After the victory over the LTTE and the ending of the need for counterterrorist operations, President Rajapaksa seemed to be well-positioned to rid the country of the culture of fear. But this is still far from happening. The rule of law may be operative for most people in terms of their everyday lives. But this is not the case with political activists and those who dissent from the government’s conduct of national affairs, Jehan Perera writes from Colombo

THE authenticity of the result of the recently concluded presidential elections has been reaffirmed by the election commissioner Dayananda Dissanayake although it continues to be disputed by the defeated joint opposition candidate retired General Sarath Fonseka and the political parties that backed him. The two most outstanding features of President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s re-election was the big margin of victory that caught many by surprise and the cleavage between voting patterns in the former war zones of the northern and eastern provinces and most of the country. The election result itself gives a hint of how the cycle of Tamil separatism might start turning again.
   Many have commented that the electoral map where President Rajapaksa lost resembled the map of Tamil Eelam that the government under his leadership defeated on the battlefield. Therefore it was heartening that soon after the announcement of his victory President Rajapaksa reaffirmed that he was the president of all Sri Lankans including those who did not vote for him. He also pledged to utilise his new period in office to develop the country and its institutions after the war. Nevertheless, one of the major problems with governance in Sri Lanka has been the increasing gap between what its political leaders say and do. During the election both presidential candidates promised that the high security zones in the north and east that had displaced well over a hundred thousand people some for over two decades would be dismantled. But after the elections, little seems to be done about this.
   It is this disjuncture—between words and deeds which is taken for granted in electoral politics—that probably led to hardly any attention being focused at the presidential election on the election manifestos of the two main candidates. Instead, the debate at the elections revolved around the personalities and track records of the two candidates with allegations of a secret agreement between the opposition candidate and the TNA, the main Tamil parliamentary political party, taking the centre stage of the government’s propaganda efforts at the latter stage of the campaign. It is very ironic that after election, and indicative of the opportunism in the present state of politics, that government leaders are now calling on this very same TNA to join hands with them in the parliamentary elections which are due in a few months.
   At the present time the president faces a formidable challenge of delivering on his promise to treat all persons equally, and attend to their concerns, which is an essential feature of governance that needs to be enshrined in Sri Lanka’s political practice and at all levels of governance. Statements by government leaders that those who did not vote for the president were anti-national and traitors need to be condemned rather than be encouraged, especially by the president himself. If the country is to achieve the stability and togetherness that is necessary for its progress toward development and prosperity there is a need for all people, whether they are from the opposition parties or from ethnic minorities, to feel confident that promises will be kept they will be treated equally under the rule of law.
   
   Positive features
   WHAT was most positive about the recent election was that the vast majority of people continued to place their faith in the democratic process and turned in large numbers to cast their vote, which they believed to be the most important right they had as citizens in a democracy. At these elections the Tamil people from the war-affected northern and eastern provinces also showed themselves to be willing to put the past behind them and to participate in the elections. Those who deliberately exploded bombs in the early morning hours of Election Day would have done so to keep the people away from exercising their democratic right. This was a travesty of the government’s oft-repeated reassurance that the war was fought to restore democracy to the people who lived under the LTTE’s undemocratic rule.
   At the recently concluded elections, the Tamil people had the choice of either boycotting the elections, voting for a senior Tamil politician and TNA leader Sivajalingam who had presented himself as a Tamil candidate or to vote for one of the two main candidates, both of whom were Sinhalese regarded as war heroes. From a Tamil viewpoint both of these candidates were associated very closely with the destruction and killing that took place during the last phase of the war and their enforced displacement and reduction to the status of a refugee population. One of the candidates was the commander in chief of the armed forces and the other was the army commander.
   It is noteworthy that at those elections both the main presidential candidates received the Tamil votes, with the Tamil presidential candidate himself receiving hardly any. Of these Tamil votes, the majority went to the opposition candidate former army commander General Sarath Fonseka. This was a remarkable feature of the elections and reflected a remarkable flexibility in the attitude of the Tamil voter. A mere six months ago, the former army commander was one of the most feared persons in the war zones on account of his ruthless prosecution of the war and the severe collateral damage inflicted upon the civilian population.
   However, the willingness of General Fonseka to align himself with the opposition political parties and the endorsement he received from the TNA together with the apparent change in his attitude to the issues in the ethnic conflict caused the Tamil voters to view him newly in a positive light. This shift in attitude and readiness to hope of change for the better did not take years to come about, but occurred virtually in an instant. If this was the case with General Fonseka, there is no reason it cannot also be the case with President Rajapaksa.
   It is likely that the reason for the smaller proportion of votes going to President Mahinda Rajapaksa at the presidential election was the disappointment of many Tamils with the slow pace of rebuilding of the north and east and the rehabilitation of its people. As the president was the head of the government with the power to speed up and give priority to their concerns, the Tamil voters may have blamed him for their continuing plight. But this can clearly change. However, the fact remains that the vast majority of Tamil voters did not vote for the Tamil presidential candidate who stood apart from mainstream politics. Instead, the Tamil voters showed that they wished to join the mainstream of politics, even if most of them voted for the candidate who ultimately lost.
   
   Silent revolt
   UNFORTUNATELY, the signs of a change of attitude and approach in President Rajapaksa and his government appears slow in coming, if it comes at all. Strangely enough after the election, the government appears to be too insecure to be magnanimous in victory. Some of its first acts after the election have been to send several top army generals and other high ranking officers on compulsory retirement, and to institute sweeping changes in the police as well. Government spokespersons have said that they feared a coup, although the evidence has yet to be made public.
   After the victory over the LTTE and the ending of the need for counterterrorist operations, President Rajapaksa seemed to be well-positioned to rid the country of the culture of fear. But this is still far from happening. The rule of law may be operative for most people in terms of their everyday lives. But this is not the case with political activists and those who dissent from the government’s conduct of national affairs. People who are critical of the government are even afraid to communicate via SMS after some persons were reported to be arrested for spreading anti government propaganda.
   The case of the missing journalist Prageeth Eknaligoda, who disappeared a few days prior to the presidential election, is a chilling one. Government leaders have taken a cavalier attitude to such disappearances, saying that so many others and not only journalists have been lost in the recent past. It appears that to them this is just another statistic. As this journalist was close to the opposition candidate, it is easy to believe that he has become a victim of a political vendetta. For his family and two small children it is a nightmare. Others who dissent from government positions may take the terrible lesson and subdue their views while revolting silently. In these circumstances the country appears to be in danger of sliding towards a black hole in which black is said to be white and peace is unsustainable.
   Jehan Perera is media director of the National Peace Council in Colombo, Sri Lanka. jehanpc@sltnet.lk