From the Editor's Desk

Many a things is swept under the carpet of national security. It happens in the ‘biggest democracy’ and in the ‘most powerful democracy’ on earth, and Sri Lanka is no exception. Sri Lanka, besides, has its special features, with sheer wantonness of government after government letting contradictions among the nationalities to develop into national oppression and war. The conflict has come to be termed officially as a war on terrorism so that not only the war but also criminal acts of cruelty associated with it are easily defended and justified in terms of national security.

The failure of the peace negotiations in 2003, the effective failure of the ceasefire in 2006, and the unilateral withdrawal of the government from the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) in early 2008 have taken the country back to the years of intense war preceding the CFA. Not merely the government and the leadership of the armed forces are intent on fighting the war to a finish but a sizeable section of the opposition is even keener on it; and the main opposition party is all too agreeable to the government’s plan to militarily defeat the LTTE.

The belligerence of the government follows its military success in the East, aided by the split in the LTTE in 2004, setbacks suffered by it owing to the tsunami later in the year, and logistic support from the US and India. The war has been extended into the LTTE-controlled north and fought intensely, but the end, despite confident claims by the government is not in sight. Its claims of military success have made it electorally stronger than it should be in with its miserable economic performance. Its promise of total military victory against the LTTE has raised expectations among the Sinhala electorate. Although government deadlines to achieve its declared military goals are long past, information trickling in about a military success here and another there helps to keep up spirits amid a rapidly deteriorating economy.

The government has with little resistance heaped economic burdens on a people already choking under a high rate of inflation and an unbearably high and rising cost of living. Yet military spending has increased steeply in the past few years to reach an unprecedented high, and is to be funded by increased taxation. Cess, just another name for tax, has been imposed on imported items including food and other essential goods. Existing cess rates have been increased to 50% on a variety of imported goods. These are bound to reflect in the prices of many goods and in the cost of living.

The government had delayed lowering the price of fuel until the budget, although crude oil price fell sharply following signs of an economic crunch in the US and fears of global recession. The proposed reduction in fuel prices and bus fares is in no way commensurate with the increases that followed the surge in oil prices.

Yet the government is hopeful that the people will bear the imminent rise in cost of living and other economic burdens that are due to follow alongside the drift towards global recession. The people will perhaps, but that requires a continuous flow of news of unhindered government success on its battlefronts. News of serious military setbacks and losses to the armed forces is not only demoralising but also hurts the government’s credibility, whose only basis for support is its claim of success in fighting terrorism. Also reports of corruption and various misdeeds by people in power would hurt enthusiasm for the government.

Recent attempts by the government to rein in radio and TV stations should be seen in the context of its desperate need to have full control over the news media. New Democracy has on several occasions editorially drawn attention to the threats faced by the media and their implications for freedom of expression. The potential threats are getting close to realisation, and violence and threats against media personnel that are now criminal could then become lawful acts.

As warned by the New Democratic Party in its statement of 1st November, proposed regulations to control private television and radio stations will lead to the suppression of democratic views and objections against the government, and make way for the government to continue its pursuit of war and to frustrate the protests of the people who are suffering under the economic crisis.

The reason why the government is keen to tighten its grip on the media is that in the event of the war not going the way it expects or comes to an end, people’s attention will turn away from terrorism towards problems closer to home. Silencing the media could be very difficult at that stage.

Whatever the outcome of the moves by the government towards controlling the media, the absence of free media will be a blessing to any fascist state that may emerge from the economic mess, unless revolution saves the country from it.

New Democracy 33