Towards A Rainbow Nation

President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe

by Wimalanath Weeraratne
Sunday, December 06, 2015
President Maithripala Sirisena at a recent forum said, I believe that those who
spearheaded the revolution can defeat the counter-revolution. What he implied was
that there is currently no movement that can reverse the political transition triggered
on January 8, which some have dubbed as the Rainbow Revolution. Firstly, we wish
to emphasize that there is no room for a counter-revolution. The reason is because Sri
Lanka has still not seen a genuine revolution, in the true sense of the word.
Hypothetically-speaking, if one argues that the revolution took place on January 8, he
or she could assume the protest walk organized by the people against deals and calling
for expeditions of investigations as counter-revolutionary.
The recent protest walk organized by the Voice against Corruption was attended by
many professionals, artists, intellectuals cut across all political parties. One factor
which should be highlighted is that the majority of these protestors, who objected to
some actions of the United National Front for Good Governance (UNFGG), were the
same people who toiled hard and sacrificed much to bring in this change of
government. Surely, supporters of Mahinda Rajapaksa were not in that crowd calling
for quicker investigations and better governance.
Counter-revolution
For whom is a counter revolution and for what? It is to defeat the revolutionary
government. Some refer to the January victory as a rainbow revolution. Rainbow
signifies the calm after the rain and storm. It signifies fertility and the people who gave
power to Maithri and Ranil also recognize that the revolution of January signified
prosperity. It is justifiable to think likewise as prices of essential food items and fuel

were reduced; powers of the Executive Presidency being clipped and democracy, good
governance, Rule of Law and independence of the judiciary were being restored.
However, people did not expect mere prosperity when they engaged in defeating
Mahinda Rajapaksa and bringing Maithripala Sirisena into power. People expected
total restoration of human rights, independence of the judiciary, transparency of State
transactions, placing a full stop to corruption, a tangible solution to the national
question and a government that truly respects human freedoms.
The first step towards that path was taken and undoubtedly the Maithri-Ranil duo
should be lauded for it. However, the next step was to punish culprits of crime and
corruption. For this question also the government had an answer. We shall not misuse
the judiciary just as Rajapaksa did but will wait for course of justice to take its course.
On one hand, this is a commendable policy. But unfortunately, some corrupt wheelerdealers saw this as an opportunity to infiltrate the government.
The infamous Sajin Vass Gunawardena was granted bail and eventually travelled to
Singapore. Whilst many other drug peddlers and ethanol dealers not only penetrated
the government but also obtained portfolios. Rouges who embezzled sil-redi are now
amongst the religious institutions in the guise of being devout.
The Voice Against Corruption protested and objected against this demeaning
development and not against the good governance administration per se. As such,
these protests were held to ensure good governance and are in no way distantly linked
to a counter-revolution. This government is in the forefront of nepotism and family
bandism and is slow to bring the corrupt to the book. If this goes rotten, we have no
alternative but to remedy the mistakes. This is the crux of what the good governance
crusader Victor Ivan said.
Sometimes we feel ashamed when people ask Is this the good governance youll
sacrifice much to bring? said Dharmasiri Bandaranayake. Gamini Viyangoda who was
in forefront of the peoples walk against corruption too holds a similar view.
There is no doubt that this trio is in no way counter-revolutionaries. How can this
triumvirate which never sought any portfolio or any benefit from the government
become counter-revolutionaries?
Furthermore, the founder of modern political science Machiavelli in his muchcelebrated book The Prince, states, It cannot be called prowess to kill fellow citizens,
to betray friends, to be treacherous, pitiless, or irreligious. These ways can win a prince
power but not glory.
At the end of the day how can this regime be any different to the Rajapaksa regime
which ordered to shoot protestors, if it baton-charges HNDA students on one hand and

talks of the importance of Gandhism, on the other?

Gandhi and ministers
It is evident that President Maithripala Sirisena is not hungry for power but is truly
bent on giving up power as he is keen on abolishing the Executive Presidency. Sixty
years back, prominent leader of the Indian independence movement and crusader of
non-violence, Mahathma Gandhi, too gave up power which was offered to him in a
platter.
However, this did not stop Gandhi from spreading his ideology. Fortunately, there
were no drug peddlers or Ethanol dealers who opposed Gandhis ideology in India at
the time.
President Sirisena at the opening of the Gandhi Center in Matale urged the public to
emulate Gandhi as their role model. He was addressing the political establishment
below him. He addressed those politicians manipulated by Avant Garde and even those
ministers who texted its owner Nissanka Sendhipathi, addressing him as machan.
The ministers in question reject that they accepted money from Avant Garde. If that is
so why would Avant Garde owner states in pubic that politicians and media
institutions accepted bribes from him?
The reality
The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, met Maithrpla
Sirisena last month and said that she was highly impressed by the humbleness of
Sirisena to give up power. Not only her, but many others in the international
community have lauded the policies and changes spearheaded by the new
government. Prima facie, there doesnt seem to be any internal conflict per se.
Democracy has been restored, Human Rights uplifted and the Independence of the
Judiciary lies in a very optimum level.
However, some of the ministers of the new government are no different to that of the
Rajapaksa regime. Personalities that were branded as thieves by this government are
now ironing out differences with the President. The latter also aggravated the situation
by appointing several defeated candidates as Directors for Special Projects not
stopping from appointing the defeated and the corrupt to the Parliament and the
Cabinet of Ministers. Everyone seems to be getting a piece of the pie.
Another unfortunate development is that the President has a limited number of
intellectuals and professionals that he can rely on. If President Sirisena is to spearhead
a real change he needs to have a broader circle of professionals and intellectuals.
President Sirisena has faced the challenge all the presidents have faced in Sri Lanka.
That is those who are close to him and those who have suddenly become his
confidantes have built a gigantic Great Wall alienating the Head of State from the
public. Rajapaksa too had such a Great Wall. It was tough from anyone outside the
walls to get near him. Only the views of those within were implemented. If the advisors

around President Sirisena are genuine and doing the right job, this government will
not have anything to fear. However, if it is otherwise, this will sound the death knell for
this administration just as it had caused the downfall of the Rajapaksa regime.
Litmus test
Wining international accolades for restoring democracy and human rights and
ensuring independence of the judiciary and media freedom also is commendable, but
would not resolve the burning issues in its self. Building a fully-fledged mechanism
based on the Geneva proposals and setting up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission
(TRC) is the real litmus test. Resolving the national question is crucial, but it does not
automatically get resolved merely with the green light from the international
community as many in this government would like to believe. The government must
without banking purely on the bona fides and goodwill of the International
community, genuinely implement these positive steps. Mere showcasing of a TRC and
Geneva proposals to the world would not benefit us in the long run.
When ensuring transparency and accountability of State finance, it must be ensured
that all representatives of the people duly declare their assets and liabilities. Having a
transparent mechanism towards this end bringing the thieves of the former regime to
book, ensuring that no new rogues come into the fray and guaranteeing a permanent
solution to the national question are all burning issues that this government needs to
address n the long run. This will be the true litmus test of the new government.
Are all critics counter-revolutionary?
Machiavelli further propounded that the hereditary prince must carefully balance the
interests of a variety of institutions to which the people are accustomed to retain
power. By contrast a new prince has the more difficult task in ruling: He must first
stabilize his newfound power in order to build an enduring political structure.
Likewise, when criticizing a regime, it is desirable that Victor Ivans approach to
criticizing a government is adopted.
That is to say that one must not attack a government which is new but must offer
constructive criticism for it to correct its mistakes. What he is implying is that any
government should be given time to correct its mistakes. Recently he opined that as
there is no alternative we should indeed give more time to this government to correct
its mistakes.
One could imply that still there is room for a political movement with lesser evils or
sins to come to power instead of the current bipartisan system in which two main
parties with greater evils and sins rule in rotating basis. Unfortunately, there is no such
movement. As such the perennial problem faced by the people is that there is no
alternative but to be battered and beaten by one main party till the other comes into
power.

This has been many a time repeated in our post-independence history. One way out of
this is the party leaders of these two parties genuinely unite to resolve the burning
issues of the country.
Bipartisan or non-partisan approach
Setting up independent commissions in order to restore democracy and good
governance was a commendable first step of this government. President Sirisenas
initiative to abolish the Executive Presidency too is unprecedented. Will accomplishing
these two be effective in reining in the Rajapaksa mafia? Unfortunately, a situation has
arisen where pro-MR MPs in the SLFP (Sri Lanka Freedom Party) have to be enticed
by offering bribes in order to get them to vote for the budget. Ensuring that this does
not happen is the Presidents utmost duty and responsibility.
Sirisena can become a Nelson Mandela of Sri Lanka without being Maithripla Sirisena
of the SLFP. Party differences did not matter to the first black President of South
Africa. His vision was to serve as President of South Africa and not as the President of
the black people or as the President of his party the African National Congress
(ANC). He truly wanted to serve the people and build a rainbow nation.
President Sirisena could also truly become the non-partisan leader the majority of Sri
Lankans want instead of being the President of the SLFP. He can be the leader of
millions of people who are not members of the UNP, SLFP, Tamil National Alliance
(TNA), Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC),
Lanka Samasamaja Party (LSSP), Communist Party of Sri Lanka (CP) and the dozens
of other political parties.
He must ensure that he uses his position towards this end. Mr. President, would you
be that non-partisan leader who could build a rainbow nation for all Sri Lankans?
Posted by Thavam