The Presidential debate that never took place
Sri Lankans are now free to imagine the presidential debate that never was. One minor hiccup in such a debate can bury the chances of a presidential candidate forever. If imagination was allowed free reign, we could think of possible derailing gaffes. Rajapakse might look at his watch before the debate ends, or Ranil Wickremesinghe might wipe some sweat off his brow.

Providentially, with no debate scheduled, we will not have such moments that could decide which of these two people are going to rule over us the next six years -- and rule us with powers so enormous, that they are monarchical in nature.

Nothing is constitutional or democratic about a Sri Lankan President being allowed to kick the parliamentarians out after a year is up. But such a kicking maneuver is mockingly called dissolution. What a cock-up, this word, dissolution. We are told that the framers of the constitution had demolition in mind, and dissolution crept in suspiciously like a draft dodger daring the legal draftsman.

But yet we Sri Lankans are quaint, and we go through process, as if this monarchical ruler is a president -- such as a president of a debating society, or a radio club. Call a prostitute a sex worker, and we think she will behave herself. Call a dictator a president, and we think he will rule us with the gentility of a radio club or literature society president.

You may or may not take the west as the model for everything from bathroom usage to media usage. But don't kid yourself, there is no real level playing field in any given election. One candidate is bound to get more coverage in certain type of media than his opponent. John Kerry, the losing candidate in the last U.S. presidential elections, for example got the endorsement of most of the heavyweight and heavy-duty newspapers of the country such as the Washington Post and the New York Times. The fact that he lost doesn't mean he got no advantage from these endorsements.

Our own media culture is still one of whining while saying more about the messenger than the message. It's of blaming media organizations for biased coverage. If one takes a closer look at it, it is a sign of the political bankruptcy of our times.

Politicians are not talented enough to make the best of the time they are allotted, even if sometimes, their time slot may be a bit meager compared to what the other guy gets. But as the American president John Kennedy once said "who the hell said its going to be fair?"
Simone Weil wrote in her book "The search for roots' that people identify with the state and only the state, as most other affiliations such as community have become meaningless.

That's probably why we labour under the illusion that this is a trifling matter - this business of presidential elections -- as if we are electing the president for a radio club or a debating society.

If there was a presidential debate in fact, the questions we would imagine, will paint Mahinda Rajapakse as a nationalist and Wickremesinghe as a peacemaker. That's likely because Rajapakse acts as if the Sinhalese own the country. Wickremesinghe acts as if he doesn't care who owns it, literally.

This is part of the radio club presidential conspiracy that J. R. Jayewardene dreamed up and invented. The candidates debate about issues such as 'nationalism' or 'federalism'. But the real issues that do matter in this presidential system are debated undercover by people who say to themselves "the only way a determined president can be prevented from becoming a dictator in this country is by having him shot.'' They are asking themselves, while the polite debating society courtesies go on between the two candidates, 'which of these two men are more prone to kick our elected parliament aside?' Which of these two will be the first to realize that we have abdicated all our powers as citizens to him -- under this constitution - - and therefore are like chattel to be shoved around, until this future president has his way with us any time he wants?

There is nothing wrong with this constitution, a dreamer can contend. The American president has a veto power. But our president can veto the whole parliament while he appoints the entire judiciary. Those who think that's a difference in degree, should think atom bomb versus pipe bomb, Katrina versus table fan. We are that way out on a limb.
People have opined variously that the process of getting civilized in this country is to get rid of Prabhakaran - - or at least to go back to the status quo ante that prevailed before Prabhakran appeared with his long shadow continually cast upon us.

But the way back to civilization, even with little baby steps, is to de-construct this monstrosity of the Presidency and bring it down. But that's not in the manifesto of any of the candidates, considering that Mahinda is not likely to conjure something as fundamentally change-worthy as that, as if it was a rabbit trick from up his sleeve.

They never debated each other, but if they squared-off both should have to be asked why one will be less dictatorial than the other. It's the trick question that no manifesto will answer, because we still think we are electing the radio club president. If asked this question, we can think of some answers that might come our way from Mr Wickremesinghe. He will say that he is the consensus candidate, and it's his idea to form a national government.

Both candidates can then be asked -- will you dissolve parliament if elected? Both, if they are genuine articles, will have to say yes. Their answers will prove they are running as if it's the radio club -- but will perform in the end like its the Third Reich.. Rajapakse will necessarily look a little less queer on this score, as Wickremesinghe will have to answer the corollary question: do you want a consensus national government, after having dissolved parliament and reduced the opposition to a rump? A national slave government, eh? End of debate.

Back to Top

Back to Columns

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.