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 18th 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
