Sobhitha Thera's stunner will test JVP thinking
By Kumar David- February 12, 2014 7:00 am
Last week, I had a short piece in the news website welcoming Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) as JVP Leader and wishing him and his Party well. I was pleasantly surprised by the outpouring of responses, 90% positively inclined to Anura and hopeful the Party would correct whatever needs to be corrected and move forward in a creative way.
What was evident was that people are simply fed-up with the SLFP, UNP, the Dead-Left, and are not really enamoured of General Fonseka, though he is a new kid on the block. There is a search for a way to get Lanka out of the appalling mess it has landed in and even those critical of the JVP's past felt that a fresh young face gives hope. All wanted the JVP to do better in the future. There is desperation and loss of hope all round, and this places a burden on AKD and the new JVP. If they fail again, too many people will be much disappointed.
All the JVP's past mistakes must be raked up and analyzed again, not for the sake of fault finding, but to understand why these errors were made and what can be done to put prevent repetition. In politics, as in personal life, understanding yourself is the first step to improving yourself. Broadly, I think of four matters as big mistakes; ultra-left adventurism (1971), the madness of 1989-91, the way the JVP has dealt with the Tamil question, and fourthly inadequate internal democracy. I have no intention of starting a long-winded discussion of all this today; perhaps on other occasions. What interests me right now is how the JVP is going to respond to Maduluwawe Sobhitha Thera's two-point announcement that he is prepared to present himself as a Single-Issue (abolish Executive Presidency) presidential candidate, and secondly that an international investigation of alleged violations during the war is OK as far as he is concerned. Both issues raise posers for the JVP.
The Single-Issue candidacy (SI)
Now, this is not about a presidency to run the country for six years, nor is it about socio-economic policy, class struggle, pro- or anti-imperialism, or anything like that. It is not about devolution and the national question, nor about the UNHRC and Geneva. It is simply a call to all who want to abolish the Executive Presidency (EP) to work together for a few months. Abolish EP, draft a new Constitution, and that's it. After that the parties can each go their way, campaign for their preferred ideologies, present themselves separately to the people, and so on and so on. It is like a village joining hands to help victims during a tsunami, then getting back to its livelihood and personal interests after the emergency. I think this is a reasonable analogy of a minimal common programme on a single issue.
So what about the JVP? During the last 20 years it has been the leading voice in the campaign against EP. Therefore, it should not raise extraneous issues about capitalism, socialism, revolution and Parliament, LTTE and imperialists, and such like irrelevancies as excuses for not joining in a short-term plan to get rid of EP. To return to my analogy, it would be like someone refusing to join hands in helping tsunami victims because some of the other helpers are capitalists, or Eelamists. This is concern: Will the JVP join hands in a common SI anti-EP campaign? This is a barometer of how well it has broken with infantile 'ultraleftism'. It has been said that one should 'walk with crowds and keep your virtue, and talk with kings nor lose the common touch.' In simpler words, it's about whether the JVP has reached the political maturity to work flexibly in this real (read 'liberal bourgeois' in JVP speak) world, while still remaining steadfast to its socialist ideas. (Maybe the JVP intends to join the SI common campaign; in that case it had better say so explicitly).
And en passant let me add that the eventual SI common-candidate may not be Sobhitha Thera; it could be CBK or someone else. The persona is not the point; the point is political strategy. Furthermore, if some voters have doubts about the President-elect trying to hang on, say CBK, (Sobhitha Thera's credentials are unimpeachable), it is imperative to have militant, youthful, no-nonsense chaps on-board. The candidate must understand throughout: "No hanky-panky or there will be big trouble!" The JVP is a crucial participant to drive home this point. Personally, I have no fear a SI common-candidate will dare overstep the mandate. Fear not, the manifesto and the campaign trail will bind the poor soul hand and foot.
The SI candidate can like, dislike or be neutral on UNHRC issues. I am quite prepared to support someone whose views are diametrically opposed to my own on international investigations, as the SI candidate if he/she is the best to get the job of abolishing EP done, and then vamoose home.
I am moving on to a distinctly separate issue, but still one that affects the JVP. The human rights issue has nothing to do with the abolish-EP campaign; let us decouple them. The two are separate and not to be confused. I love cricket and I think rugger is a stupid mugs game, but I am quite prepared to vote for a rugby manic as chairman of my local wine society, if the guy is a good tippler and can bring in sponsorship and free bottles of 2000, 2005 or 2009 vintage Bordeaux.
Separate item
The point I am making is that the challenge Sobhitha Hamuduruwo is posing on the UNHRC investigation matter is a separate item on a separate the agenda. That is to say the JVP can join the abolish-EP common front while keeping a separate position on international investigations, if it so wishes. But then, to move on, Hamuduruwo says, "I have no problem with international investigations; Lanka is a part of the international community and if they want a probe, sure go ahead. If we have nothing to hide what are we afraid of?" I may have somewhat different views on 'nothing to hide,' but as far as the basic democratic issue is concerned, I can go along with him. This is the common approach that all democratic-minded people can agree on. If the investigation is fair, then whatever the findings, I will accept them. QED!
However, what about the JVP? Actually, the attitude to this has a direct impact on the JVP's policy on the national question in general. I fear that it will not agree on this stance, since it is a prisoner of its past; even Anura Kumara can't do magic and liberate it from the prison of its past on the national question so quickly. Therefore, let us reduce the matter to much simpler, more immediate issues. Can the JVP hang on to its two rather absurd positions on devolution any longer? They are (a) no need for devolution; after the revolution, when socialism comes all will be well and Tamils and all minorities will have milk and honey so don't ask for devolution, self-administration and such bourgeois rights now; (b) secondly, devolution is a dangerous game, the TNA and the bourgeois parties lurking behind the bushes are using it as a cover to divide the country and do other such dastardly deeds.
The JVP can no longer fool the masses with such tripe after the Wigneswaran (CV) administration of the NPC was formed. Not even the biggest mutt in Hulftsdorp calls CV an Eelamist; if CV is an Eelamist, then the Pope is a monkey's uncle! This is an absurdity whose ground has been cut under the JVP's feet by the sincere efforts of CV to bring a clean and efficient administration to the North. So the Eelamist joke won't fit any longer. The JVP sonorously proclaims that it is not against the Tamils and will do all it can to help them progress. Mahinda Rajapaksa is cutting the ground under CV's feet when he tries to address day-to-day issues using powers conferred on the NPC by the Constitution and the 13th Amendment. Whose side is the JVP on, in this stand-off? Is it on the side of a regime that is undermining a dutiful, diligent and disciplined provincial administration? Over to you, Anura Kumara, what do you say? No word from the JVP on this matter so far... maybe when socialism comes...!
By Kumar David- February 12, 2014 7:00 am Last week, I had a short piece in the news website welcoming Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) as JVP Leader and wishing him and his Party well. I was pleasantly surprised by the outpouring of responses, 90% positively inclined to Anura and hopeful the Party would correct whatever needs to be corrected and move forward in a creative way.What was evident was that people are simply fed-up with the SLFP, UNP, the Dead-Left, and are not really enamoured of General Fonseka, though he is a new kid on the block. There is a search for a way to get Lanka out of the appalling mess it has landed in and even those critical of the JVP's past felt that a fresh young face gives hope. All wanted the JVP to do better in the future. There is desperation and loss of hope all round, and this places a burden on AKD and the new JVP. If they fail again, too many people will be much disappointed.
All the JVP's past mistakes must be raked up and analyzed again, not for the sake of fault finding, but to understand why these errors were made and what can be done to put prevent repetition. In politics, as in personal life, understanding yourself is the first step to improving yourself. Broadly, I think of four matters as big mistakes; ultra-left adventurism (1971), the madness of 1989-91, the way the JVP has dealt with the Tamil question, and fourthly inadequate internal democracy. I have no intention of starting a long-winded discussion of all this today; perhaps on other occasions. What interests me right now is how the JVP is going to respond to Maduluwawe Sobhitha Thera's two-point announcement that he is prepared to present himself as a Single-Issue (abolish Executive Presidency) presidential candidate, and secondly that an international investigation of alleged violations during the war is OK as far as he is concerned. Both issues raise posers for the JVP.
The Single-Issue candidacy (SI)
Now, this is not about a presidency to run the country for six years, nor is it about socio-economic policy, class struggle, pro- or anti-imperialism, or anything like that. It is not about devolution and the national question, nor about the UNHRC and Geneva. It is simply a call to all who want to abolish the Executive Presidency (EP) to work together for a few months. Abolish EP, draft a new Constitution, and that's it. After that the parties can each go their way, campaign for their preferred ideologies, present themselves separately to the people, and so on and so on. It is like a village joining hands to help victims during a tsunami, then getting back to its livelihood and personal interests after the emergency. I think this is a reasonable analogy of a minimal common programme on a single issue.
So what about the JVP? During the last 20 years it has been the leading voice in the campaign against EP. Therefore, it should not raise extraneous issues about capitalism, socialism, revolution and Parliament, LTTE and imperialists, and such like irrelevancies as excuses for not joining in a short-term plan to get rid of EP. To return to my analogy, it would be like someone refusing to join hands in helping tsunami victims because some of the other helpers are capitalists, or Eelamists. This is concern: Will the JVP join hands in a common SI anti-EP campaign? This is a barometer of how well it has broken with infantile 'ultraleftism'. It has been said that one should 'walk with crowds and keep your virtue, and talk with kings nor lose the common touch.' In simpler words, it's about whether the JVP has reached the political maturity to work flexibly in this real (read 'liberal bourgeois' in JVP speak) world, while still remaining steadfast to its socialist ideas. (Maybe the JVP intends to join the SI common campaign; in that case it had better say so explicitly).
And en passant let me add that the eventual SI common-candidate may not be Sobhitha Thera; it could be CBK or someone else. The persona is not the point; the point is political strategy. Furthermore, if some voters have doubts about the President-elect trying to hang on, say CBK, (Sobhitha Thera's credentials are unimpeachable), it is imperative to have militant, youthful, no-nonsense chaps on-board. The candidate must understand throughout: "No hanky-panky or there will be big trouble!" The JVP is a crucial participant to drive home this point. Personally, I have no fear a SI common-candidate will dare overstep the mandate. Fear not, the manifesto and the campaign trail will bind the poor soul hand and foot.
The SI candidate can like, dislike or be neutral on UNHRC issues. I am quite prepared to support someone whose views are diametrically opposed to my own on international investigations, as the SI candidate if he/she is the best to get the job of abolishing EP done, and then vamoose home.
I am moving on to a distinctly separate issue, but still one that affects the JVP. The human rights issue has nothing to do with the abolish-EP campaign; let us decouple them. The two are separate and not to be confused. I love cricket and I think rugger is a stupid mugs game, but I am quite prepared to vote for a rugby manic as chairman of my local wine society, if the guy is a good tippler and can bring in sponsorship and free bottles of 2000, 2005 or 2009 vintage Bordeaux.
Separate item
The point I am making is that the challenge Sobhitha Hamuduruwo is posing on the UNHRC investigation matter is a separate item on a separate the agenda. That is to say the JVP can join the abolish-EP common front while keeping a separate position on international investigations, if it so wishes. But then, to move on, Hamuduruwo says, "I have no problem with international investigations; Lanka is a part of the international community and if they want a probe, sure go ahead. If we have nothing to hide what are we afraid of?" I may have somewhat different views on 'nothing to hide,' but as far as the basic democratic issue is concerned, I can go along with him. This is the common approach that all democratic-minded people can agree on. If the investigation is fair, then whatever the findings, I will accept them. QED!
However, what about the JVP? Actually, the attitude to this has a direct impact on the JVP's policy on the national question in general. I fear that it will not agree on this stance, since it is a prisoner of its past; even Anura Kumara can't do magic and liberate it from the prison of its past on the national question so quickly. Therefore, let us reduce the matter to much simpler, more immediate issues. Can the JVP hang on to its two rather absurd positions on devolution any longer? They are (a) no need for devolution; after the revolution, when socialism comes all will be well and Tamils and all minorities will have milk and honey so don't ask for devolution, self-administration and such bourgeois rights now; (b) secondly, devolution is a dangerous game, the TNA and the bourgeois parties lurking behind the bushes are using it as a cover to divide the country and do other such dastardly deeds.
The JVP can no longer fool the masses with such tripe after the Wigneswaran (CV) administration of the NPC was formed. Not even the biggest mutt in Hulftsdorp calls CV an Eelamist; if CV is an Eelamist, then the Pope is a monkey's uncle! This is an absurdity whose ground has been cut under the JVP's feet by the sincere efforts of CV to bring a clean and efficient administration to the North. So the Eelamist joke won't fit any longer. The JVP sonorously proclaims that it is not against the Tamils and will do all it can to help them progress. Mahinda Rajapaksa is cutting the ground under CV's feet when he tries to address day-to-day issues using powers conferred on the NPC by the Constitution and the 13th Amendment. Whose side is the JVP on, in this stand-off? Is it on the side of a regime that is undermining a dutiful, diligent and disciplined provincial administration? Over to you, Anura Kumara, what do you say? No word from the JVP on this matter so far... maybe when socialism comes...!
