Minority rule An ugly history in the making?
Listening to the hubris of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe about the so-called 'mandate' he claims to have received tends to suggest that he, and the other members of the UNP, in their current mental state of inebriation with power, have forgotten that they have never been elected to office by the Sri Lankan people.
Ceylontoday, 2015-03-20 02:00:00
Read 122 Times
Minority rule An ugly history in the making?
By Ajit Randeniya
Listening to the hubris of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe about the so-called 'mandate' he claims to have received tends to suggest that he, and the other members of the UNP, in their current mental state of inebriation with power, have forgotten that they have never been elected to office by the Sri Lankan people.
Wickremesinghe's remark that "those who had been rejected by the people were attempting to hold the 100-day programme to ransom" is ironic in the extreme in light of his 'rise' to power on the back of a presidential election, which he declined to contest. It is also noteworthy that he chose to make the particular remark at a function organized by the NGO PAFFREL, an organization who operated actively for regime change, making his appointment as Prime Minister possible.
Wickremesinghe's remark that "those who were behind the endeavour to make President Maithripala Sirisena victorious should be the ones who take the lead role in decision making" also gives a new interpretation to yahapalanaya and the broader concept of democracy itself.
Wickremesinghe's hubris demands a response regarding the legitimacy of the new interim government, not to speak of its abysmal performance in attempts to deliver on the list of promises made to the public on its 100-day agenda.
At the broadest level, the regime change in Sri Lanka that took place on 8 January 2015 is a transfer of power to a group of ethnic and religious minority subgroups that composes 'a larger minority group'. Even a cursory look at the election results reveals that despite the UNP's claims to the contrary, Wickremesinghe and the UNP 'piggy-backed' on Maithripala Sirisena to form a government on the basis of a political pact they signed with him, rather than based on the country's Constitution. Its legitimacy is clearly questionable on these grounds.
Let us not forget that the only election that was held on 8 January was a presidential election and the subsequent events were made possible only due to the inept and panicky response of the SLFP and power hungry SLFPers like Nimal Siripala de Silva, who were keen to salvage whatever they personally could from the wreck of the Rajapaksa Government.
Sirisena had left the SLFP to contest the presidency and his subsequent reliance on the party Constitution that the winner of the party's representative should automatically gain party leadership clearly did not hold because the party's official representative Mahinda Rajapaksa had lost the election, and Sirisena did not represent the SLFP.
Role played by imperialist
forces
Focusing broadly on the mechanics that made regime change possible, the role played by the imperialist forces led by the US, Britain and Europe in devising and coordinating the political and constitutional coups that led to the power transfer has not attracted adequate analysis, yet. Nor has the undeniable role played by Indian bureaucrats with strong loyalties to imperialist forces, led by the then Indian Ambassador to the US, S. Jayakrishnan and the Indian Ambassador to the UK, Ranjan Mathai, been adequately highlighted or dealt with; their roles need to be carefully analyzed at another time.
Consideration of the regime change of 8 January at its most fundamental levels though, needs to be preceded by considering a working definition of democracy such as:'a free association of equal citizens who engage in a rational discussion on political issues, presenting options and seeking a consensus on what is to be done.'
This European ideal of democracy that appears to run in the blood stream of people like Ranil Wickremesinghe incorporates, almost by-definition, the constant tensions between majority rule and minority rights in diverse societies attempting it.
The Sri Lankan event becomes remarkable in that no version of democracy has ever envisaged rule of the polity by minority groups who do not share fundamental attributes of language, religion, or shared descent with the numerical majority. All that has been advocated by our neo-colonial and neo-imperialist masters is a form of democracy that entitles various protections to minorities – and offers of avenues of assimilation as is done in the US, Britain and Australia.
Will of the majority
The sacred principle that characterizes all versions of democracy has been to ensure the will of the majority to prevail, with concessions made to minorities by way of granting certain rights by law. Sri Lanka seems to have not done too badly in living up to these ideals.
The Sri Lankan regime change of 8 January that resulted in minority rule is an inversion of the natural orderthat exists in all so-called 'mature' democracies; it was enforced on Sri Lanka's numerical majority – in the name of the noble enterprise of 'democratization' – by foreign demand.
Prior to 8 January, Maithripala Sirisena and Rajitha Senaratne each formed a 'minority of one' after leaving the then government. They were supported by other insignificant minority groups such as Ven. Maduluwawe Sobhitha Thera, whose Movement for Social Justice seems to vie for far too much clout, undeserved on its membership strength. Sirisena was supported by other similar groups such as the JVP, Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU), and the rancorous Rajiva Wijesinha. Though it might seem a long time ago, Sirisena appeared to cut a lonely figure without significant grass roots support until the UNP – had itself been a minority group for the best part of last two decades – kicked-in behind him.
The push for minority rule in Sri Lanka by the neo-colonial and imperialist forces proves their duplicity that brings no surprises anymore to anyone: they had long abandoned minority rule with the demise of the old empires characterised byimperial rule by foreign brutes that dominated local cultures, languages and religions.
All previous empires had done similarly too. Muslims were still a minority of the population, while the Ottoman Empire encompassed the Balkans. The Moghul Empire in South Asia was also a minority rule by Muslims who formed a thin ruling crust trampling upon a predominantly Hindu society. Britain followed the same path, with the use of minorities as allies to counter colonial battles for independence and nationalism.
The preaching on minority rights as divisive force of the developing world, like all ideological movements the developing country intellectuals appear to uncritically adopt, began in the 1960s with the advent of the so-called 'civil rights movement' in the US.
The roots of the so-called US civil rights movement, however, has long antecedents that go back to a campaign by the land and slave owners commonly referred to as America's 'Founding Fathers'. Fearing the possibility of becoming 'minorities' under a Federal Government that threatened slavery, and with a view to safeguard against federal taxation laws, they started promoting minority rights as the single most important virtue of the democratic form of government.
Rights of the minorities
Samuel Adams, one of the architects of the principles of American republicanism and war against the British – a man of dubious personal and political virtue – for example, declared his propensity to go as far as undertaking violence in the name of minority rights when he is supposed have said, in thinly veiled terms, "It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."
The words of Thomas Jefferson at the first Inaugural in 1801: "that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression" symbolized the fervour with which they guarded their rights against the perceived threat by a Federal Government to their vested interests.
The theme against powerful central government continued with James Madison, the fourth President of the US, famously condemning direct democracy in the Federalist Papers, as leading to majority dictatorship since it contained no checks on the sacrifice of the weaker party, or an obnoxious leadership.
Minority rights later became part of a wider civil rights ideology that began to be deployed in former colonies, mainly through the services of deliberately misnamed 'NGO' networks. Protection of civil rights and the rights of the minorities – legitimate causes in the right context – overtook the desperate need of these countries for economic development that was the best remedy against rights violations in the first place.
Forceful US and European intervention at the UN saw the introduction of an international law regime that recognizes the minorities' right to self-determination, permitting the 'international community' to concern itself with the legal obligation of States 'democratic' decisions concerning ethno-cultural groups.
Such ardent commitment to minority rights protection however, did not seem to deter the American Empire to eliminate effective and constructive situations of minority rule as their strategic priorities – in favour of Israel – demanded them. Deliberate and destructive intervention to shift power from the Sunnis to the Shiites in Iraq, and from the Alawis to the Sunnis in Syria was pursued with deadly consequences, and contrary to their avowed commitment to protect minority wellbeing under all circumstances.
So, Ranil Wickremesinghe and the UNP can thank their masters who orchestrated the political and constitutional coup that enabled their ascendancy. These forces clearly anticipate long term advantages for their designs for Sri Lanka.
The Sri Lankan people, however, are unlikely to consider them legitimate occupiers of the centres of power until they are elected at a general election. The scandal ridden non-performance of the interim government so far does not guarantee that.
No comments:
Post a Comment