From the Editor's Desk

The presidential election offered no meaningful choice to the people. In a situation where political desperation decided electoral alliances, the JVP and UNP joined hands to field General Sarath Fonseka as their common candidate against the incumbent Mahinda Rajapakse. The two main candidates competed on the basis of credit for winning a long drawn out war, which was avoidable in the first place and could have been brought to a negotiated end had the parties to the conflict used the peace negotiations to address the underlying issues rather than to reinforce their positions and gain political mileage. None of the major political parties showed an interest in resolving the national question or in addressing the economic problems arising from the submission of the economy to imperialist and hegemonic predators and aggravated by the war.

The country is as divided as it was during the war, and the re-election of Rajapakse has changed nothing. Foreign hegemonic interests played a role in the presidential election, with India getting the better of the US. And foreign meddling is likely in the forthcoming parliamentary elections. Erosion of the democratic and human rights continues in every sphere of public activity. During the presidential elections, the opposition was vociferous about the breach of democratic freedoms, abuse of state resources and the media, and abuse of state power, corruption and nepotism. But there was neither a serious analysis of the causes nor self criticism of the contribution of each party to the current political and economic crisis.

The main opposition candidate Sarath Fonseka failed to win the anticipated overwhelming support of the minority nationalities who showed a poor interest in the election, especially in the North with polling at around 20%. Meantime Mahinda Rajapakse’s campaigners took advantage of the support of the Tamil National Alliance to claim the existence of a secret deal between the TNA and Fonseka to arouse, with some success, Sinhala nationalist sentiments.

A UNP-JVP alliance in the forthcoming parliamentary election was feasible in the event of a strong performance by their common candidate. That prospect was revived by the arrest of Fonseka 2 weeks after presidential election, and the JVP sought to capitalise on the ‘martyrdom’ of Fonseka. The UNP, unwilling to risk further erosion of its popular base, rejected any alliance except under its own symbol.

Thus, the forthcoming election will be one concerning the bid of the government to win a powerful majority, even a two-thirds majority by some means, so that it could amend the constitution in ways that will consolidate the control of the ruling elite over the state apparatus. The UNP and the JVP, hoping to capitalise on the sympathy for Fonseka, are seeking to recover their lost political ground as well as to prevent the government from securing a majority. Electoral alliances with parties of the national minorities are, as in the past, matters of political exigency. With the TNA fractured by internal squabbling, the likelihood is that the political parties of the minority nationalities will be bargaining for posts and privileges in the new parliament. None of this will help to resolve the problems facing the country, especially the national question and the worsening economic crisis.

The position of the New-Democratic Party in the presidential election was that the occasion should be used to field a common candidate of the left and the minority nationalities with a view to build a serious political alternative to the existing morass and, in the event of that failing, to reject the election by spoiling the ballot papers. Participation by minority nationalities in the presidential election was generally poor, and the Tamils of the North overwhelmingly rejected the main candidates as well as prescriptions by the political parties which sided with the candidates, vindicating the validity of the stand of the NDP.

Thus the minority nationalities should unequivocally reject their narrow nationalist leaders in the forthcoming parliamentary election since none of the narrow nationalist politicians has a progressive outlook and, if elected, is likely to behave in an even more unprincipled way in the new parliament.

It is therefore the responsibility of the genuine left, progressive and democratic forces to develop a strategy in the forthcoming general election that would provide the people with a way to express their rejection of narrow nationalism, sectarianism and opportunist politics. Most importantly, the occasion of the general election should be used for mass political education and to convince the people that a political alternative based on a mass movement is not only possible but urgently needed for the salvation of the working people of the country as well as the minority nationalities.

New Democracy 36