{"id":35351,"date":"2014-11-25T22:20:53","date_gmt":"2014-11-26T03:20:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/?p=35351"},"modified":"2014-11-25T22:43:57","modified_gmt":"2014-11-26T03:43:57","slug":"it-is-difficult-to-believe-that-mr-sirisena-made-his-move-for-the-sake-of-the-country-as-he-claims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/?p=35351","title":{"rendered":"It is difficult to believe that Mr Sirisena made his move for the sake of the country as he claims"},"content":{"rendered":"

by Rohana R. Wasala<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"pic<\/a>

pic courtesy of: facebook.com\/BBCSinhala<\/p><\/div>\n

“It is a royal thing to be ill spoken of for good deeds.”<\/em>
\n – Greek philosopher Antisthenes (445-365 BCE) commenting on the kingly prerogative, quoted with approval by Roman Emperor, Stoic philosopher and soldier Marcus Aurelius (121-180 CE) in his philosophical work \u2018Meditations\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n

Until Maithripala Sirisena and his followers from the SLFP joined them recently, the opponents of Mahinda Rajapaksa seemed to hold it more important for the remainder of the comprehensive development programmes launched under his stewardship to be open to the danger of being scuttled, for the country to be ruled by someone willing to pander to Western whims which usually run counter to our national interest, for the zombie of dead separatist terrorism to continue to stalk the streets of the north indefinitely poisoning the minds of innocent Tamil youth, for the political and military leaders who rid the country of terrorism and ushered in steady economic growth to be hauled before an international war crimes tribunal for offences not committed, for the country to be plunged into political instability and for every other imaginable destabilizing mischance to befall the nation than that their b\u00eate noire should be elected to a third term by the popular vote. <\/p>\n

But they don\u2019t clearly spell out cogent enough reasons that justify their call for the ouster of a president who performs satisfactorily well under difficult conditions or for the abolition of the executive presidency which has proved useful in governance, and harmless when not abused. I don\u2019t deny that there may be problems concerning both the office and the office-bearer. But why this helter-skelter hurry, by a motley group of politicians enjoying little public support for all their vehemence, to do away with the presidency and to send the president home, when more pressing problems vitally important for the very survival of the state remain to be tackled?<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

True, there may be problems concerning Mr Rajapaksa\u2019s style of governance. But he, who has done so much for winning the freedom and safety from terrorism that we enjoy today must be given a chance to fix them, particularly when the forces that supported it are looking for an opportunity to push the country back to chaos. There are problems of corruption, but these will not disappear with his exit. They must be tackled by the government with equal participation of the opposition as a national issue. The great changes for the better that have been achieved within a comparatively short period of time must be appreciated, and the leader who made these possible need not be ostracized because he has accidentally trodden on Western corns by asserting his personal dignity and independence as Sri Lankan president internationally.<\/p>\n

It may be cold comfort for Rajapaksa opponents that, with the rather bland episode of Maithripala Sirisena\u2019s decamping, the pre-election jiggery pokery staged by a rudderless opposition inveigling into its ranks strange bedfellows made by necessity in a cobbled up, nondescript anti-MR front, the desperate urgency of their personal-hate driven cause is likely to get only a semblance of respectability.<\/p>\n

Mr Rajapaksa was reported to have looked amused when he heard the news of Mr Sirisena\u2019s defection. Whether the smile will remain on his face or leave it and settle on those of his challengers will only be seen after 8th January 2015. In any case, he laughs best who laughs last, as the saying goes. Whoever gets the chance to laugh last, the masses must be able to join in the laughing with a genuine sense of having voted in the right person for the job, and of having contributed to justice being served for everybody.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately for the country, the virtually leaderless, nominal opposition that we have has been unable to find a credible challenger of their own to take on the president giving the people an opportunity to clearly re-affirm or repudiate their trust in him and his party. That the contender, when the election is called, has to be one of his own closest lieutenants, goes a long way to prove that Mr Rajapaksa\u2019s major role in the country\u2019s political stage is still being approved by the public, and that there is yet no stage direction for his exit, despite probably unavoidable lapses in his rule (which are the common lot of any political power wielder in a democracy, though it is not that such lapses should always be excused).<\/p>\n

Tendency towards corruption, abuse of power, having to please the ignorant electors, etc is of the nature of democracy mentioned even by the Greek philosopher Plato (c. 428-347 BCE) in his most popularly known work The Republic. The book records certain dialogues his teacher, philosopher Socrates (469-399 BCE), had with some enlightened Athenian and foreign interlocutors about the meaning of justice, the just man, kinds of city-states (i.e. political systems), etc. Among the political systems discussed the ancient Athenians had a form of democracy (different from what we call democracy today in terms of the composition of its membership and participatory rights). It is shown to be susceptible to defects like those suggested above. The discussion finally leads to the concept of a city-state (polis) called the Kallipolis which is ruled by \u2018philosopher kings\u2019, and which is considered the best, because philosophers are incorruptible as rulers; but the problem is that philosophers don\u2019t want to do that job; to be a politician is not their thing. The ideally desirable situation is that \u2018the ruler must be a philosopher as well as a king; and he must govern unwillingly, because he loves philosophy better than dominion\u2019. So scoundrels would be peremptorily left out of political leadership under such a system (the exact opposite of what we normally have inflicted on us today).<\/p>\n

“Until philosophers are kings,” Plato writes in his Republic, “and the princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, cities will never cease from ill- no, nor the human race, as I believe- and then only will our state have a possibility of life, and see the light of day …. The truth is that the state in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is best and most quietly governed, and the state in which they are most willing is the worst.”<\/p>\n

Not that this ideal of a philosopher king became a common reality in Plato\u2019s time or later, though it might have inspired just rulers in subsequent ages. But once in the post-Plato history of the Western world there appeared a ruler who most authentically exemplified the ideal of a philosopher king. This was not a Greek, but a Roman king: Marcus Aurelius of my epigraph at the top. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, adopted son of Emperor Antoninus Pius, became ruler of the vast Roman empire on the latter\u2019s death in 161 BCE. Educated under the Stoic philosophy, he willingly eschewed kingly splendour and personal luxury in favour of scholarly pursuits and a frugal lifestyle. The Stoics were committed to the ideals of global citizenship and cosmopolitanism in preference to mere patriotism, but the practical realities of the political life Aurelius had inherited and trained for dictated against the perfect realization of his ideals, and he had to bear the criticism of his perceived shortfalls. It is known that he allowed the harassment of the early Christians, but it was done as an unavoidable political necessity, not as deliberate religious persecution. It looks like that politics and philosophy go ill together. But \u2018Meditations\u2019 reveals Aurelius to have been a truly compassionate, rational, cultured, and peaceful ruler. He should be credited with having personified the philosopher king ideal.<\/p>\n

To return to the less exalted, more mundane, subject chosen for this essay, namely, the currently unfolding drama in the Lankan political theatre, which is politics in practice a la established local tradition: Although crossovers and defections are familiar events, why a situation like this should have arisen now while a uniquely successful executive head in Sri Lanka\u2019s recent history such as President Rajapaksa is at the helm is puzzling. Naturally, this is a moment we may expect plausible foreign conspiracy theories to be rife. Considering the future of the country as a nation, if this is a victory for conspirators with foreign involvement, it will be a loss for both the government and the opposition alike in different ways, though; but it will be an incalculably greater loss for the whole country which, unless nullified by the popular will, will have the potential to destabilize the state for a long time to come, a prospect very unpleasant even to imagine.<\/p>\n

It is difficult to believe that Mr Sirisena made his move for the sake of the country as he claims. If that was his real concern, particularly at a time when a foreign engineered \u2018regime change\u2019 conspiracy seems afoot which will only serve antinational interests at the expense of the country, he should have stuck on with his leader as the latter did with his even though she was particularly nasty to him for personal reasons. But, among average politicians Mr Sirisena has been successful in projecting a certain clean public image, considerably enhanced by his longtime political association with the president. Also, he has an authentic claim to his country origins, as opposed to, perhaps, his friend\u2019s strategic rusticity (which is no harm).<\/p>\n

One shade of public opinion is that, more likely, he felt impelled to challenge his boss out of personal frustration at Mr Rajapaksa\u2019s failure or refusal to appoint him as prime minister. Probably we should not blame the president for not appointing Mr Sirisena as prime minister. The reason is that, as is well known, there are a number of aspirants for the post, some of them this and done more damage to the party and the country; that could be why the president picked on Mr senior to and perhaps more powerful than Mr Sirisena. It may be speculated that, had Mr Rajapaksa given the post to him instead of one of these really eligible aspirants, he would have remained but a more powerful disgruntled character would have caused a split much earlier than Dissanayake, the seniormost member of the SLFP for the post.<\/p>\n

Given the Ranil factor, he will have to agree to be led rather than to lead even if he eventually wins the election. To win the election Mr Sirisena must have much more credibility among the voters as a leader than Mr Wickremasinghe. As to credibility, Mr Sirisena doesn\u2019t have much, only so much as he has derived from his connection with Mr Rajapaksa. When all is said and done, Mr Wickremasinghe will enjoy more credibility than an apparently opportunistic turncoat who betrayed his popular leader over a personal matter. The only available replacement for Mr Rajapaksa at the present time, if he must be replaced, is Mr Wickremasinghe with all his deficiencies and past failures. But it is good for the country if Mr Rajapaksa remains in power for another term at least. This is my opinion for what it is worth.<\/p>\n

Courtesy: The Island<\/em><\/p>\n

Tweet<\/a><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Rohana R. Wasala “It is a royal thing to be ill spoken of for good deeds.” – Greek philosopher Antisthenes (445-365 BCE) commenting on the kingly prerogative, quoted with approval by Roman Emperor, Stoic philosopher and soldier Marcus Aurelius (121-180 CE) in his philosophical work \u2018Meditations\u2019 Until Maithripala Sirisena and his followers from the …<\/p>\n

Continue reading ‘It is difficult to believe that Mr Sirisena made his move for the sake of the country as he claims’ »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[12],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35351"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=35351"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35351\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":35358,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35351\/revisions\/35358"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=35351"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=35351"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=35351"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}