Sri Lanka: Peopling the ‘revolution’

The government probably has a plan. It appears that the plan is not being communicated well enough, not to those tasked to implement it and not to the people. That’s a communications problem and is easily rectified.

by Manik de Silva- Dec 18, 2016

( December 18, 2016, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The word ‘revolution’ is a bit like love. It’s over-used to the point that it has lost all meaning and has been discredited to the point that even in advertising it is now passé. And yet the word has not lost any of its currency, never mind knowledge of its meaning among its users. This is why even a mere electoral result is described as a ‘revolution’. Like the one on January 8, 2015.

Perhaps it needs to be read as an expression of exultation by the victors and their supporters or an anticipation that things will change radically. The former would make every regime-change a revolution and if the realization of hope is the test, then the electoral victory of Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2005 can be counted as one. After all an outcome was yielded during his tenure that everyone was relentlessly told was impossible — the military defeat of the LTTE.

What happened in January 2015 was also something that was considered impossible — an electoral defeat of Mahinda Rajapaksa — but that invincibility was hardly hammered into the psyche of the general public with the kind of ferocity that marked the doctrine of invincibility as far as the LTTE was concerned. Nevertheless, when impossible becomes possible, it generates much euphoria and one might even say ‘triumphalism’.

Reality rises, through all of that, sooner or later. This, however, does not mean that hope should be buried or that an new edition of regime-change should be plotted. What it calls for is sober assessment.

The winning combination was a hastily cobbled gathering whose principal commonality was antipathy to the incumbent. It was not going to be a yahapalana government by yahapalanists (i.e. those who understood the term ‘good governance’, subscribed to it in word and deed, and knew what has to be done to make it real) and, one could add, for yahapalanists. It was a programme that unified enough forces to yield just enough numbers to ensure victory over a particular regime, but not everyone who jumped on the yahapalana bandwagon were or are yahapalanists. It is those who harboured the illusion who are disappointed most. Other disappointments are the common kind, those which blame governments for not doing or doing, as the case may be, and have little to do with angst over revolutionary let-down.

In any event, even the most ardent opponent of this government would, if pushed to sober deliberation, acknowledge that a) yahapalanaya was going to be an uphill task anyway because significant numbers of politicians, officials as well as citizens were clueless and clueing them in would take a lot of time and persuasion, b) that uphill task was made even more difficult by the unfamiliar terrain of arch rivals finding themselves forced to cohabit, and c) some important advances have been made on key fronts, including constitutional reform and media rights, over and above the usual pluses expected during the post-election honeymoon.

In retrospect, even the cautious celebration expressed in the term ‘Low-intensity revolution’ used by Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri, seems optimistic. The truth is that the disappointments of the yahapalana-hopefuls is not something that should worry the government right now. It may matter in an election, because the possible neutralization of a key opinion-making segment might make a difference, but right now it’s the disappointments and even anger of the general public including groups of professionals that should worry the government.

The slip-ups have ranged from the usual fax pas from ministers and officials to questionable handling of the Central Bank bond issue scandal. Between these there are innumerable let-ups that could be called disappointing but then again could also be understood as the product of ‘politics as usual’. The more serious issue is the perception that this is a do-nothing government, a regime that’s big on talk and small on delivery.

To be fair, orchestrating recovery in an economy marked by mindless expenditure, a fascination with loans, wastage and mismanagement, is no easy task. It’s certainly not something that can be done overnight or even within the course of two years. The Prime Minister clearly has a pulse not only on promises but on delivery, and indeed on the perceived slowness and disappointments.

“They want to see the delivery taking place, that’s what we are focussing on. Once the delivery is assured, it will cease to be a major problem. Till then you’ve got to live with a thorn on your side, and I think our political parties are capable of doing that,” he said, referring to the noises made by the Joint Opposition.

This, however, is another promise. If there’s focus, then it’s clearly behind-the-scenes. The ‘thorn in the side’ notwithstanding, what needs to be done has to be done and in fact can be done if there’s focus and if there’s the critical mass of committed, capable and efficient people on your side. If indeed such people exist, they can’t all be behind the scenes simple because the screens won’t cover all. What does get seen does not exactly cause anyone to hope.

The government can point to a human resource issue that is not of its making, but this will not help calm down a people who have been taught to live in and demand the here-and-now ever since 1977.

Dealing with the opposition has for too long taken centre-stage. It is as though the spectre of the Rajapaksas is freezing the government. The Prime Minister has correctly said that if things get done, that factor would diminish, but therein lies the rub: there’s an ‘if’ and ‘when’ in the business of getting things done. In other words, time is running out.

The ruling coalition, for all the occasional claims of unity, is a shaky disposition. The Prime Minister claims that “people like the idea of the two main parties – SLFP and UNP working together,” but one wonders if ‘the people’ referred to are only those politicians who have benefitted from the arrangement. The people, common sense indicates, are less interested in political arrangements at the top than what it yields by way of benefits to them.

The government probably has a plan. It appears that the plan is not being communicated well enough, not to those tasked to implement it and not to the people. That’s a communications problem and is easily rectified. The more serious issue is one of getting the right people on board. Right now, it’s clear that the government is floundering on this score. Correctable, of course, but with difficulty. It’s not an issue that will go away and it is certainly not something that can be wished away.

So we can call it ‘revolution’ or a ‘tea party’ or whatever, but if the right people are not around, it’s not going to be a lot of fun, that much is assured.

Manik de Silva is the chief editor of Sunday Island, where this piece was originally published.

Colombia’s example and our calamitous blunder

Sunday, December 18, 2016

There is a reason why the peace deal of the Colombian Government with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC) became a reality despite formidable obstacles. Credited with brokering the deal and bringing to a close, one of the deadliest and longest-running civil wars in Latin America, Colombia’s President Juan Manuel Santos,Nobel Peace Prize Laureate for 2016 attributes his success to putting the victims at the heart of the process.

‘This succeeded because we made sure that the victims were prioritised in every way possible and were not made to feel irrelevant’ he said, soon after accepting the award.

Colombia’s difference in national dialogue

The Colombian example was singular. Its national dialogue was not limited to exclusively elitist pockets of opinion but reached out even to those who had earlier responded negatively in a national plebiscite, including religious and trade union leaders. Comprehensive revisions were made in the draft as a result. Santos now has the heavy responsibility of implementing the accord but the start has been promising.

There are valuable lessons that Sri Lanka’s Unity Government can learn from the Colombian President’s trenchant advice. One strong focus there has been the importance given to reform of national laws, policies and practices in an inclusive and open manner rather than secretively.

And if last week’s Concluding Observations by the United Nations Committee against Torture (UNCAT) is any indication, the Government needs to pull up its game and respond properly to the multitude of challenges looming before it in the coming months Change in Government, no panacea.

Last week’s column examined the UNCAT’s Observations issued in response to Sri Lanka’s periodic report submitted in terms of the Convention against Torture. The same focus will be continued for this week due to its overriding importance. These are precisely the key points which reform should address.

The UNCAT’s recommendations concerned systemic patterns of impunity in the South as well as in the North. Flamboyant promises and artificial assurances will not serve as a miracle cure for these ills. Instead, carefully structured reforms are needed that put the victims at the core of the process. These reforms must address the investigative, the prosecutorial and the judicial pillars of the system, all of which have been seriously compromised.

The Committee stated quite rightly that torture was most evidenced during the initial hours of interrogation. Police investigators often fail to register detainees during this period, providing them with opportunities to abuse at free will. Remarking that neither the Attorney General nor the judiciary exercises sufficient control over orders of detention, the Committee called for safeguards wherein even judges who fail in their judicial duties in this regard should be held to account.

Rejecting regressive measures

And so, it is precisely at this point that safeguards had to be provided to detainees including prompt access to counsel, the right to notify relatives and the need to install video surveillance in all places of custody except when the right to privacy or the right to confidential communications with a lawyer or a doctor may be at issue.

The UNCAT did not take kindly therefore to a recently proposed (and withdrawn) amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to bar prompt legal access to detainees. Neither did it respond well to another problematic effort to enact a counter-terror law which was more draconian than the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) which it sought to replace.

In fact, the abuse of detention laws forms a main thrust of this report. Pointedly it was observed that forthcoming legislation on national security should adopt a precise definition of terrorist acts and guarantee the requirement of strict necessity and proportionality with the ensuring of effective judicial review. Reflecting on the pattern of forced confessions under the PTA, the Committee expressed alarm that the proposed counter-terror law continues to allow this.

Judicial diligence and punishment in lack there of

Given the Committee’s finding that judges do not exercise their discretion in examining cases of alleged torture with due diligence, it was pointed out that judicial review to test the voluntariness of the confession was itself not a sufficient safeguard.

And to be plain, the point made by the UNCAT regarding the absence of judicial due diligence has often been reflected in comments made by Sri Lanka’s appellate courts that litter our constitutional jurisprudence. In that regard the Committee’s recommendation is difficult to disagree with.Judges must actively ask the detainees about their treatment during detention and request a forensic examination. If they fail to respond appropriately to allegations of torture raised during judicial proceedings, they must be appropriately disciplined.

Independent investigation of torture allegations

The jurists also called for the enforcement of Sri Lanka’s Evidence Ordinance in all cases including in terrorism related offences as well as ensuring the right of a detainee to have access to an interpreter.

It reminded the Sri Lankan State of its duty to ensure that detained persons are promptly brought before a judge and in any event, not exceeding 48 hours. Arresting officers must register the exact date, time, ground for the detention and place of arrest of detainees.Officers who fail to adhere to the law or ensure that their subordinates do so, must be penalized.

The State was also requested to establish effective prosecutorial oversight over the police. Statements obtained during police interrogation must not be relied on as the central element of proof in criminal prosecutions. And an independent body must head the investigation of torture.

Refraining from foolhardy provocation

Among this plethora of recommendations, one fact is certain. The UNCAT’s response last week was notably harsh. Perhaps the quite flagrant if not foolhardy provocation presented before its astonished members in the subversive form of an intelligence chief being part of the State delegation was one reason. We shall never know.

Whatever it is arrogance or ignorance driving Sri Lanka’s calamitous blunders that we constantly see, this needs to stop.

Hambanthota Harbour sold dirt cheap

December 18, 2016 by

The land that belongs to Hambanthota Harbour is 1200 acres but the harbour is to be sold without any assessment to the infra structure development that has taken place and the land it owns.

Normally when a harbour commences operations its value increases. Also, in the valuation a separate valuation is added for the land it possesses and the infra structure facilities available.

However, this harbour is to be sold without considering or adding any additional values and what is unusual is that the government is not keen on collecting the estimated US$1400 million from the buyer.

It is speculated that former Rajapaksa regime has defrauded at least US$300 million when constructing the harbour. It may be the reason why the same Chinese company that constructed the Harbour buys it for US$1200 and no extra money is estimated for infra structure facilities.

2017: A make-or-break year for the government

by Krishantha Prasad Cooray-December 18, 2016, 9:18 pm 

President Maithripala Sirisena was brought to power in January 2015 by a need for change. It was not just a change of government that was called for, but a change of governance. An end to the way things had been done, not just by the regime at that time, but by successive governments over several decades.

I remember the moment when it was confirmed that Maithripala Sirisena had won. I felt immense satisfaction for having been part of the effort that brought about the spectacular victory. But more than that, it was a sense of relief and hope. Things would be better because things would be different. Systems, not personalities! Rule of law instead of rule of discretion! I told myself that a powerful few will no longer be able to impose their will on the people. Sri Lanka would move away from the dictatorial regime marked by corruption, the politics of patronage, nepotism and waste. Sri Lanka would turn a new leaf and ensure good governance where no one will be above the law and nepotism will give way to meritocracy. We were going to be living in a democratic country where there is rule of law, where rights are protected, and where the judiciary is independent.

There would be development that was sensible, the economy would be managed prudently and it would benefit the general citizenry and not a few individuals and cronies bent on bankrupting the country. No more wastage of public funds, no more kick-backs, no further bloating of the public service and no excessive borrowings. All this sounds like the theme of a fairy tale Disney movie, but several important steps were indeed taken to ensure that the promised good governance would be delivered despite the cynicism. The passage of the crucial 19th Amendment to the Constitution curtailing the near dictatorial powers of the Executive President and the establishment of independent commissions to run the public service, the judiciary, the police and several other key institutions. The hard work of organizations such as the one spearheaded by the late Ven Maduluwawe Sobitha Thero, supported of course by current Speaker, Karu Jayasuriya, and the parties that backed the campaign to defeat Mahinda Rajapaksa, led by the current Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and the United National Party bore fruit. The sense of purpose and sacrifice shown by President Maithripala Sirisena was also crucial in getting this piece of legislation done.

Today, almost two years since the change, it is clear that altering the rule book was necessary, but not sufficient to establish a "difference". The full potential of independent commissions is yet to be realized. This is partly because the people are yet to understand it fully and recognize its empowering worth. Similarly, politicians as well as enforcing authorities, appear to be ignorant of the safeguards that have been enshrined in the 19th Amendment. Clearly, people and especially politicians and officials, have to change. So too the political culture that enabled and still enables wrongdoing.

A lot was promised and in double-quick time too. The generous assessment would probably include the observation that perhaps those who promised change themselves had no idea that the system of governance was not only flawed but resistant to change, that corrupt officials would oppose, that there is a human resource problem in the country which makes it difficult to find enough people to fill all the posts at the commanding heights of the institutional arrangement and finally that the resistance could come from within as well as without.

It is certainly a consolation that acts of wrongdoing do not go unreported or under-reported, that questions asked do not go unanswered, that even if prevention is still not guaranteed there is the will to cure.

However, the inheritance of a bad system and a mismanaged economy cannot be blamed for anything and everything. There was a need to take control of the state apparatus. Today it is well known that key individuals who were part of the previous regime merely shifted loyalties and were happily kept on. Not everyone who worked for the Rajapaksas as per their official designation or out of loyalty were dishonest. But there were many who broke or bent the law. Those who were never opposed to the previous regime and didn’t know the first thing of good governance were placed on high seats, just because allegiance had been declared. Even those who did nothing to defeat the Rajapaksas were rewarded. This would have been alright if they had proven track records of competence, but that was not the case either. It is disappointing, however, that many who genuinely desired change and worked hard for it have been side-lined. In short, the boat that needed to be rocked was not rocked at the right time. Had the right people been put in the right places, had the structures been radically altered and other bold steps been taken, things could have turned out different and better.

To be fair, there were steps taken and they have generated some results. The media, as mentioned, is allowed to criticize. There is freedom of speech and freedom even after the speech. No one is shot in the dead of night, no one is abducted. A top official makes an ill-advised statement or does something wrong and we can all talk about it. The controversy over the Central Bank bond issue is an example of the kinds of freedoms that exist today but which were absent before January 2015.

We have learnt some important lessons over the past two years. First of all, that the road to ‘Good Governance’ is long and the terrain is rocky. Deeds do follow words, but at a considerable distance. There are better structures, but not better people to fill the important posts. In short, it is not easy to move from bad governance to good governance overnight, but that a rough and challenging interim period is a necessity structured by all the issues mentioned above.

This poses a serious political problem. In a word, time. The Government will be reaching the half-way mark of its term in the year 2017. While some of the delays can be blamed on structural resistance, including the mess left behind by the previous regime, it has to be acknowledged that incompetence, lack of will, absence of human resources and poor communication have also played a role in feeding the impatience of the people. It would be erroneous to attribute the perception that "nothing-has-really-changed" to the work of Rajapaksa ‘moles’ in the media and the vicious lies of the Joint Opposition. Clearly, these factors have played a role, but the claims have obtained at least some credence from all the issues we have mentioned above.

In other words, there can easily be a backlash. A dictatorial regime creates a demand for a democratic alternative. However, if the democratic alternative does not deliver or is slow in delivery a counter-demand for a ‘strong man’ can easily result.

This is why 2017 is going to be an important year for the government and the country. Everything possible needs to be done to ensure that the democratic gains over the past two years are not turned back.

The President and the Prime Minister have demonstrated their vision and courage. They have both shown that it is possible to sacrifice opportunities for personal gain and the political fortunes of their respective parties for the betterment of the country. They are both experienced leaders, but they both suffer from the fact that the entire country is facing a human resource crisis. Therefore they need to actively search for the competence that still exists in the country, mobilize it and put it to work so that their common vision can be realized. The leadership has vision, but the right team has to support this leadership.

The Government should also have a follow-up mechanism. Decisions have to be made on projects. For example, the BOI should be a one-stop-shop for those interested in investing in Sri Lanka. The practice of appointing committee after committee at the drop of a hat has to stop. The very fact that people are scared to make decisions fearing possible consequences should the government fall is itself a sign that there is doubt about the stability of this regime.

The President and Prime Minister should call all officials and get that message across to them that they can work without fear or favour, that they need not feel pressured to do the wrong thing nor desist from doing the right thing, that they should do what they are required to do, in short.

Politicians should be told that times have changed, that power has to be delegated. Indeed, a lot more needs to be told to the politicians. Ministers who had demonstrated incompetence, or worse, have been doing exactly what ministers of previous regimes did, should be told that they will not be tolerated. It has to be acknowledged that the corrupt individuals of this regime are known and that they include people who were not part of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s cabinet.

Hard decisions have to be taken. Power should of course not be abused, but it should not go unused when it has to be employed, legally of course, to safeguard the rights of the people. No one should be allowed to hold the government to ransom and in particular to abuse the freedoms that were generated thanks to the January 2015 electoral result to sabotage the democratization process.

Radical decisions have to be taken by the President and the Prime Minister. If not, there is a real danger of not only the entire reform project being scuttled, but the Government itself will come under threat. All good decisions, needless to say, will be difficult from now on. There is a time to compromise, but that time has passed. There’s a time to take a firm stand and that time has arrived. The President and the Prime Minister no doubt realize that their respective parties have to work together as well. Indeed, the political fortunes of the two main parties hinge on the survival of this coalition. The coalition cannot survive for too long if the notion that nothing has changed gathers momentum.

If there’s a fissure, then there are many who will zero in on it and strive to drive a wedge to make the gap impossible to bridge. The only thing that will keep the coalition intact is work, good work that delivers, good work done by good people. The silver lining is that we have in the President and the Prime Minister the two men best equipped to get the job done and to recognize all the components of the job, all the tools necessary and do what’s necessary to get it done, including a proper succession plan to counter the personal greed that marks politicians of all hues and persuasion.

The year 2017 is in fact a make or break year for the government. Happily, the initiative is in the hands of the government.

Who’s lying – Sujeewa or Amaraweeera?

December 18, 2016 by

The propaganda stating that 15,000 acres from Hambanthota District would be given for an industrial zone is wrong, not more than 1500 acres would be given from Hambanthota said the Minister of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Development Mahinda Amaraweera at a press conference held recently.

However, the State Minister of International Trade Sujeewa Senasinghe, at a ceremony held yesterday (17th), said the work of the 15,000 acre industrial zone would commence on 7th January.
Already, people in the area have begun protest campaigns against handing over 15,000 acres to China and UNP and SLFP Ministers of the government make contradictory statements regarding handing over of lands to a foreign company.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe explaining government’s economic policy said in Parliament that 15,000 acres of land in Hambantota District will be allocated for Chinese investors to set up a special economic zone.

Lankan family who sheltered in Hong Kong at risk of being deported



December 18, 2016

The Sri Lankan asylum seekers who sheltered the American whistle-blower Edward Snowden in Hong Kong might be at risk of detention and deportation as their lawyer was not able to meet a final deadline imposed by the Immigration Department to file documents.

 Robert Tibbo, a Canadian barrister who provided legal advice to Snowden when he was in the city in 2013, said 30 of his cases had been reactivated at the same time after at least two years of inactivity, leaving him unable to cope with the workload given his other work commitments.

 “I understand I have been particularly targeted. They all know I have 30 cases that have been held in limbo and now this happens,” Tibbo said.

 “To me this is a clear-cut strategy by the Hong Kong government to defeat my client cases by avoiding even looking at the merits of them. It is a grossly unfair procedure.”

 This comes as a group of lawyers in Montreal is campaigning for the asylum seekers who helped Snowden in Hong Kong to be resettled in Canada. They housed the former US intelligence contractor for about two weeks back in 2013, shortly after he leaked classified documents that showed the extension of mass online surveillance by the American and other governments. 

Tibbo was first asked on October 12 to file supplementary claim forms, in which additional grounds for claim could be stated for Supun Thilina Kellapatha and Nadeeka Dilrukshi Nonis, a couple from Sri Lanka. The final deadline was December 14. 

The lawyer said he also missed the deadline for their two children. Papers filed by protection claimants usually include their personal history, the threats faced in their home countries and updates on their nations’ security situation. 

Tibbo’s request to file all documents by the end of January was rejected by the Immigration Department. 

An immigration officer said in a letter about Supun’s case that the duty’s lawyer schedule was “not a reasonable excuse for any further delay in the submission” of supplementary claim forms. 

The officer continued: “We consider ample time and reasonable opportunities have been given to him [the claimant] to complete the supplementary claim forms and to seek advice from his legal representative.” Failing to do so, the officer noted, “his claim will be treated as withdrawn”. 

Tibbo said that in such cases the government had the right to arrest and deport the claimant. 

Vanessa Mae Rodel, a Filipino asylum seeker who has a four-year-old daughter, will soon be in a similar situation. 

-scmp 

-Agencies 

Navy Commander To Get top post

Dec 18, 2016

Navy Commander, Vice Admiral Ravindra Wijegunaratne is tipped to be given a top post once he retires from service, sources said.

The Vice Admiral is to retire from service in February next year.

However, when contacted by, State Minister of Defence Ruwan Wijewardene said that no decision has been taken at present to give a top posting to the outgoing Navy Commander.

500th Anniversary (Quincentennial) Of Thomas More’s Socialist Utopia

By Laksiri Fernando –December 18, 2016

Dr. Laksiri Fernando

It was in December 1516 that Thomas More’s ‘Utopia’ was first published in Latin. The publisher was Thierry Marten in Louvain, (now in) Belgium. We celebrate therefore the five hundredth anniversary of ‘Utopia’ this month.

Born in 1478 to an aristocratic and intellectual family, More was an enigmatic character. He served the King Henry VIII, but became beheaded for his persistent convictions in 1535. When he wrote ‘Utopia’ he was 38. It took just 14 months to complete this book between July 1515 and September 1516, among his official duties and family commitments, as he said. More is considered a Catholic Saint, a great Guru of the Theosophists, a Liberal and a Socialist, among other portrayals. As far as the vision and the principles of ‘Utopia’ are concerned, he is undoubtedly the first modern thinker of ‘Socialism,’ although that word does not appear in the book.

To celebrate this great book and the great writer, from a Sri Lankan perspective, from today onwards, the chapters of ‘Thomas More’s Socialist Utopia and Ceylon (Sri Lanka)’ by Laksiri Fernando (CreateSpace, 2014) would be published every Sunday. The publication link to the original for those who wish to obtain a printed copy is https://www.createspace.com/4688110

What is published today is the Preface to the book.

PREFACE

Our business here is to be Utopian, to make vivid and credible, if we can, first this fact and then that, of an imaginary whole and happy world. – H. G. Wells[1]

THOMAS More’s Utopia published first in December 1516, written in Latin, is one of the foremost discourses on socialism in the modern period. Socialism undoubtedly has a common appeal among the vast majority of the people in Sri Lanka irrespective of ethnicity or any other distinction and most political parties at least pay verbal homage to its principles whether they practice them or not. This is also the case in Australia, where I live now, and many other countries similar or dissimilar to Sri Lanka or Australia. Even Sri Lanka’s formal name is called the ‘Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.’ Many of the ‘Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties’ in the Constitution are based on some form of socialist principles in the broadest meaning of the term. This could be the result of the profound impact that the left (socialist) parties initially made in people’s psyche; socialism as a higher system or value, since early 1930s or it could be the result of some other historical reasons.

The political impact of the left parties today, however, is almost insignificant and socio economic system of the country is far away from anything akin to socialism. No political party in power makes any effort to properly implement the ‘Directive Principles’ in the Constitution and those are not justiciable in law courts in any meaningful manner. Yet people talk about socialism or aspire for its principles perhaps as a way of expressing their dissatisfaction about the present state of affairs both in the economy and in the social system.

I was attracted to socialist views fairly early in my life. This was the heyday of the left movement in Sri Lanka in early 1960s. ‘Utopian socialism’ was a common term used in some leftist theoretical pamphlets, rather in a belittling manner, to make the point that ‘their socialism’ was scientific following the standard Marxist standpoint. I never had any qualms with that view those days although today I believe that even utopian ideas of socialism have much value sometimes more than the so-called scientific views. That time I didn’t have the opportunity to know about Thomas More who in fact had coined the term ‘Utopia’ for his ideal society or the island until I entered the University of Peradeniya and studied Social and Political Theory in my second year (1965/66) for the special degree in Economics, majoring in Government. I vividly remember our inspiring lecturer, Dr K. H. Jayasinghe, introducing Thomas More and his Utopia in an extremely impressive fashion elucidating different aspects of the new society that More was advocating. Although we were introduced to Socialist Tradition, Moses to Lenin by Alexander Gray (1946) as our main reading and a critical exploration of socialist views including Thomas More’s, our major focus was more on modern thinkers both of socialist and liberal strands and among those thinkers, theorists of Saint Simon, Charles Fourier and Robert Owen who emerged after the French Revolution received major attention on the socialist strand. Thus, we had little time to go through More’s views in detail.

Read More

Fidel and the Rock of Resistance

Photo courtesy Miami Herald

“The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart.”

Camus (The Myth of Sisyphus)

TISARANEE GUNASEKARA on 12/18/2016

According to an ancient Chinese musical treatise (written in the second century BCE), when any of the five notes in the Chinese pentatonic scale turns disharmonious, disorder results in human affairs. If all five notes are out of harmony, danger results, and the imminent destruction of the kingdom ensues.

Mao would have deemed such a situation of great disorder excellent. But disorder, though necessary to overcome ossification of conditions, is not always the ally of progress. This is particularly so when religion plays an oversized role in creating disorder.

“If Richard Coeur-de-Lion and Philip Augustus had introduced free trade instead of getting mixed up in the Crusades, we should have been spared five hundred years of misery and stupidity,[i]” Fredrick Engels famously lamented. The Crusades depleted Europe of its men, resources and energies and retarded its progress. Given the more advanced conditions prevailing in the Islamic lands of that time, Christian Europe would have fared better if it sent not armies of warriors but armies of scholars and traders to the Middle East.

An even worse disorder resulted from the Thirty Years’ War, a brutal conflict which pitted Christian against Christian and devastated most of Germany and parts of Central Europe. It involved all European powers and is believed to have caused the death of 4 to 11 million people, either directly or indirectly (through famine and disease). An estimated 20% of the population of German states perished. The only positive consequence of this inane conflict was the diminishing of religious influence in European politics and society.

In parts of North Africa and the Middle East, a somewhat analogous process is underway currently. Religion in general and the Sunni-Shia divide within Islam in particular constitute a decisive factor in the wars currently devastating the region, from Yemen to Syria. If the trajectory of the Thirty Years’ War is anything to go by, the violence and the devastation will not stop until the zeal of zealots is burnt out. And that would take a while. Hopefully, the region will someday emerge from the wars, a little less inclined to kill and die in the name of a creed.

The times are characterised by growing disorder, the kind which retards progress, which forces humans to abandon their gains and retreat into the past, chasing lost paradises. Socialism has failed, Capitalism cannot deliver, and the resulting vacuum is being filled by tribal and religious ‘solutions’. When the incoming president of the waning empire expresses a terrifying willingness to risk a confrontation with the rising empire to prove a point, when in a new reality show which permits murder and rape is about to premiere in Russia, once the locus of the socialist dream, when Aleppo, one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world, a living monument to the march towards civilisation is being torn apart by a power-hungry despot and a religiously-insane ‘Caliph’, when climate change is fast reaching the point of no return, it is hard to be hopeful[ii].

Countries need heroes, though only for a time. But the world would always need resistance, this side of an earthly paradise, and never more so when zealots drunk on divine words promise to usher in earthly paradises, founded on the corpses and watered by the blood of ‘unbelievers’. This world needs the unheroic-heroism of a Sisyphus, who neither kills nor dies, but endures, never letting go of the rock, like the White Helmets in Aleppo to the ordinary men and women, braving military beatings and sub-zero temperatures to protest the Dakota Access pipeline at Standing Rock. They may not change the world, but they save lives and improve human condition.

Had Fulgencio Batista not pulled his second coup, Fidel Castro could have been such an ordinary, unheroic-hero.

Imperfect Choices

In 1952, Cubans had been preparing for a normal election to select their next president and their next congress. What they got was a military coup. Fulgencio Batista had come to power the first time in 1933, via the Revolt of the Sergeants. His first rule had been relatively benign. He had retired, lived for years in the US, returned to contest the presidency in 1952 and pulled the coup when faced with defeat. Election was cancelled, constitution suspended and Cuba’s transformation from a flawed democracy into an autocracy, a fief of American business and American mafia, commenced.

At the time of Batista’s second coup, Fidel, a young lawyer, was on the threshold of a career as an electoral politician, contesting a congressional seat from the Orthodox Party. Had Batista not pulled his coup, had Cuba remained a land where people could change their rulers through the ballot box, there would have been no Moncada, no Granma landing, no Fidel-Che-Raul-Camilo revolution.

In History Will Absolve Me, the speech he gave in his own defence at the Moncada trial, Fidel narrated the events which propelled him to launch an armed attack on a military garrison. “Once upon a time there was a Republic. It had its Constitution, its laws, its freedoms, a President, a Congress and Courts of Law. Everyone could assemble, associate, speak and write with complete freedom. The people were not satisfied with the government officials at that time, but they had the power to elect new officials and only a few days remained before they would do so…. Poor country! One morning the citizens woke up dismayed; under the cover of night, while the people slept, the ghosts of the past had conspired and had seized the citizenry by its hands, its feet, and its neck…a man named Fulgencio Batista had just perpetrated the appalling crime that no one had expected.”

Life in the shadow of any empire is hard. Empires begin by preying on their neighbours. This is true from democratic Athens and autocratic Persia in Antiquity to democratic United States in the previous century and autocratic China today. In 2016, and after eight years of Obama Presidency, it is hard to remember how often democratically-elected governments suffered bloody military overthrow in Latin America, because the new empire preferred uniformed despots to be in charge of its backyard, leaders who were free from the demands of democracy and didn’t have to concern themselves about popular opinion.

So the Empire, while practicing democracy at home, turned its backyard into a bastion against democracy, unhappy lands which demanded heroes. The overthrow of Guatemala’s Jacobo Arbenz in 1954 was a turning point in the transformation of Ernesto Guevara into Che. By the time the Cuban Revolution succeeded, the choice in Latin America was not between democracy and its opposite, but between various types of non-democratic dispensations. The fate of Salvadore Allende’s Chile proved beyond any doubt that even in the 1970’s democracy had no chance of survival in Latin America, when an American backed coup forced the country’s democratically elected – and elderly – president to defend his mandate with a gun in his hand, in a presidential palace surrounded by tanks and attacked by planes.

Commenting on Fidel’s death, President Barak Obama said that “History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and the world around him.” Any judgement by posterity will be imbalanced if it takes no account of the time and place in which Fidel made and defended his revolution – 90 miles away from a United States which was at the height of its military power and interventionist will, a country still invincible and yet to experience the humiliation of Vietnam. 

That geography and that history played a critical role in deciding Fidel’s choices and Cuba’s trajectory. Had Fidel been in Nelson Mandela’s geographic position and in his time, what choices would he have made? Had the roles been reversed, what would Mandela have done? Both questions would remain unanswered and unanswerable.

What is knowable is what happened. In his Moncada speech, Fidel had mentioned several goals animating his political involvement. “The problem of the land, the problem of industrialization, the problem of housing, the problem of unemployment, the problem of education and the problem of the people’s health: these are the six problems we would take immediate steps to solve, along with restoration of civil liberties and political democracy.” Restoring civil liberties and political democracy remained broken promises, but in some areas such as education and health, Fidel’s success was spectacular, not only in that region or for that time. Those singular achievements draw praise even now, even in places where there’s little sympathy for the Cuban Revolution or little liking for Fidel.

Soviet money helped in enabling Cuba to attain record levels of literacy and a world-class health system, but the critical factor was political will, Fidel’s will. In general, leaders, including democratic ones, are likely to misuse or steal generous handouts by international patrons. Even loans which have to be paid back are squandered. Fidel ensured that some of the Soviet money was used to ensure for his people a living standard higher than anything they’ve experienced in the past, and for a time better than what obtained in many Latin American lands.

Fidel’s nemesis was a United States which wanted an ossified Cuba, ossified the way it was under the second Batista regime. His response in part mirrored this challenge; he attempted to ossify Cuba, the way it was when the Soviet Union was intact and really existing socialism was believed to be a realistic possibility. But change cannot be stopped, and this was perhaps what Fidel meant when he said, “The Cuban model doesn’t even work for us anymore”[iii].

Worse Times

The ancient Chinese musical treatise identifies five calamities which can result from disharmony: disorganisation, when the Prince is arrogant, deviation, when officials are corrupt, anxiety when people are unhappy, complaint when public services are too onerous, danger when resources are lacking. The Cuba Fidel inherited suffered from many of these calamities, and he changed things for better. The dividing line between utopia and dystopia is a very thin one, and often its crossing can be seen only after the fact, when it is too late, politically and psychologically to turn back. Cuban revolution disappointed many of its followers, but it never degenerated into a North Korea. For that Fidel deserves credit. He personified the revolution, but wouldn’t allow the development of a personality cult.

Che didn’t want to rule. By going away from Cuba to die in Bolivia, he managed to prevent his aura and his image to be diminished by the inexorable march of history. Fidel stayed back and ruled. When he died, at the age of 90, there was sadness, but nothing like the grief that would have exploded had he too died young, a hero felled by the empire. But then had Fidel died young, the revolution would have died with him, replaced not by a democratic Cuba, but the Cuban version of Pinochet’s Chile.

In 2010, Fidel had asked Jeffery Goldberg, the editor of Atlantic, to visit Cuba to discuss the Iranian nuclear crisis, and to warn all parties of the need to act with caution to prevent a confrontation. Goldberg asked Fidel about the rather different stance he took during the Cuban Missile Crisis. “After I’ve seen what I’ve seen, and knowing what I know now, it wasn’t worth at all,”[iv] was reportedly Fidel’s reply. His final forays into international affairs were aimed at making peace. He urged caution on the trigger-happy North Korean leader and helped end the longest violent conflict in Latin America. Fidel and Hugo Chavez were the initial facilitators of the Columbian peace process, playing a behind-the-scenes role in getting the two sides to talk to each other.

If Fidel began his long political career in a time of global hope, he ended it in a time of global despair. In his final speech to the Cuban Communist Party in April 2016, Fidel Castro warned that humanity, like dinosaurs, can be wiped off the face of earth, either through a nuclear confrontation or through climate change. If in his youth, Fidel was a Promethean hero, in his old age he was more like Sisyphus. He acknowledged the crushing truths (at least some of the time) but still bore his rock. That attitude and spirit fit these times, the times in which he died, the times we must live in.

[i] Letter to Franz Mehring – July 14^th, 1893

[ii] https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/dec/15/russian-reality-tv-show-allow-rape-murder-game2-winter

[iii]https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/09/fidel-cuban-model-doesnt-even-work-for-us-anymore/62602/

[iv][iv] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/11/fidel-castro-obituary/508805/