
By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana-October 12, 2015
.gif)
It is a fact of life that indiscretions in the past, even minor or may even be trivial, might raise its’ ugly head and threaten the present or even shatter the dreams of the future. It is also true to say that in spite of their renowned thick skins, politicians more than any other, are susceptible to this phenomenon as well illustrated by recent happenings, both in Sri Lanka and the United Kingdom.Some are crafty enough to weather the storm but not all are lucky; some tainted even after death.
The enthusiasm of the widely hailed election of President Sirisena, in January, quickly turned in to a ‘soda-bottle enthusiasm’. Judging by recent reports like the request for colossal sums of money for the repair of residences, he seems no different from his predecessors, having started doing just the opposite of what he promised, the only difference being that he is never short of fancy excuses. ‘Maitri’ in name only but vengeful in action, he displayed his true nature during the last election campaign when he went all out to stop his predecessor from gaining any position of power even to the detriment of his own party.
Mahinda Rajapaksa, no saint by any description, pushed him to the brink exposing his true nature. Anyone with even a pinch of common-sense would have understood and endorsed his action, had he refused to give SLFP nomination to Mahinda Rajapaksa but having given the nomination, which his progressively reducing band of admirers will claim to be an act of ‘maitri’, he worked against his own party in spite of his promises and the expected neutrality of the incumbent President. Many a commentator will jump up to point out that previous Presidents used the government machinery to the full in furthering party politics but he is no ordinary President; one the electorate preferred to a President who has a unique record, the only leader in the world to comprehensively defeat, militarily, a ruthless terrorist group.
Well, all that is history and we are reminded of the golden rule: beware of politicians because their primary interest is themselves. It is tragic that politicians forget that they have to beware of history, if not anything else. Admittedly, it is too early to pass judgement on President Sirisena but speaking to his ardent supporters I cannot help but notice the waning enthusiasm. What a pity, ‘yahapalanaya’ seem to be deflating fast!
The banner headline in the ‘Daily Mail’, Tory supporting second biggest-selling British daily newspaper, in late September shocked many a British reader; ‘PM SAVAGED BY TOP BRASS’. David Cameron is under attack by his own people but looks as if he has a lot of luck left, still; he certainly would not have got the mandate to form a majority Tory Government in May had the ‘Daily Mail’ started serializing the biography written by Lord Ashcroft before the last general election. Lord Ashcroft, one of the biggest donors of the Conservative party, is no doubt venting his frustrations at not being given a senior cabinet position in the previous Cameron administration but some of the disclosures are very damaging.
Perhaps, David Cameron was reluctant to make Lord Ashcroft the Defence Secretary, which he aspired to, because of Lord Ashcroft’s ‘non-dom’ status to avoid paying British taxes but what is damaging is the revelation that Cameron was aware of the ‘non-dom’ status long before he admitted publicly. Lord Ashcroft implies that David Cameron advised him to keep it a secret till after 2010 elections.
One of the cruel pastimes of the British high-society that was banned by Tony Blair’s government is fox hunting. Gentleman on horses, sounding horns, gallop round the countryside with hounds that seek and tear to pieces foxes, which they claim is an sport that ‘manages’ the fox population. One of the first things Cameron was very keen to do on re-election was lifting this ban but he was defeated in the Parliament. Lord Ashcroft has included photographs of Cameron taking part in a fox hunt, which explains his enthusiasm to lift the ban!
There are some unsubstantiated hilarious incidents mentioned as well. It is claimed that Cameron had to insert his private parts into the mouth of a dead pig’s head as part of an initiation ceremony to an exclusive club in University. Our having to kneel before our seniors and drink Epsom salt out of a sewn-off top of a human skull, during the ‘rag’ when we joined the Medical Faculty, pales into insignificance when compared to this act of lunacy. There are accusations of drug-fuelled parties as well.
There are many, many allegations but, to me, the most serious is the criticism of his actions in Libya. In spite of the repercussions already seen, to match Tony Blair’s invasion of Iraq with George W Bush seems to have been an obsession of Cameron. He chose to go to Libya against all advice. It is stated that General Sir David Richards, the Chief of the Defence Staff, had commented; "We never analysed things properly. We didn’t understand the tribal dimension. I kept saying there was a large tribal element to Libya and it kept being ‘pooh-poohed’. It is also stated that during the Libyan campaign, the General had occasionally clashed with Cameron and in one meeting he told the PM that being in the Combined Cadet Force at Eaton was not a qualification for running the tactical detail of a complex coalition war effort. Cameron, more than any other, is responsible for the present chaos in Libya with the resultant inflow of refugees across the Mediterranean.
Leon Brittan, who was Home secretary in Margaret Thatcher’s government and dubbed by some as ‘Thatcher’s bully of miners’, together with a number of other VIIP including those high up in security services, was accused of child sex-abuse and rape charges and it is claimed that there was a cover-up during Thatcher’s times. Metropolitan Police is still investigating these allegations and the latest news is that, though the police had cleared Leon Brittan of the rape charges, he was not informed of it before his death in January this year. A recent investigative programme on BBC revealed that claims of sexual abuse against him started as a joke. It is quite possible that a politician who served the country with distinction went to his grave with an unjust taint.
Yet another politician, who drew a lot of coverage of late in the British Media, is the late Sir Edward Heath who was Prime Minister of UK from 1970 -74 and died in 2005. In addition to being a politician he was renowned to be a good musician and a keen yachtsman. Heath never married and there had been rumours about his sexuality. Heath was also among those with Leon Brittan being accused of being in a paedophile ring. Some media claimed that a ‘madame’ in a brothel has stated that she has provided children to Heath; she went public denying this but admitting that she provided ‘gay men’ for him. It is very likely that Edward Heath was the first gay Prime Minister of the United Kingdom but he could not admit it as, at that time, homosexuality was illegal. Perhaps, he could have had a ‘sham-marriage’ but was too honest to do that, unlike some of our politicians.
Politicians: beware – even death cannot prevent mud-slinging.