Maithri’s Options: From Sensation To Reality

By Harindra B. Dassanayake –July 13, 2015
Since the last presidential election, fun begins from the nominations stage. This time round, however, nominations of both sides exceed mere ‘fun’ and borders on black humour – would you imagine Mahinda Rajapaksa runs under Maithri’s list and fiery Champika Ranawaka to camp in Ranil’s backyard? So, the proverbial ‘desperate situations call for desperate solutions’. May be. The central plot of the drama so far is the nomination for the former president Mahinda Rajapaksa from the UPFA list. And it was given. However, those six million odd voters who lifted the challenger Maithripala to the throne by ousting its incumbent seem hardly satisfied. Interestingly, even some of the Rajapaksa fans too are bitter-tongued as their hero gave into a trap instead of becoming a true avenging rebel leader against the Maithri’s UPFA: ‘once a Judas is always a Judas!’, so they say of Maithripala Sirisena, a name that increases blood temperature of those who upheld him as well as withheld him just six months ago. Did he not have better options? This short piece will explore some of three other options he could have adopted, each, with devastating consequences.
- Maithri should have taken a leaf out of Mahinda’s book and do what he did to Sarath Fonseka in 2010 – Cut the cancer.
- Maithri could simply remained the President and leave the rotten SLFP and UPFA to those who deserve it – Nobody wanted him to become the leader of SLFP
- Let the Rajapaksa clan break away from UPFA and contest, if he desired, on his own from his own party – Purify the great Party
Let’s examine the possible outcomes of each of these options briefly.
Cut the caner
What goes around comes around. But, what the then-president Mahinda Rajapaksa did to his challenger,Sarath Fonseka, in 2010 was a sorry scene in the eyes of someone who admires the right to differ. The essence of the January 08 mandate was to bid a permanent ‘Rest-in-Peace’ to that very kind of politics of destroying one’s opponents. Probably, the investigation process could have been fast-tracked. More thieves could have been caught, and put in jail. Yet, as the controversial resignation and resumption of duties of on member of the Bribery Commission (bringing the work of the institute to a stand-still) vividly exemplified, fighting a system that grew over a decade with months needs democratic patience or, yes, a guillotine. The second is not an option in our country, and it should never be anywhere. In order to protect and respect the essence of the January 08 mandate, democracy should prevail. Going by the standards that Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa has set as the President, he should be thankful to his counterpart Mr. Sirisena for allowing him live a normal life, let alone doing politics.
