Should women welcome a new pill to tackle low libido?

Flibanserin, widely dubbed "female viagra", is approved for public use by the US drug authority, despite having rejected it twice before. Should women steer clear of a drug critics say is unnecessary?

WEDNESDAY 19 AUGUST 2015

Manufacturer Sprout Pharmaceuticals says flibanserin, which will be marketed under the brand name Addyi, will treat generalised hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in premenopausal women. This form of sexual dysfunction affects around 7 per cent of premenopausal American women according to Sprout.

Just five years ago an FDA advisory committee voted unanimously against approving flibanserin - the second FDA rejection of a drug which was originally developed as an anti-depressant.

But since 2010 a vocal new group called Even the Score (campaigning to "level the playing field when it comes to the treatment of women's sexual dysfunction") has vigorously lobbied the FDA ahead of its decision to give flibanserin the go ahead.

Following the FDA decision to approve flibanserin, Sprout Chief Executive Cindy Whitehead said in a statement: "We applaud the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for putting the patient voice at the center of the conversation and for focusing on scientific evidence".

But despite the FDA imposing some strong restrictions on the way it should be prescribed, the National Women's Health Network (NWHN) condemned the decision, saying it believed the FDA's approval was "influenced by an unprecedented and coercive sponsor-initiated marketing and public relations campaign" adding that "it erodes the integrity and meanigfulness of the FDA's own standard for approving drugs."

Sprout's CEO Cindy Whitehead has acknowledged that her company paid for the travel costs of many of the women who testified at FDA hearings.

Female viagra?

Under the banner of women's rights, the campaigners argued that if men have viagra, women should not be denied flibanserin.

But flibanserin is not a female viagra. It works in a totally different way.

While men take viagra immediately before sex, women would have to take flibanserin every day. And that could make some of the side effects problematic.

On its own, flibanserin is more sedating than four alcoholic drinks.

The FDA requested an extra safety study of the drug's impact on users who also drink alcohol. Sprout's study included just 25 people, and 23 of them were men. The FDA has demanded post-approval trials, and meanwhile has ruled that before prescription "health care professionals must assess the likelihood of the patient reliably abstaining from alcohol."

Other serious side effects include fatigue, severely low blood pressure and loss of consciousness. The drug's clinical trials saw a 14 per cent drop-out rate due to adverse effects.

In July 2015 a letter from over 100 health professionals predicted "an epidemic of serious adverse events" if it came on the market and was prescribed to women with cardiovascular problems, or on multiple drugs, or social drinkers."

How well does it work?

Critics say the benefits do not outweigh the risks.

Compared to a placebo group, women with HSDD taking flibanserin had an additional 0.7 "sexually satisfying events."

An FDA analysis found between 8-13 per cent of women would see some improvement compared to a placebo, meaning at least 87 per cent would get no benefit at all.

Dr Adriane Fugh-Berman of Georgetown University and PharmedOut, a project that questions the influence of drug companies on medical practice, has condemned the drug as "a mediocre aphrodisiac with scary side effects."

Is it necessary?

Despite emotional testimony of marital anguish from the witnesses who lobbied the FDA, some critics say that flibanserin is medicalising a normal state of health.

Nicole Dubowitz, of PharmedOut, tweeted "well ladies, look forward to a lifetime of being told to just take a drug if you're not in the mood".

 Follow

Nicole Dubowitz @nicoledub1

Well ladies, look forward to a lifetime of being told to just take a drug if you're not in the mood. #flibanserin #Addyi

7:20 PM - 18 Aug 2015

•  
 
•  11 Retweet
 
•  44 favorites

Some medical ethicists have gone further, suggesting that HSDD is a case of "disease mongering", ie creating a disease in order to promote a drug to treat it, and concluded that flibanserin is "a pill for no ill".

What is HSDD?
HSDD is characterised by low sexual desire causing marked distress or interpersonal difficulty that is not due to an existing medical or psychiatric condition, problems within the relationship, or the effects of a medication or other drug substance.

The authors of an article on flibanserin for a website on psychiatry, Mad In America, conclude: "If Even the Score's marketing campaign is truly about women's empowerment, what are they doing to educate women about these serious potential side-effects".

Sprout Pharmaceuticals has yet to apply for a licence to sell flibanserin in Europe.

Sri Lanka ranks 122nd out of 152 countries in Human Freedom Index

The Truth about the Assassination of 17 Humanitarian Aid Workers in Sri Lanka


21 August 2015
Sri Lanka has ranked 122nd out of 152 countries in the Human Freedom Index compiled by the Fraser Institute, which was released earlier this week.

The Human Freedom Index, which uses 76 indicators of personal, civil and economic freedoms, such as Association, Assembly, and Civil Society, Rule of Law, Security and Safety, Expression to rank countries from around the world.

Using data collected from 2008-2012, Sri Lanka ranked 128th on personal freedom and 98th on economic freedom.

See the full text of the report here.

human-freedom-index-preliminary-report.pdf-Sri Lanka ranks 122nd out of 152 countries in Human Freedom Inde... by Thavam Ratna

New Economy; Where To Start?

By Hema Senanayake –August 21, 2015

Hema Senanayake

UNFGG became victorious from the general election. Perhaps, UNFGG might be thinking now in honoring whatever the economic promises they made in their election manifesto as they did with previous 100 day program. Honoring promises is a good thing. But during the 100 day program of the previous interim government they did a lot of economic mistakes. Hence, what I suggest is that UNFGG must be a little more cautious in honoring economic promises. This does not mean that UNFGG must ignore or dishonor their promises now because they have got elected, instead I would suggest that UNFGG should honor the economic promises within a more long term prudent strategic approach. How UNFGG could do it?

In regard to the strategic approach mentioned above, I would suggest them to begin with the country’s current account and balance of payment. Then simultaneously they can move into the fiscal and monetary policy. All these areas constitute the essentials of macroeconomic regime. The ultimate objective of maneuvering these fundamentals is to achieve the optimum efficiency in production and distribution of distributable output. In fact production and distribution of distributable output are what matters for the wellbeing of the people. Let us try to understand this point with an example.

For example, UNFGG promises that the country would be made debt free by 2023 on which year we celebrate 75 years of independence. This idea is not clear and hence needs to be clarified by them. For example, does this mean that the country would be free from foreign debt by 2023 while the government begins in balancing its budget by the same year? If this is the case then the country will be free from foreign debt and the government will be free from public debt too. Or does this mean that the country would be free from foreign debt by 2023 and the government deficit is fully financed through domestic borrowing? This fine difference is important in economic governance because the first option is not economically possible while the second option becomes possible. But both options are not that prudent. Hence we will not achieve either of the options mentioned here and more over it is not economically necessary to be debt free completely.Read More

Abolition of executive presidency omitted in MOU of UNP-SLFP..! Nimal Siripala shoves it under his bulk

(Lanka-e-News -22.Aug.2015, 11.00PM) Lanka e news wishes to reveal with concern to the SriLankans  who are pro ‘government of good governance’ that the memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed yesterday(21) between the United National Party (UNP) and the Sri Lanka Freedom party (SLFP) following the general elections victory on the 17 th ,  in 14 districts across the country which is reckoned as a continuation and confirmation of the  victory on 8 th January to fulfill  the aspirations of the people , after all is not aiming at accomplishing the aims , objectives or aspirations of the people who voted for a government of good governance. 

Abolition of Executive Presidency Omitted in MOU of UNP-SLFP..! Nimal Siripala Shoves It Under His Bulk by Thavam Ratna

Some Lessons of 2015 General Election

by Aboobacker Rameez

( August 22, 2015, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The recently held General Election results show clearly that the people in Sri Lankan have given an explicitly resounding mandate to the ruling party-United National Front, to perpetuate its silent revolution that took place in January 8, 2015. It is, indeed, notable that many survey conducted prior to the election suggested that the UNF would form the government with the coalition partners and thus, the election results confirmed the prediction. There are many lessons that one can learn from the recently concluded election. Some of them are analyzed below:

Defeat of Mahinda Rajapaksa
Ordeal that MR went through in January 8 continued in this election too. He was comprehensively defeated, despite he contested in Kurunagala district, the third massive voter base in Sri Lanka, with the intention of obtaining convincing victory at the district to demand for the Prime Minister post; however, all his efforts went in vain. The reports suggest that total number of votes that the UPFA obtained this time is less than that of the Presidential election results held in January and his entry into Kurunagala district did not make any major difference in the votes of UPFA. Although many theories are touted for the defeat of UPFA, one would not deny the fact that the internal dispute of UPFA led to such debacle.

Extremist forces are decimated
The significant turn of events in the election was the comprehensive defeat of nationalistic or extremist forces like BBS. It contested in 16 districts and secured only 20377 nationwide which was hardly enough for a seat. Gnanasara Thero, who is well-known for his anti-Muslim rhetoric and is alleged to be the architect of Aluthgama violence occurred in 15 June, 2014, obtained only 5727 preferential votes in Kaluthura district. This goes to show that the people in South do not subscribe to their rhetoric on Sinhala supremacism, nationalism and anti-minority stand. However, it should be noted that 20000 is no small number and all those voted them seem to have approved their ideology which is based on preaching hatred about minorities under the guise of Sinhala nationalism and patriotism. It is not the number of their vote that counts, but their voice, because a lot of them are vocal activists who convey hateful message to the larger masses. It is indeed imperative on the part of law enforcement authorities and the new government to ensure such hatred and lies spewed by such extremist forces against minorities are ceased forthwith. It is also important for the civil society organizations representing the minority communities to engage with a larger majority community to expose the reality and alienate such extremist forces. The election results also show very clearly that the extremist forces in the North backed by the Diaspora and other elements were comprehensively defeated and that the Tamil people rally behind the TNA.

Lessons for Muslim MPs
Although 21 Muslims MPs have been selected to the parliament via different parties, the election results reveal that Muslim MPs contested in the UPFA, who turned a blind eye when the atrocities against the Muslims by the extremist forces were at peak with the tacit approval of Mahinda regime and that they extended their unequivocal support to MR, were largely defeated by the people. Athaullah, Hisbullah, and Cader are some of the defeated MPs who paid the penalty for what they did during the Mahinda regime. It is ironic, however, some of them are now taken into the parliament via national list which is a bad precedent.

It was pointed out by many that the government that ruled the country over the last six months, despite its lapses and controversies in certain issues, was able to restore rule and law, brought the corrupted elements to book, bring down the high rocketing cost of living to certain extent, restore media freedom and so on and so forth. We are optimistic that the same would be perpetuated by the new government and focusing on socio-economic and educational development aspects to move forward the country in a positive direction is absolutely paramount.

The author is a Senior Lecturer in Sociology at South Eastern University of Sri Lanka. He could be reached at aramees2001@gmail.com

Gender Discrimination In Sri Lankan Politics

By Muhammed Fazl –August 22, 2015

Muhammed Fazl

“When I was a boy, I was told that anybody could become President; I’m beginning to believe it now” – Clarence Darrow

Just when we thought the circus was finally over, we are proven wrong yet again. After all that talk of Yahapalanaya (good governance), when the leadership lacks the backbone to prevent drug lords such as Lanzas, ethanol kings such as Lakshman Wasanthas, Arundikas, Johnstons, operators of gambling centers and/or murders such as Thilangas, Punchi Nilames, Premalals and Kathirearachchis among others from harming the country and its people, it certainly does not signal changes to our political culture of impunity.

Apart from considering might as right, choosing legislators to the parliament in Sri Lanka is akin to selecting a bimbo in a beauty pageant after listening to her short speech about her non-existent charitable causes. Talking of which, personalities such as Geetha Kumarasinghe and Rosy Senanayake certainly do come into my mind.

Women Representation

While I am yet to understand the rationale behind allocating a certain percentage of seats for women candidates, I would appreciate if a knowledgeable person would comment with replies to the following questions/observations,

1. Should allocation of parliamentary seats be based on different sexual organs (just asking) or should we be allocating seats for competent/qualified individuals irrespective of which sex they belong to?

2. Taking into consideration previously elected female legislators such as Pavithra Wanniarachchi, Sumedha Jayasena, Kanthi Kodikkara, Swarnamali (Pabha), Geetha Kumarasinghe, Kamala Ranathunga, Sunethra Ranasinghe, Rosy Senanayake, Chandrika Bandaranaike etc., can one state their significant and individual achievements to date in relation to good governance, women empowerment, children’s rights etc.? (Or, need I write another column about their negative actions?)Read More

After General Elections

by Izeth Hussain-August 21, 2015

Say not the struggle naught availeth. – Arthur Hugh Clough

Lest we forget. - Kipling

In my last article I wrote, "On commonsensical grounds I expect the UNP to win by a comfortable margin". Given the ground realities of Sri Lanka’s electoral politics no one expects any Party to win an outright majority of 113 seats. So the UNP’s 106 seats just 7 short of an outright majority seems a very creditable performance. The margin of 11 seats over the SLFP’s 95 seats seems a comfortable one. And the UNP seems assured of ruling in comfort either through a National Government or through substantial cross-overs from the UPFA. The latter can be arranged by President Sirisena who is one of the two major dispensers of benefits in the Island, the other being Prime Minister Ranil W. We all know that the dispensing of benefits is of the essence of politics in Sri Lanka. Furthermore, as I pointed out in my last article, we have been moving from a conflictual to a consensual model of democracy, so that our politicians can commute from one major Party to the other without any sense of ideological or other strain.

The UNP victory is seen as a mandate to continue the January 8 Revolution. More specifically it is a mandate to entrench a fully functioning democracy that will eradicate or at least contain the appeal of racist neo-Fascism. The Island editorial of August 19 notes the significance of the electoral routing of the Bodu Jana Peramuna (BJP) which is the political face of the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS). That certainly can be taken as a sign that racist neo-Fascism is not the wave of the future in Sri Lanka. It is significant also that the recent elections have been the most free and fair that we have known for many decades, and probably hardly any one expects anything like the savage post-election violence that we have known in the past. All this augurs well for our democracy. The democratic transformation that we are presently witnessing should be seen in terms of two perspectives: one is the introduction of universal suffrage in 1931, and the other is the 1956 Revolution.

We got universal suffrage in 1931 just three years after Britain. Subsequently we prided ourselves on that fact and on our being Asia’s oldest democracy, without taking count of the fact that democracy was conferred on us, not something that we achieved after a struggle. In Britain democracy was achieved in its modern form after centuries of struggle following on Magna Carta. In India democracy came together with independence after a mighty nationalist struggle. In Sri Lanka there was no nationalist struggle worth speaking about because the conditions did not warrant it and Independence and democracy came through a pragmatic accommodativeness on both the British and the Sri Lankan sides. Democracy was therefore a transplant, not an organic growth with deep roots in Sri Lankan political soil. But we did make a success of it until 1970 probably because democracy answers to deep human needs and is not something peculiar to the West. However, after 1970 we had a flawed democracy which broke down completely after 1977, to be revived from 1994, but after 2009 we witnessed a vigorous assertion of racist neo-Fascism. The travails of Sri Lankan democracy can be understood if it is recognized as a transplant that requires time to strike deep roots. That process is taking place just now, as attested by the fact that the January 8 Revolution was preceded by a vigorous civil society movement. The prospects for firmly entrenching democracy are bright under the new Government.

The 1956 Revolution explains why our democracy has been so conflictual instead of being consensual. I will be brief on this because I have already explored this subject in an earlier article. 1956 saw the emergence of the indigenous lower middle class against the Westernised bourgeoisie who had hitherto been dominant in Sri Lanka. The lower middle class for the most part had no higher education, no professional qualifications, no place in the higher rungs of the bureaucracy, no business skills and no capital. There was only one way in which they could make a quick ascent up the socio-economic ladder, and that was through the state sector. The State with all its enormous resources therefore became the virtual possession of the Government that happened to be in power. Understandably our Governments showed a disposition to behave like conquerors, and our democracy became profoundly conflictual. The change came with the open economy of 1977 which provided far greater opportunities outside the state for quick ascent up the socio-economic ladder. The lean cats of the 1956 socialist revolution could become the fat cats of the capitalist system. That could be the underlying reason why our politics have been becoming more consensual.

It is in keeping with this move to a consensual model of democracy that after January 8 President Sirisena and the UNP have been placing much emphasis on unity. This I believe is a novel development of the greatest importance. In the West the society has been the arena of dissension and conflict while the State represented and promoted unity. This has been particularly so under the nation state, a state formation that brought about a higher degree of unity than any other. In Sri Lanka, on the other hand, the people on the whole have tended to live together in peaceful interaction while the State has stood for division and hierarchy. I will give just one horrible but entirely convincing example. Under the Rajapakse regime we saw the creation of an utterly unnecessary Muslim problem through the idiotic hate campaign of the BBS which had solid State backing, even to the extent that the BBS leaders were placed above the law. But Muslims and Sinhalese have on the whole continued to live together in peace, amity, and co-operation. I hold that it was not the Sinhalese people but the Sinhalese State that brought about the civil war that led to a 100,000 deaths. So, if the new Government works for unity rather than division, it will be a development of the greatest importance.

It really does want an all-Party National Government. The problem is that if such a Government is really successful there will be no Opposition worth speaking about, and what that might mean was shown by the record of horror for the greater part of the time from 1977 to 1994. The way forward towards a well-entrenched fully functioning democracy could have many pitfalls – which is why one of the two epigraphs I have chosen for this article is "Lest we forget" from Kipling’s great hymn Recessional. However there could be a very persuasive argument for a National Government of limited duration, of say a couple of years in order to steer through a new Constitution that really has a broad consensus of the people behind it.

Partly because of an obsession with the unitary – arising out of fears about the break-up of Sri Lanka – we have tended to forget about the need for some sense of unity in this country. We can prevent its break-up, but without some degree of a sense of unity we could find ourselves in a state of de facto disintegration. This is a huge subject that needs to be addressed in detail and in depth. I will just make a couple of points in conclusion. The achievement levels of a society very probably depend to a great extent on the degree of its sense of unity, on the extent to which relations of trust and reciprocity prevail. The other point is that in the case of Sri Lanka we have to have some sense of unity to be able to withstand dangers from the outside world. I have in mind the possibility that because of the China factor our relations with India could become much more complex and difficult than in the past.

izethhussain@gmail.com

Good Governance: Nepotism Continues

( August 22, 2015, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The end of the 2015 General Election saw to the appointment of many MP’s, who are from the same family circles; some father and son and some, brothers. The UPFA Kurunegala District candidate – Mahinda Rajapaksa and his son – UPFA Hambantota District candidate – Namal Rajapaksa are two such figures.

Also, the UNP MP Rajitha Senaratne and his son Chathura were elected to parliament after contesting from the Gampaha and Kalutara districts. The Former minister Arjuna Ranatunga and former Western provincial councilor Prasanna Ranatunga, who contested the General election as political rivals, are both elected to the parliament. But, Their younger brother – Ruwan Ranatunga however, was defeated.

Similarly, the Aluthgamage brothers – Mahindananda and Ananda, who was elected from the Kandy District, are political rivals. In the Meanwhile, Hambantota District MP – Chamal Rajapaksa, the former Speaker, is the brother of Mahinda Rajapaksa. Their niece, former minister Nirupama Rajapaksa was defeated at the election.

Nuwara Eliya District MP Navin Dissanayake and Kandy District MP Mayantha Dissanayake are brothers. Navin is also the son-in-law of the UNP National List MP – Karu Jayasuriya. There is also a husband and wife in the new parliament, namely the UNP MP Daya Gamage and his wife Anoma, who was named as a UNP National List MP.

Election Results, Political Reforms & The Process Of Reconciliation

By Dinesh D. Dodamgoda –August 22, 2015

Dinesh Dodamgoda

The recently concluded Parliamentary Election has created a ‘kind of hostile politics of the enemy-friend bi-polarity’ in terms of intended political reforms and the proposed reconciliation agenda of the new government. An analysis of the election results would show that a little over 50% of voters are for reforms and a little less than 50% of voters are against reforms. What does this mean in terms of bringing intended political reforms into reality and implementing a reconciliation process successfully?

It is evident from election results that there can be a serious ideological resistance to political reforms and to the proposed reconciliation agenda by almost half of the population that voted for former President Mahinda Rajapaksa led United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA). There is no doubt, former President Rajapaksa is the legitimate, symbolic leader of the anti-reformist / reconciliation agenda. However, one could argue that President Maithripala Sirisena and former President Chandrika Kumaratunga should be able to win the symbolic leadership position of the anti-reformist / reconciliation population by gaining and securing power in the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) Central Committee as well as in the UPFA Executive Committee. In my opinion, although Sirisena-CBK group could gain ‘majority’ seats in those bodies, they will not be able to gain ‘legitimacy’ so easily. Therefore, ideological resistance to reforms and to the reconciliation agenda by former President Rajapaksa led population will remain as a serious obstacle. Furthermore, former President Rajapaksa led group’s resistance to political reforms and to the reconciliation agenda will reinforce the group’s political survival as well. Hence, the said obstruction is strategically important in terms of the group’s survival and, therefore, the obstruction is almost inevitable.Read More

Sobitha Thera slams appointment of defeated candidates to national list 

2015-08-22
While stating that it was wrong to appoint defeated candidates to the national list, leader of the National Movement for Social Justice (NMSJ) Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera said yesterday the only solution to prevent such moves was to enact a new constitution. 

Ven. Sobitha Thera said the current constitution allowed for defeated candidates to enter parliament through the national list, and added that such loopholes should be amended and a new constitution introduced.

“It is wrong to appoint defeated candidates to the national list. Our constitution is full of shortcomings. We need a new constitution without shortcomings like the preferential voting system,” he said. 

The Thera said the UNP had taken a policy decision not to appoint defeated candidates to the national list. The JVP and UPFA appointed candidates who were defeated at the elections to their national lists. (Ajith Siriwardana) 

Monk, murder suspect, mistress in Sri Lanka's new parliament

Aug 22, 2015

Sri Lanka's new parliament will have a motely collection that will include a monk, a murder suspect, a mistress and even a couple of MPs who once shared the same wife.

The lone Buddhist monk in the new parliament will be Athuraliye Rathana who is piggy-backing on an elephant to re-enter the House this time through the backdoor known as the National List.

The honourable venerable MP’s National Heritage Party has a legacy of going to pieces before and after every vote.

Former UPFA deputy minister Prmalal Jayaratne is in remand custody after being arrested on a murder charge, but he secured the highest number of preferential votes in the Ratnapura district.

His election underscores how undesirables are desirable to a UPFA constituency which in 1997 gave Mahinda Ratnatillake the highest number of votes after he became the main suspect in the murder of MP Nalanda Ellawela.

There are only a dozen or so women in the new parliament, but the TNA is expected to nominate two women from their national list which could increase female representation in the 225-member assebly.

There are four sets of brothers from the same party -- Ranjith and Wasantha Aluvihare, Navin and Mayantha Dissanayake from the UNP and and Mahindananda and Ananda Aluthgamage and Mahinda and Chamal Rajapakse from the UPFA.

Arjuna and Prasanna Ranatunga are from rival parties and both could ensure that irrespective of which side does well, the family interests are well take care of.

There are two sets of father-son duos. Mahinda and Namal Rajapakse of the UPFA and Rajitha and Chatura Senaratne from the UNP.

There is a mistress whose trapeze-artiste-cum-politician master failed to return to the new parliament from the national list of the UPFA leaving her sulking in the hallowed halls of parliament.

Daya and Anoma Gamage will be the only husband-and-wife couple without counting elderly actress Geetha Kumarasinghe who has given up the casting couch to lounge in parliament where she has at least one ex-senior minister admirer.

Legal advise prevented mentioning the names of two young MPs who once shared the same wife.

There is also at least one MP from the south who once publicly declared that he had been sexually assaulted by a senior, but refused to press charges, probably hoping to keep the issue dangling.

Courtesy - http://www.economynext.com/

Reflections on wins and losses in August

 

Fragments.

by Uditha Devapriya -August 22 2015

NOTES ON AN ELECTION

About a year ago, when the Provincial Council elections were held in Uva, few predicted victory for the United National Party (UNP). There were reasons for this. Firstly, there was virtually no internal unity. An opposition that was being targeted and that in a way which worsened factional splits would have spelt victory for the government. Secondly, rumours of a newcomer entering Uva were made and denied. That didn't bode well either.

Notwithstanding all this, Harin Fernando entered the political equation and proved that with patience and humility any incumbent, even one as popular and "loved" as Mahinda Rajapaksa, could be defeated. Naysayers from the government were thus proved wrong. Uva was won by the UPFA. But barely. Meanwhile, the signs were already in. Defeat had to come. Sooner or later.

What happened in November that year and what followed thereafter is, of course, history. Inevitably therefore, this year's Parliamentary Election results weren't just predictable. They were as they should have been.

There were winners and there were losers. Some were expected. Others weren't. Despite the higher-than-heaven predictions made by both major camps, the UPFA and UNP, no one obtained a majority. There are reasons why it happened and why, after all the rhetoric spewed by the former party, the outcome wasn't as rosy as expected.

No one can deny that the re-entry of Mahinda Rajapaksa as the Prime Ministerial candidate of the UPFA added to that party's performance. The fact that MPs loyal to the former president were elected while many of those who joined Maithripala Sirisena lost proves it. Jagath Pushpakumara and Vijith Vijithamuni Soysa, for instance, topped Monaragala in 2010. Both were kicked out.

All this points at one thing. The UPFA's campaign was essentially aimed at getting Mahinda Rajapaksa in as Prime Minister. Predictably enough, for those who campaigned and canvassed on behalf of that party, this wasn't as much a parliamentary election as it was a PRIME MINISTERIAL election. As such kinship with Rajapaksa helped. In the end, stalwarts like Vidura Wickramanayaka (Kalutara), who obtained lukewarm results in 2010, whizzed up, while newcomers like Niroshan Premaratne (Matara) whizzed up even more.

The UNP, to its credit, kept to its program. There was less rhetoric. More sobriety. Good governance and the need to eliminate structural flaws figured in its campaign, which coupled with its insistence on getting in clean candidates to parliament probably took in the floating voter who voted for Maithripala Sirisena last January. Even those who supported Sirisena from the UPFA, reasonably enough, would have gone green this time, a point reinforced by his continued attempts at wresting control of the SLFP and thereby preventing Mahinda Rajapaksa's return.

The UPFA campaigned on the assumption – faulty as it was – that the 5.8 million who voted for it would remain or better still, increase. Didn't happen. As such one thing was made clear. Nationalist rhetoric aside, there wasn't any sustainable link between the rallies which greeted Mahinda Rajapaksa and those who wanted him as Prime Minister. The main problem with his campaign, therefore, was confusing the one for the other. Making matters worse was his assertion that the North and East got him defeated last January, one that eroded his minority electorate.

What of the UNP? Many of those who topped the UPFA list were old names. The Greens on the other hand produced fresh faces, particularly those capable of challenging the Old Guard. Sujeewa Senasinghe got almost 400,000 votes less than his party leader, but he still obtained more votes than Ravi Karunanayake and Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, the latter of whom slipped to ninth place. Moreover, the party did what many never expected it to do: canvass on its own without allying itself with any Tamil communal party.

That was where the UNP aced. Big time. Here's how.

One of the most frequent allegations (misguided as it was) against Sirisena was that he was "chosen" by minorities. Racist as it was, the UNP needed to legitimise victory without attracting that allegation. It took a huge gamble. Such gambles can cost. Fortunately for the Greens, it paid off here. Not only did it win without Tamil parties, but in areas where the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) held sway, both it and the UPFA lost sorely. Even with that, the UNP embraced victory.

What happened to the JVP? It slipped. Badly. Reasons differ as to why this happened, but above everything the need to defeat the UPFA would have been privileged more than a need to push up a third (or as the JVP loves to call itself, an "alternative") force. Not surprisingly, in this tug-of-war it was ignored, to a point where it got fewer seats and thus had to kick out many of its stalwarts, Sunil Handunnetti included. The same can be said of Sarath Fonseka's Democratic Party, by the way.

For a party that expected much more, defeat would have come because JVPers 1. aligned themselves with the Rainbow Coalition which pushed Sirisena to power or 2. grew tired of the schizophrenia which many of their party seniors were succumbing to (Anura Kumara Dissanayake, for instance, did himself no favours in trying to grab at the Greens and then criticising both parties at the 11th hour). Indecisiveness can't fool voters for long, this was proved amply.

There are names that merit mention and names that deserve more. Ranil Wickremesinghe deserves more. Notwithstanding the hiccups he unfortunately slipped up these past six months, he brought together a party that was, barely two years back, in danger of splitting into two. He showed patience. And humility. In opting for a one-horse race over another Rainbow Coalition, he took a gamble. He won.

Mahinda Rajapaksa may not be Prime Minister, but he got what he wanted. He chased off many of those considered to have backstabbed him after the January election. By getting rid of them, Rajapaksa got his revenge. Smoothly. Calmly. With no force. Sobering on one level. Ironic on another.