Emerging Common Opposition

The factors which are forging unity among the opposition political parties and the civil society organizations are the immediate need to change the constitution and to abolish the Executive Presidency. This includes also ending the rule of one corrupt family. We have seen the results of the 18^th Amendment to the constitution. How true is Edmund Burke for us today who said, the greater the power, the more dangerous will be the abuses.

Undoubtedly, the preoccupations of the opposition movement reflect some urgent needs of the ordinary people and focusing on them is extremely important.  

However it is also important to raise the question -  will a mere change in the political leadership and the abolition of the Executive Presidency be a panacea to the real issues that our country is afflicted with, such as the high cost of living, the vast income differences, the national issue, threats inflicted on the natural resources, and so on?  My view is that except those who perceive the current political situation in a very narrow sense, all others would agree that the people’s expectations cannot be realized just by making constitutional changes.

Certainly, such changes will bring about a temporary relief and will allow a free space necessary for short term political engagement, but in the long run such a space does not really matter. The real challenges are centered round the differences of opinion over the national issue and the economic strategy among the opposition political parties.

These are difficult questions to solve. If the leadership of the common opposition fails to come to a consensus on the national issue and the economic strategy, a breakdown of the united alliance would be inevitable. The experiences of the last 60 years of the power seeking political parties have failed to agree on a political solution to the national issue. For them the national question was only as a political tool to attract votes.

As regards the economic strategy, the question is whether these political parties in the opposition alliance will come to an understanding as to what their economic strategy for Sri Lanka is going to be.

If they have not agreed on a plan, the only option would be to implement the existing one introduced in different names for expediency, such as “Regaining Sri Lanka” or what was lately known as the “Mahinda Chintanaya” or the “National Physical Plan”.

According to that plan Sri Lanka is to have five centres: Navigation Centre, Aviation Centre, Economic Centre, Knowledge Centre and Energy Centre. It is proposed that the projects include 19 Airports, Mega Cities, Railway and High Ways connected to Asian Network of Roads and Rail Roads and so on. The project is spaced out until year 2030.

If successfully carried out it will make Sri Lanka the ‘Miracle of Asia”. But, there are a few very critical questions that have to be raised and sought answers for.  Is the new regime going to continue this programme.

If yes, at whose expense are they going to implement them? Are they aware of its impact on the peasantry and fishermen, the environment (forests, water ways, flora and fauna) and so on? 

In the context of globalization, we know that those projects are primarily meant as infrastructure facilities for the international companies to carry out their businesses in an efficient way and certainly not aimed at helping the local people. 

Therefore how can we expect through such mega projects, economic justice for people and also the environment? How would such programmes put an end to corrupt practices of governance?  Would they reduce the income differences among different classes?  Or are we to expect just the opposite?

We also know that these projects, as happening with the current regime, will create opportunities to enter into businesses as partners of the foreign investors directly or by co-opting the family members.

Further it is certain that those people who enter into politics do so not with the interest of doing welfare to the people but enriching themselves in the shortest possible time.  In this climate of globalization, doing politics is a big business venture that can earn a massive income without much investment on your part. Nelson Mandela, affirmed this trend when he said that the rich and powerful now have new means to further enrich and empower themselves at the cost of the poorer and weaker people.

In this back drop, we have no reason to believe that the opposition parties aiming at the reign of power will ever overcome these challenges and transform politics in our country into a means of serving the masses.  

I salute those who work to bring about a new regime and constitutional changes, but am surprised to see why these critical issues are kept away from the present debate. 

Now the challenge before the citizens is to contribute and build up people’s power or the movement of the poor and the oppressed and to join in a “creative struggle”, to do away with the structural causes of poverty and marginalization and construct a just Society.

The citizens in this country need to rethink their political mission. Is it to work for the empowerment of power seeking politicians or for the poor and weaker masses?

This strategy I believe is a massive task and has its own mission. Most certainly for several reasons it would not attract those who are engaged in party politics but one possible reason is that it does not guarantee personal benefits. There is one more reason why it would not draw the attention of others. If one opts for such a strategy he/she would not be able to move about with the rich and the powerful because the mission is mostly around the poor, the weak and the marginalized. In my opinion, one of the main tasks that this mission entails is freeing such masses of their mythical beliefs related to religion, development and politics. 

Fr. Sarath Iddamalgoda

By Fr. Sarath Iddamalgoda -

Fr. Sarath Iddamalgoda

The report that the President Rajapaksa soon after his return from New York has flown to the Vatican to extend an official invitation to the Pope Francis, astonished me.

It was somewhere in July this year that a delegation from the Vatican arrived in Sri Lanka to see to the logistics of the papal visit schedules for January next year. Subsequently there was also a media conference and announcements were made by the Sri Lankan Church authorities with regard to the Pope’s two-day visit. A senior police officer has also been appointed to see to the arrangements.

After all those arrangements have been made, it looks quite strange to me that  the President has now gone to the Vatican personally to invite the Pope. This gives the strange impression that the Pope, as the head of a State, has decided to visit  Sri Lanka without the consent of our government.

I cannot understand the protocol. Has this happened in previous instances when heads of States from China and Japan visited Sri Lanka? Could anyone be kind enough to explain this anomaly to me and to others who may find difficult to understand these proceedings regarding Pope’s visit?

In fact, on two previous occasions, when the popes, namely Paul VI and John Paul II, visited Sri Lanka, there were no visits made to the Vatican by the then prime minister or the President to extend formal invitations.

What was the need for our President to spend the money of the people to make this visit to the Vatican when a papal envoy is residing at Baudhaloka Mawatha a few kilometers away from the Temple Trees?

The ambiguity of this visit by the President at a time when an election is to be held soon in Sri Lanka is really creating suspicion and leaving room for legitimate speculation.

Is the pope having second thoughts about the visit? Is he considering to cancel the intended visit because of the election that is to be held a few days or weeks before or after Pope’s visit?

Is the government planning to get the needed legitimacy through his visit? Will his visit be used by the government as a part of his election campaign to attract the votes in the Catholic belt? Is there a hidden agenda behind the visit not made known to the public? Are the Sri Lankan Church leaders also involved in a secret agenda? Or as some people wonder, is there here an appeal to  the Pope to reverse his previous decision not to visit, bless or open the massive building complex intended for an Opus Dei University constructed by the armed forces  with the dollars of the Opus Dei flowing into the country, and of course to the metropolitan church?

The media has reported also that the Sri Lankan President has mentioned to the Pope about the socio-economic development that is taking place and the high level of religious harmony prevailing in the country.

Perhaps the Pope may not be aware of the results of the recent provincial council elections in Western and Uva provinces, which indicates the people’s fast losing confidence in the governance of the President !

Has Pope Francis Got a Genuine Picture on Sri Lanka?

It is heartening to note, in his statement made after the meeting with the Bishops’ conference of SL, that Pope Francis has drawn attention to the victims of violence and war.

Among many words of wisdom found in the statement, I am very much touched when he notes that the “poor should not be forgotten and inequality not be permitted to grow”. I guess one of his priorities for Sri Lanka is the “elimination of violence”. 

Indeed, the cause for emergence and prevalence of violence in Sri Lankan society is the “increased economic development”. Such development cannot be achieved without “exclusion and inequality in society”, which is a kind of unceasing violence inbuilt into the system of governance and politics.

In Sri Lanka violence takes various forms such as cultural, economic and also political. From his statement we can observe that Pope Francis seems to be well informed about the cultural violence that is prevalent in the country due to ethnic war and “religious extremism”.

However, I wonder whether Pope is sufficiently informed about the fact that cultural violence in Sri Lanka is often a political tool made use of by those engaged in power politics to legitimize their positions. The perpetrators of violence caused by the elements of religious extremism have never been brought before the Law. Hence it can be concluded that even religious extremism seems to be sponsored by those who wield political power.  

Amidst this controversy there is also an effort on the part of the Church and governing authorities to invite the Pope to Sri Lanka. His visit, if happens as planned, will be another cultural event that could be used by the current regime to justify its image before the masses now marred by years of violence inflicted on people.    

On the other hand, if Pope decides to visit Sri Lanka the event ought to become a source of strength to the victims of violence and never let it be a source to legitimize the perpetrators of violence.  

Pope also speaks about economic development that Sri Lanka has achieved. The violent character of economic development can be seen in the way the wealth is distributed. According to an official data the richest 20% of the Sri Lankan society enjoys 54% of our national wealth and the poorest 20% is left with only a 5%.

The 18^th amendment to the constitution is another instance of exclusion. The creation of a system of executive presidency in which all power concentrated in one person is a form of political violence where the principal equality is ruthlessly undermined.  

It is known that Pope Francis has won recognition not only among the Catholics but also among those non Catholics as a world leader who is more than capable of contributing towards making our world more just and humane. He does so by motivating the Catholic community which has been called to be the “leaven in the midst of humanity”. Whether Pope Francis   visit Sri Lanka or not, the Catholic community can be enriched by Pope Francis’s pastoral advice and guidance. Nevertheless in order that his teaching to become more relevant and contextual, the Pope has to be presented with a genuine picture of the socio, economic and political realities affecting the life of a larger majority of the population.