Col. Lawrence Smith, questioned the very basis of war crimes allegations, including the execution of surrendered terrorists directed at the then Maj. Gen. Shavendra Silva’s Division.

The US official was responding to a query posed by retired Major General Ashok K. Mehta, formerly of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) deployed here (July 1987 to March 1990), to Major General Shavendra Silva. Silva was there in his capacity as Sri Lanka’s then No 02 at the UN. Smith’s voluntary and spontaneous revelation, made just weeks after the PoE, aka the Darusman report, embarrassed the US (Sri Lanka Defence Symposium: Now, US suspects credibility of LTTE surrender offer with strap line…dismisses K.P. Nadesan as ‘mouthpieces’ with no real authority – The Island, June 3, 2011)

The US State Department had no option but to declare in a face saving exercise that Smith hadn’t represented the US at the seminar. The political leadership and Army Headquarters never exploited the US official’s forthright statement.

In fact, Smith’s statement made six years before Lord Naseby’s disclosure, based on the then British Defence Advisor Lt. Col. Anthony Gash’s similar wartime dispatches, should have been the foundation of Sri Lanka’s defence.

It would be pertinent to examine why the first Rajapaksa administration never bothered to examine the US official’s statement. In fact, the Army never really pursued the matter during the tenure of Army Commanders – Daya Ratnayaka (Aug 2013-Feb 2015), Chrishantha de Silva (Feb-2015-June 2017) and Mahesh Senanayake (June 2017-August 2019).

The politically motivated US decision to slap a travel ban on the then Army Commander Lt. General Shavendra Silva in Feb 2020 should be examined against the backdrop of the criminal negligence on Sri Lanka’s part to counter lies propagated in spite of having powerful ammunition. The US ban on Gen. Silva and members of his family remain in force while shameless UNHRC, at the behest of the West, contemplates further action against us, even in foreign jurisdictions, while it literally turns a blind eye to continuing outright genocides elsewhere.

Actually a Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) is necessary to ascertain the shocking lapses on the part of successive political and military leaderships that led to ‘Accountability Resolution 30/1’ in 2015 and the expansion of relentless and continuing Western campaign.

Lord Naseby made his disclosure during Mahesh Senanayake’s tenure as the Army Commander. But, the Army never examined/exploited Lt. Col. Smith’s statement and that of Lord Naseby as part of Sri Lanka’s overall defence in Geneva.

Impotent Sri Lanka political leadership conveniently failed to set the record straight at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council. Sri Lanka never bothered to officially mention in Geneva that the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), that recognized the LTTE as the sole representative of the Tamil-speaking people, backed Fonseka at the 2010 presidential election. The TNA delivered all predominantly Tamil speaking electoral districts, including Vanni, comprising Mannar, Mullaithivu and Vavuniya, to Fonseka, though he lost the contest by 1.8 mn votes as he was rejected by an overwhelming majority in the rest of the country.

Sri Lanka discards Naseby’s disclosure

Treacherous politicians, some sections of the media, and the diplomatic community, and the civil society, worked overtime to suppress Lord Naseby’s disclosure that threatened to undermine the devious Geneva project. The Geneva operation was meant to introduce a new Constitution that did away with Sri Lanka’s unitary status in the guise of addressing accountability issues.

The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration spearheaded the despicable project. The then Joint Opposition co-operated in that endeavour by being part of a parliamentary process to draft a new Constitution, spearheaded by the then Premier Wickremesinghe. President Sirisena remained an onlooker whereas his parliamentary group participated in the process. Wimal Weerawansa’s National Freedom Front (NFF) subsequently quit the process though his efforts to convince the Joint Opposition to do so failed.

Lord Naseby’s disclosure threatened to weaken the Yahapalana project. The Foreign Ministry, under Ravi Karunanayake (RK received the appointment in the wake of Samaraweera’s removal as FM in May 2017), ridiculed Lord Naseby’s statement.

Did the Sri Lanka High Commission in London bring Lord Naseby’s statement to the Foreign Ministry’s attention? For want of a Foreign Ministry response to Lord Naseby’s very important statement, even a week after it was made, the writer, on Oct 20, 2017, sought an explanation from the Foreign Ministry. The Foreign Ministry response really disappointed a vast majority of people, who expected the government to use the House of Lords disclosure to counter lies that had been propagated by various interested parties.

Instead of taking advantage of Lord Naseby’s statement, the Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mahishini Colonne declared: “The Government of Sri Lanka remains committed to the national processes, aimed at realizing the vision of a reconciled, stable, peaceful and prosperous nation. Engaging in arguments and debates in the international domain over the number of civilians who may have died at a particular time in the country will not help resolve any issues, in a meaningful manner, locally, except a feel good factor for a few individuals who may think that they have won a debate or scored points over someone or the other.”

The writer also raised Lord Naseby’s disclosure with the then four-party TNA, one-time mouthpiece of the LTTE, and the main Opposition in Parliament. The TNA refrained from responding to The Island queries submitted to then TNA leader R. Sampanthan.

In spite of over a dozen calls/SMS to Raghu Balachandran of Sampanthan’s Office, The Island never received the TNA’s response. You may want to know when the set of questions regarding TNA’s response to Lord Naseby’s disclosure was submitted to that party. The Island submitted the following questions to TNA and Opposition Leader R. Sampanthan on Nov. 27, 2017 and repeatedly reminded the Opposition Leader’s Office of the delay on its part to respond: Have you (TNA) studied Lord Naseby’s statement made in the House of Lords on Oct. 12, 2017? What is TNA’s position on Naseby’s claims? Did TNA leaders discuss Naseby’s claim among themselves? Did TNA respond to MP Dinesh Gunawardena’s statements in Parliament on Naseby’s disclosure? And did TNA take up this issue with the UK High Commissioner James Dauris?

False declaration

In late Feb 2020, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government perpetrated a major propaganda exercise to deceive the public. On behalf the government, the then Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena declared at Geneva session that Sri Lanka withdrew from co-sponsorship of the UN Human Rights Council resolutions ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka.’

This was nothing but a meaningless declaration meant to hoodwink the public. In spite of that declaration, Sri Lanka fully cooperated with the Geneva process but what is really baffling is why the government continues to hesitate to set the record straight.

Over 15 years after the successful conclusion of the war, Sri Lanka is yet to build a solid defence on the basis of official information available in the public domain.

Gajaba Regiment veteran Chagie Gallage, who retired in the rank of Maj. Gen. in late August 2018, in his farewell address delivered at the Saliyapura Regimental Centre, explained the pathetic failure on the part of utterly irresponsible and useless political leadership to defend the armed forces.

“Gajaba was engraved in golden letters in the annals of the history of the Sri Lanka Army, if not in the history of Sri Lanka … and I’m certain it will never be reversed by any. So, I’m happy to be retired being a tiny particle of that proud chapter of history, though designated as a ‘War Criminal.”

The writer revealed Gallage’s predicament on March 23, 2017 edition of The Island in a front-page lead story, headlined ‘Chagie denied Australian visa over ‘war crimes’ allegations’ with strapline ‘Unsubstantiated UN claim cited as reason’

War time Special Forces Commander Major General Nirmal Dharmaratne in a superb piece on Gallage, published in The Island, called the brother officer a ‘meticulous man’. For Australia, Gallage was nothing but a potential controversial visitor. The Foreign Ministry turned a blind eye to Gallage’s plight. The Gallage issue was largely ignored by the media. Australian insult never received the coverage it deserved.

Our parliamentarians were too busy to take up the issue. Parliament shirked its responsibility. The failure on the part of Parliament to address accountability issues finally led to the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government co-sponsoring the damning Geneva Resolution in Oct 2015 directed at the previous political leadership and the military.

President Maithripala Sirisena, in spite of a plethora of promises, did nothing to address the issue. The author of ‘Rajali Sandeshaya’ Gen. Gunaratne, Gen. Jagath Dias and Field Marshal Fonseka are those targeted by the Western agenda.

For some strange reason, all political parties represented in Parliament appeared to have succumbed to Western pressure to accept war crimes accusations by conveniently ignoring the issue. The issue hadn’t been seriously addressed by the four major presidential contestants – namely independent candidate Ranil Wickremesinghe, SJB leader Sajith Premadasa, JJB leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake and SLPPer Namal Rajapaksa.

Their election manifestos, too, hadn’t dealt with this issue though usual phrases relating to post-war developments were used.

Presidential candidate Dilith Jayaweera of Sarvajana Balaya is solidly behind our war heroes, while assuring equality to all.

With Geneva declaring that whoever won the next presidential and parliamentary election should abide by the process now taking place, all major political parties should take a common stand on accountability issue.

Midweek Review

Still Undecided?

Published

5 days ago

2024/09/11

Rashi Nihara

If there are too many things to consider, the integrity of the individual and their commitment to get rid of corruption should be the number one criterion at this point. If one cannot decide, based on that, staying out of this election, and returning to the parliamentary elections to work with whoever comes to power for the sake of country may be the right thing to do. Let us not forget that the presidential election is not the end, a parliamentary opposition that is willing to work for the country but not for self-interest is the crucial element that has been missing in our culture.

by Geewananda Gunawardana

My grandfather was an ardent supporter of the UNP all his life. The reason? Its founder got independence for the country. In addition, if the communists, like NM and Colvin, came to power, they would confiscate everything we had and take children away from their families. My grandfather passed away 60 years ago. Today, the country’s sovereignty is not at risk, the civil war has ended, and, most importantly, the communist ideology has vastly changed all over the world. Yet, there are many voters who think and act the same way as my grandfather did 60 years ago, while some others cannot decide what to do at the upcoming election.

They cannot be blamed; there is an information gap and a surplus of misinformation. The single most threat that the country is facing is the perilous condition its economy is in. Despite the rosy picture some would like to paint, nothing has changed over the last decade to put the country on a recovery path. As one successful US President put it during his campaign, the slogan should be ‘It is the economy, stupid.’ There are other issues, but most of them are the result of the economy, or economic disparity, and we would not have the resources to fix them without restoring the economy first.

Now that the leading contenders for presidency have published their manifestos, and we know their political history very well, it should not be that difficult to decide who could get us started on the right path to recovery. Let us be clear, the goal should be to put us on the right path to economic development, lay the foundation. This mess has been in the making for 75 years, and not even a superhuman will be able to solve all our problems during the first six months, or during the entire term of their presidency. All they need to do, and we can expect them to do, is to put the economy on the right path. The recovery will take time, hard choices will have to be made but let us not be deceived by bogus election promises yet again.

If we pay attention to our past and current economic indicators or see what other countries, like ours, have done to succeed or to fail in such situations, it is not difficult to see what policies will work for our country. If a candidate is promising to continue in the same path, it is insanity to believe that it would magically work this time around. Let us not forget that we have been on this path for 75 years, led by the same group of people and their progeny, who have done very well for themselves.

The most crucial factor, besides policy, is the elimination of corruption. Sri Lanka corruption index has more than doubled during the last 20 years, and now it stands at 80%. That is a grave situation. Not only it is a massive burden on people, but it also keeps potential foreign investments from coming to the country. Without investments, there is no way to resurrect the broken economy. Corruption takes many forms; lack of transparency, accountability, and disregard for rules and regulations are also part of corruption. Elimination of corruption is the responsibility of all citizens as it continues to siphon billions that rightfully belong to the people. However, the leadership must come from the top. Therefore, preventing the corrupt and those who would protect the corrupt from sneaking back into power should be the highest priority. How can you entrust the future of a nation to someone who has no integrity?

Making promises is one thing, keeping them is another. As the saying goes, there are no free lunches. It is true that there must be some relief for those who suffer due to no fault of their own. But they should be in the form of temporary measures to get them back on their feet. Otherwise, anyone offering free anything unconditionally is either ignorant or a fraud not fit to lead.

The next crucial factor is to see who has the political will to implement what they promise. If one comes to power with the backing of the corrupt, even if their economic policies are sound, how can they work to eliminate corruption? Same goes for those who are supported by special interest groups. They will have to pander to their supporters’ interests at the expense of public welfare when they come to power. Haven’t we suffered enough under cronyism and nepotism? There are practices that can be done away without any additional costs to the government to alleviate the burden on the populous. Think of the current condition of the so-called free education and free healthcare. There are no reliable statistics, but one can guess that the public spends out of its pocket as much as the government does on education, for example. What a waste of resources. Corrective measures are unfavourable to some, but would the new leader have the courage and political will to stand against such special interests? Which candidate has a history of taking a stand in such situations?

There are no perfect economic models or governance systems that would always apply to all countries. Every country must carefully adopt what suits its own situation. There is a lot of misinformation circulating currently in this regard. Even the correct information can be presented selectively, in a biased manner, when the purveyor of news has an agenda. There is a lot of talk about the perils of the socialist system, but we rarely hear the evils of the capitalist system. The food insecurity rate in the United States in 2023 was 13.5%. That is about 47 million Americans, or more than 1 in 8, were unable to consistently get enough food for themselves or their families, while the country has the capacity to feed them. Similarly, the US spends the highest on healthcare per capita in the world, but ranked 21st in terms of quality, and only 90% of the population is covered compared to 100% in most developed countries. We must look at how the economies of so-called socialist countries, like China, Vietnam, and Cambodia, are doing today. They have recovered from much worse situations than we face. Is the socialist system still the same monster that my grandfather dreaded? We have two choices: continue with the same failed system with a predictable outcome or try something different and work collectively to give it the best chance possible.
Another factor to consider would be the fate of the executive presidency, which has been a curse on the whole country, not just the economy. Many parties have promised to abolish it ever since it was established 46 years ago, but have they done so when they had the opportunity? Who can we trust to keep that promise this time around?

If there are too many things to consider, the integrity of the individual and their commitment to get rid of corruption should be the number one criterion at this point. If one cannot decide based on that, staying out of this election, and returning to the parliamentary elections to work with whoever comes to power for the sake of country may be the right thing to do. Let us not forget that the presidential election is not the end, a parliamentary opposition that is willing to work for the country but not for self-interest is the crucial element that has been missing in our culture.

The US system may not be a posterchild for good governance, but it has the strongest economy today. The secret is that despite the bitter partition divide of the country, 70 percent of the bills passed in the current Congress were passed with bipartisan support. The fight for power can be ugly, but they work for the country when in power. We need to elect politicians who work for the country, and not for their descendants or henchmen. One more thing: is it an unbreakable rule that only the descendants of former politicians must be chosen for our leadership as we have done many times in the past 75 years? Are we a democracy or a monarchy? Is it that difficult to decide?