Preacher versus prizefighter

The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end Leon Trotsky

May 6, 2015
The debate on the 19th Amendment demonstrated the obscene contrast of
ethical values of Parliamentarians on both sides of the aisle.
A predisposed political commentator and an ideologue of the Mahinda
Chinthana autocracy has described the Opposition success in partially
blunting the 19th Amendment as a victory for J.R. Jayewardene. There is
truth in that foxy inference.
Twisty performance of Rajapaksa acolytes

J.R. Jayewardene would hav

e indeed chuckled at the twisty
performance of the Rajapaksa acolytes, Dinesh Gunawardene and Wimal
Weerawansa. Indeed, had he not reached the biblical span of three scores

and 10 years when he reached the top of the greasy pole, he would have
never introduced the two term limit on the presidency. The 18th
Amendment is hardly an aberration in comparison to JRJs attempt to have
two members representing the Kalawana seat.
The committee stage proceedings on the 19th Amendment was ample proof
that politics is a self-serving business. The labyrinthine manoeuvring by
Mahinda Rajapaksa loyalists to first scuttle and later to delay its passage in
Parliament was only one aspect of the Mahinda Rajapaksa strategy.
A host of well-known Buddhist monks rejected it in its entirety with
venomous rhetoric. Dr. Medagoda Abhayatissa Thero, Head of the Historic
Sunethra Mahadevi Pirivena, termed its passage as the Armageddon of the
Sinhala people.
Game plan of Mahinda loyalists
Clearly, the game plan of Mahinda loyalists was to scuttle the legislation
and precipitate a general election. This turn of events would have pleased

the UNP as well. Wimal Weera

wansa, the
fanatical acolyte of the former strongman, showed how painful it was to

lose gracefully. Unmasking the deep-seated, insidious influence of the cash

and carry politics of the Rajapaksa regime, he exulted: They wanted a
cobra. We gave them a rat snake.
Despite the final outcome of 212 votes in favour and one against, the
assaultive and argumentative process was clear evidence of the strength
and the tenacity of Mahinda machine.
Systemic corruption
Much of the corruption in the country is systemic. A sizeable segment of
this Parliament owes allegiance to the earlier order. Mahinda Rajapaksa did
not make the system. He only perfected it.
The executive presidency and the precipitous introduction of the open
economy undermined the social contract implicit in governance. Let the
robber barons come was the new zeitgeist. Public interest was defined by
the new political order which promised a righteous society and a free
market capitalist economy. The public perception of corruption until the
introduction of the JRJ brand of laissez faire economics and governance was
mainly confined to wrongdoings by individuals and small groups of rent
seekers.
President J.R. Jayewardene did not dismantle the rigid institutions of
governance set up under the planned socialist economy. His free market
initiative introduced a new dimension to corruption in the form of collusive
politics.
The corruption inherent in the issuance of permits and application of
regulations was replaced by a new culture of entitlement of the business
and political elite. The new chemistry of corruption was a synthesis of
pursuit of profit, collusive politics and a new perception of corruption. It
justified patently unethical business practices as economic dynamism.
In this fast lane to economic progress, corruption was seen as a functional
imperative. It served to lubricate the rigid political and bureaucratic
structure which remained in place. Private ownership of productive
resources, profit motivation and a competitive market mechanism were
superimposed on a society that remained glued to subsidies and protection
of a welfare state.
Patrimonial politics
Three notable members of the Jayewardene regime launched their own
patrimonial crusades. All three leaders were imbued with equally

phenomenal ambition to succeed the ageing President. All three launched

massive populist programs.
The competitive patrimonialism of the three rivals linked them to looselyorganised networks of loyalists, followers and power brokers which radically
altered mass politics of the land. The executive presidency had created
three cabinet level satraps with their own constituencies. The free market
economy was thus converted to a quasi-feudal order which encouraged an
elitism at the expense of state resources. This UNP monolith imploded
under President Premadasa.
In the absence of a competitive entrepreneurial class, the neo Gaullist
constitution and the bastardised free market, led to patrimonial politics.
No accountability
There were no institutions capable of monitoring public finance in the
context of the free market economy. The enforcement agencies that existed
were subject to ministerial fiat. The insightful historian Eric Hobsbawm
remarked: It is often assumed that an economy of private enterprise has
an automatic bias towards innovation, but this is not so. It has a bias only
towards profit.
The private sector of Sri Lanka was no exception. Described as the engine
of growth, private business pumped a vast quantity of lubricants to keep a
consumerist economy running. The new institutions of public and private
sector collaboration facilitated collusion, corruption and crony capitalism. It
was a corporate feudalism where the lords and barons were from a chosen
elite.
The presiding Monarch remained aloof. He enabled and encouraged abuse
of power by ignoring or side stepping existing laws. Tailor-made legislation
to fit the interests of the regime and its loyalists were introduced in a
Parliament sans an Opposition. It wiped out accountability of the
government to the governed.
Mahinda Rajapaksa perfected the system
It was the good fortune of Mahinda Rajapaksa to win the war. He claimed
the ultimate prize in politics unbridled authority coupled with unmatched
national adulation. The personality cult that developed was inevitable.
History tells us that such cults are possible only under conditions in which
the image of the leader is associated with the values and goals that are
seen as essentials for the wellbeing of the nation.

Mahinda Rajapaksa outperformed J.R. Jayewardene. Mahinda Rajapaksa

perfected the system. The difference was that the new lords and barons
were from a different social milieu. There was new migration to Gregorys
Road and other addresses named after British governors. This was
accompanied by a proliferation of urban temples with kiosks offering
vegetarian takeaway food. A crony clergy took over the spiritual guidance
of the kleptocracy.
End justifying the means
President Maithripala Sirisena reposed his trust on Ranil Wickremesinghe to
dislodge Mahinda Rajapaksa and enact constitutional reforms. He can
derive some satisfaction from Trotskys adage that the end may justify the
means as long as there is something that justifies the end.
Mother Teresa accepted more than a million dollars from Charles Keating
who precipitated the savings and loan scandal that rendered thousands
homeless. She also used his private jet. When Keating was convicted, she
wrote a letter to the courts, urging leniency. She accepted donations from
the Haitian Dictator Jean Claude Duvalier and said that Papa Doc was
loved by his people.
It is the fervent wish of this writer that President Maithripala Sirisena the
politician would be more pragmatic than beatified Mother Teresa. Isaac
Deutscher describes the murder of Rosa Luxembourg as the last triumph of
Hohenzollern Germany and the first triumph of Nazi Germany.
The passage of the watered-down version of the 19th Amendment was the
last triumph of the Rajapaksa kleptocracy. Will it prove to be the first
triumph of Ranil Wickremesinghes corporate feudalism?
(Sarath De Alwis is a former journalist and a retired professional in leisure
and aviation industries.)
Posted by Thavam