Corbyn’s Labour or Bannon’s neo-right?

Steve Bannon, not Trump, true ideologue of American national-populism

October 7, 2017, 7:12 pm 

"Now is the time for government to be active in restructuring the economy; hold corporate board-rooms accountable for their actions; develop a model of economic management to replace the failed dogmas of neo-liberalism. Labour is looking not just to repair the damage done by austerity but to transform our economy with a new dynamic role for the public sector particularly where the private sector has failed. Take the water industry; of nine companies in England six are owned by private equity or foreign sovereign wealth funds. Profits are handed out in dividends to shareholders and executive pay soars, while infrastructure crumbles, they pay nothing in tax but service deteriorates". Jeremy Corbyn: 27 September 2017, Labour Party Conference.

by Kumar David

The distancing of Steve Bannon from Donald Trump is a crucial event on the American right. Trump was forced to remove Bannon form the position of White House Chief Strategist under pressure from new no-nonsense Chief of Staff General John Kelly brought into to discipline the brawling White House mob around the President and to appease staid Republican leaders and the liberal media. Bannon (Harvard Business School – MBA 1985; Virginia Tech – Bachelors in Urban Planning 1976) is from a pro-Kennedy, pro-Union, working class family in Virginia. He is no clown, unlike Donald Trump. If you can invest the time, watch his videos on YouTube; you will see a sharp visionary and a dangerous enemy.

Bannon was interviewed after victory over Trump in the Alabama Republican Primary to select the Republican candidate to contest a Senate vacancy. (A primary in the US is a mass voting exercise in which loyalists of a party vote to select the candidate for a forthcoming election). Ray Moore, the more right-wing candidate backed by Bannon, won by 55% against 45% for Luther Strange for whom Trump campaigned. After inflicting a stinging setback on the President in a deep-south state in America’s neo-populist heartland, an exultant Bannon declared:

"This is a populist nationalist conservative revolt. It’s a revolt against the elites in this country. It’s a revolt against the globalists among those elites. It’s a revolt against the progressive agenda that is being jammed down the throat of the American people. Hard-working men and women of the world are tired of the global elites. They’re tired of being told what to do. This is a global revolution. You see it all the way from England, Europe and India. It’s starting in the Middle East, Australia, and yesterday, was Alabama."

Bannon credits interconnectivity and the Internet as factors driving "a global revolution".

"That’s why this is a populist nationalist conservative revolt. We’re populist because we’re anti-elite, because the elites of the world are corrupt and incompetent. We’re nationalist because we’re anti-globalist. We don’t believe in this globalist system that takes power away from people at the local level. We’re conservatives because we completely reject the progressive agenda being jammed down the throat of working-class people. The power of the Internet is that it disintermediates the big news organizations. It’s personal; you can’t hide as a phony on the Internet. People, particularly young people are searching for authenticity".

As the liberal-bourgeois middle caves-in and millions desert post-recession capitalism, a new world order is taking shape. It is only in a few places that some sort of a middle is holding, for example Germany where Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union/ Christian Social Union alliance won with an extraordinarily small vote (32%) while the neo-populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) - previously unrepresented in the Bundestag - came the third with 12.6%. AfD even won a simple majority in the province of Saxony. The Social Democrats, Germany’s traditional alternative party, polled only 20%, its lowest since the Second World War. Neo-populism, true to Bannon’s boast, has added an advance in Germany to its surge in France (National Front).

Global capitalism as an economic order, and bourgeois liberalism as an ideology, have been bankrupted and replaced by two forces; a reviving social-democracy and a strident nationalist, anti-elitist populism. Trump is not an authentic representative or an ideologue of the latter; he is a crude and crass opportunist. The intelligent voice of American populism is Steve Bannon. The state form emerging in developing countries is a blend of social-democracy with some kind of state-capitalism, but the options in the West, in the next decade, broadly speaking, will be some form of social-democracy such as Corbynite Labour in the UK, or a "populist national conservatism" such as Bannon’s. Most political thinkers have woken up to this sharp dichotomy and yours faithfully has been plugging it for two years to deaf Lankan ears. A suggestion to a few friends to watch Corbyn’s 27 Sept speech at the Labour Party Conference on YouTube, evoked from one wheezing liberal the response "Corbyn, isn’t he that looney leftist?" and from another, "I have never been so frightened for a long time! Corbyn and McDonnell are nutters." Phew!

Such wayward fuddy-duddies, unless they prefer neo-right nationalism (admittedly short of classical interwar fascism) have no choice but to educate themselves on the only other option, social-democracy. So I will outline the programme "For the Many not the Few" adopted at the Conference in Brighton by a wildly cheering hall of 12,000. (Labour with 600,000 members is the largest political party in Europe and twice as large as all other parties in Britain combined). Today’s centre ground is not where it was twenty years ago; what was then seen as too far left is now seen as common sense. The centre has shifted and Corbyn has no intention of leading the party into the wilderness of a dead liberal-capitalist "centre". In Britain the centre is moving into the party.

The Labour Party programme

Corbyn’s message was uncompromising because Labour’s critique of the destructive effects of austerity has been vindicated – that’s why Brexit happened - and the June election was a resounding vote of confidence. Who said the Tories won the election? Well, the hysteria in Britain suggests otherwise! This pleases me, the first columnist to declare long ago: "Jeremy Corbyn, Britain’s next Prime Minister".

The key elements of the message are modern progressive socialism:

* Changing the economy to make it work for the whole country cannot be done separately from changing how the country is run; a new model of economic management will be established.

* Big decisions cannot be left to the elite. People are not marginal and the public not consumers first and citizens a distant second, as liberalism proclaims.

* Plans to invest in National Health and reduce university tuition fees will be implemented.

* Labour is committed to take back common-goods (basic utilities) into public ownership, place them at the service of the community and end rip-off.

* Regional development banks will be formed to invest in an industrial strategy for every region.

* Unstoppable massive changes in employment patterns under the impact of automation must be planned and managed and demands reskilling of millions in the workforce.

* Residency rights of the three million foreign workers in Britain will be guaranteed.

Bannon and Trump

Although both Bannon and Trump are treading cautiously about their rift, the divorce proceedings have got moving and will end in a parting of the ways. It takes only a few minutes to watch the two clips below; they convey with clarity the anti-establishment resolve and thrust of neo-populist ideology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5CqiGNDkDs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JurE63xuIUQ

Liberal ‘intellectuals’ who merely ridicule Trump, granted it’s hard to resist the temptation, need to understand where the revolt is coming from and its possible enlargement. Programmatically, the Democratic Party has nothing to offer the deprived white working class and the alienated hinterland outside metropolitan centres and the East and West coast - typified by New York, New England and California. It cannot stop the carnage of small business and retailers arising from the falsification of the price of money by zero interest rates and quantitative easing. Ordinary folks want jobs, security of livelihood and opportunities for their children. The other ingredient the hordes who surged to the Nazi flag wanted was nationalism and patriotic rhetoric. The liberal bourgeoisie, its intellectual leaders, the liberal media and, except for Bernie Sanders the American Democratic Party, have nothing to offer. They have no programme; they repudiate left-wing ideas as much as the neo-populists do. This is the cardinal difference between bourgeois-liberalism and, for example, the British Labour Party.

Trump, frustrated with the failure of a Republican dominated Congress to get anything done, and under attack by the media and now big business, is shifting his ground. He negotiated a compromise with Democrats, Senator Chuck Schumer and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, allowing certain categories of improperly documented minors to prolong their stay in the country. This brought stern warnings from right-wing nationalists like Bannon that if he went any further (full amnesty) the base would revolt, and paradoxically, also infuriated traditional GoP leaders.

Bannon will not yet denounce Trump as a sell-out who has crossed over, betrayed the base which elected him, and aligned himself with the elitist swamp that he promised to drain. Trump is an opportunist dealmaker pure and simple, whose lodestar is only Trump himself. Aware of the threat from a shifting base he is straining to sell his proposed tax-cuts as relief for low income earners while in truth it is pure gravy for the rich and for corporations. The populist base has not yet called his bluff on this and other issues, but the day of reckoning is nearing and divorce is unpreventable.

The thesis of this essay is that the two options described here are the long-term alternatives available at this time in the advanced societies of the West. In the less developed world it will be a blend, in various proportions, of social-democracy and statist/state-capitalist experiences. This Ranil’s UNP is unable to handle and the skulls of MaRa’s JO and Sirisena’s SLFP are too thick to penetrate.

Theresa May says she is ‘resilient’ amid threats to leadership

 Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May and her husband Philip leave church in her constituency near Reading, Britain on Sunday.   | Photo Credit: Reuters

OCTOBER 08, 2017

Former Prime Minister John Major urged Conservative Party members to support Ms. May and scolded those who have plotted against her.

British Prime Minister Theresa May says she is “resilient” despite a difficult speech at the Conservative Party conference and growing threats to her leadership.

She told the Sunday Times she would not hide from a challenge as she fights off a rebellion from some legislators unhappy with her leadership.

“The truth is my feelings can be hurt, like everyone else, but I am pretty resilient,” she said.
Former Prime Minister John Major urged Conservative Party members to support Ms. May and scolded those who have plotted against her.

“I urge all Conservative [lawmakers] to reflect very carefully on what is at stake,” he wrote in the Daily Mail. “The country has had enough of the self-absorbed disloyal behavior we have witnessed for weeks.”

Mr. Major’s comments were viewed by some as a warning to Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, who while publicly backing Ms. May has twice proposed his own policies on the delicate Brexit negotiations over Britain’s future relationship with the European Union.

Ms. May has endured a difficult stretch, with a disappointing party conference speech followed by a claim by former party chairman Grant Shapps that he had a list of 30 legislators who wanted Ms. May to step down.

The immediate rebellion in party ranks seems to have been quelled for the moment, but Ms. May has been in a weakened position since her decision to call a snap election in June backfired, costing the Conservative Party its outright majority in Parliament.

She denied reports that she cried after the speech.

“One minute journalists are accusing me of being an ice maiden or a robot, then they claim I’m a weeping woman in dire need of a good night’s sleep,” she said.

Ms. May is reported to be considering a Cabinet shakeup in the coming weeks. Some are pressuring her to demote Mr. Johnson from his highly visible post of foreign secretary.

Exclusive: West edges towards punishing Myanmar army leaders over Rohingya crisis - sources

Rohingya refugees wait for humanitarian aid to be distributed at the Balu Khali refugee camp in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh October 5, 2017. REUTERS/Mohammad Ponir Hossain

Antoni Slodkowski, Matt Spetalnick-OCTOBER 8, 2017

YANGON/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The European Union and the United States are considering targeted sanctions against Myanmar military leaders over an offensive that has driven more than 500,000 Rohingya Muslims out of the country, officials familiar with the discussions say.

Interviews with more than a dozen diplomats and government officials based in Washington, Yangon and Europe revealed that punitive measures aimed specifically at top generals were among a range of options being discussed in response to the crisis.

Nothing has yet been decided and Washington and Brussels may decide to hold off for now, the sources said. There are also discussions about increasing aid for violence-riven Rakhine state.

 

The active discussion of sanctions – not even on the table a month ago – shows how the dramatic exodus of Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar’s northwest is putting pressure on Western policymakers to take action.

While much of the outcry overseas has focused on Nobel laureate and Myanmar’s national leader Aung San Suu Kyi, few Western diplomats see an alternative to her leadership. Suu Kyi does not control the military, which still wields considerable power under Myanmar’s army-written constitution.

The EU Foreign Ministers Council will discuss Myanmar on Oct. 16, although officials do not expect any move on sanctions that soon. Danish minister for development cooperation, Ulla Tornaes, told Reuters that Copenhagen had been working to get the crisis on the agenda, “with the wish to put further pressure on the military”.

Two Washington-based U.S. officials with knowledge of the Trump administration’s Myanmar deliberations said targeted sanctions against commander-in-chief Min Aung Hlaing and several other generals, as well as leaders of ethnic Rakhine Buddhist militias accused of torching Rohingya villages, were under consideration.

Such sanctions - if decided on - would likely entail U.S. asset freezes, bans on travel to the United States, prohibitions against Americans doing business with them and other unspecified penalties. 

Washington was moving cautiously as it consulted with governments in Europe, Japan and Southeast Asia, the U.S. officials said.

A senior Yangon-based European diplomat also said Western countries were coordinating their response to the crisis and were in agreement that it was the military, and specifically the commander-in-chief, who needed to be targeted in any punitive action.

Any punishment was likely to be symbolic at first to allow room for further talks, Yangon-based diplomats said, giving the example of formally banning the army chief, who over the past year visited Brussels, Berlin and Vienna, from further travel to Europe.

Western diplomats admit their leverage is limited: compared with China, whose ties with Myanmar have warmed since Suu Kyi took office 18 months ago, U.S. and European investment and military engagement with the country are small.

They are also wary of action that could hurt the wider economy or destabilise already tense ties between Suu Kyi and the army.

PRESSURE BUILDING

The United Nations is pressing for increased humanitarian access to other parts of Rakhine, where hundreds of thousands of Rohingya remain. How Myanmar responds to calls for increased aid, the investigation of alleged atrocities or repatriation of refugees would be a key consideration in deciding what action to take, U.S. and EU diplomats in Myanmar said.

“We can pile political pressure, look into financing we have in Myanmar. We have humanitarian aid, as well as development aid ... the European Commission won’t invest in the development of Myanmar if the conditions, including security, are not there,” said a Brussels-based EU diplomat who follows Myanmar.

Rohingya refugee children wait for lunch at a refugee camp in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh October 8, 2017. REUTERS/Mohammad Ponir Hossain

“There is also the arms trade embargo and we discuss regularly whether we should reward the reforms in Myanmar and look at gradual easing of that, or the opposite.”

EU economic sanctions on Myanmar were lifted after the army stepped back from direct rule of the country in 2012, beginning the democratic transition that brought Suu Kyi to power last year, but an arms embargo in force since the 1990s remains. The United States removed most sanctions on Myanmar last autumn. It too has kept an arms embargo in place.

One Washington-based U.S. official said that, while there was no firm deadline, Washington hoped to have a plan of action on Myanmar in place by the time President Donald Trump travels to Asia for a series of summits in the first half of November.

The administration wanted to send a strong message to Myanmar’s military, but was concerned that too drastic action could allow China to expand its growing diplomatic and economic influence in the country, the official said.

There is little support in the administration for the re-imposition of broader economic sanctions, the official added.

The White House declined comment on internal deliberations on the Rohingya crisis.

STRAINED RELATIONS

In another sign of pressure building on Myanmar, New York-based diplomats said the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in the U.N. General Assembly was pushing for a human rights resolution on the country.

Last year the EU announced that for the first time in 15 years it would not introduce a resolution at the General Assembly’s Third Committee, which focuses on human rights, condemning Myanmar’s record - rewarding it for progress.

The European bloc could revive the resolution in the current session, taking on board the OIC draft and broadening it out beyond the Rohingya crisis, one diplomat in New York said.

Diplomats said some members of the U.N. Security Council were exploring whether the 15-member body could agree a formal statement, or even a resolution, calling for an end to the violence, full access for aid and the safe return of refugees.

However, Myanmar has said it was negotiating with China and Russia, which have veto powers in the Security Council, to protect it from any possible action. China and Russia have both expressed support for the Myanmar government.

Myanmar’s relations with the U.N. have grown increasingly testy since the discovery of World Food Programme-branded biscuits at a suspected militant camp in July prompted the government to accuse the U.N. agency of supporting the insurgents, forcing it to shut down its operations in Rakhine.

Myanmar is stalling on accepting a plan by the U.N. to upgrade the U.N. country head to the more powerful rank of Assistant Secretary-General (ASG) when its current top official, who is due to be rotated, is replaced.

Thaung Tun, Suu Kyi’s National Security Advisor, told Reuters that the U.N. “must treat us equally”.
“We’ll be fine with anybody if all member states have an ASG assigned. Not just us,” he said.

The role of the International Development graduate in global progression

 19th September 2017

“No country can really develop unless its citizens are educated.” – Nelson Mandela

It’s crazy to think that the headlines we’re reading today could find their place in the history books of tomorrow. From the controversial movements of Trump’s volatile cabinet, to the strained international relations between a diverse range of cultures and religions, to the growing devastation caused by rapid climate change effects; we undoubtedly live in an era of uncertainty and political change.

Though it sometimes feels like we’re in the midst of a chaotic civilisation clash, you can rest assured that we aren’t the first generation to face up to issues like extreme terrorism, racism, poverty and world hunger. The old saying may well claim that history has a habit of repeating itself, but as U2 frontman turned global activist, Bono, notes in his powerful TED Talk, Three Actions for Africa, “The fact is that ours is the first generation that can look disease and extreme poverty in the eye, look across the ocean to Africa, and say this, and mean it: we do not have to stand for this.”

So, who takes charge of combatting the pervasive problems that affect, not just Africa, but all four corners of the globe?

Striving to make significant contributions towards positive social change, the International Development graduate plays a major part in the recovery and progression of an unsettled and unpredictable world.

To triumph over these complex, often catastrophic issues, it’s crucial that we understand the way global systems operate. It’s simply not enough to wade in with a financial contribution and hope for long-term change – the problem of poverty, for example, is much more convoluted than simply being the result of widespread low income; it’s an issue that involves an amalgamation of factors like overpopulation, lack of rainfall, and the inability to access basic human services like healthcare and education. While there’s no quick fix to these challenges, a degree in International Development will instil you with the skills and aptitude you need to fight for positive change.

But with so many hopeful ambitions making their way to the field, how do you ensure your application remains that critical cut above the rest?

“Having a master’s degree is crucial to advancing a career in international development,” says Dr Oliver Walton, Lecturer in International Development at the University of Bath.

“Employers in this field also value experience, so if you are coming straight from an undergraduate degree, working first before doing a master’s may be a good move,” he adds. “There are a wide variety of master’s courses available in this field, so it is worth thinking carefully about which aspects of development you want to focus on, and whether you want to specialise.”

Each student approaches a master’s in International Development for different reasons, making the student body highly diverse. Some use it to reflect more critically on their work, while others use it for career progression and to develop their skills to fit the next opportunity on the horizon, of which there are many, as Walton explains.

“It is very common for people working in this field to change roles quite a lot over the course of their career – don’t expect to be in the same job for the rest of your life.”

The formerly mentioned University of Bath – a Top 5 UK higher education provider – serves as the ideal platform for your postgraduate pursuit into the International Development realm.

 Here, the innovative Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences offers courses in Economics, Education, Health, Politics, Languages & International Studies, Psychology, and Social & Policy Science – all of which are inherently interconnected. International Development hopefuls also relish in the chance to work alongside the Centre for Development Studies (CDS); an interdisciplinary, collaborative research centre that critically engages with international development policy and practice.

Bath’s full-time MSc in International Development presents a multidisciplinary approach to this globally-relevant subject. Through an in depth look at the current issues at play in the world’s poorest countries or marginalised countries and communities, you’ll learn how the social sciences can play a part in addressing major world issues, such as gender inequality, corruption, migration and conflict.

Acknowledging that the subject is both intricate and diverse, the Faculty is now offering a number of new specialist study routes, including the MSc in International Development with Economics; MSc in International Development with Social Justice and Sustainability; and the MSc in International Development with Conflict and Humanitarian Action, empowering you to work and of course, succeed, in your professional role of choice.

The majority of graduates will begin their career in a grass-roots voluntary role or professional training service with a private consulting firm. But as a pertinent degree that breaks through countless subject boundaries, graduates also find themselves forging long and rewarding careers within global business, finance, media, public sector management and teaching, just to name a few.

The broad understanding of current development issues and possible solutions you acquire on the course gives you the knowledge to develop a better and fairer world. By appreciating the complexities and intricacies that play a part in the development of a nation and its people, your sphere of influence and reach of power extend far beyond the classroom. 

Instead they contribute towards positive social change that has the capacity to impact the daily lives of some of the world’s most vulnerable people.

With a master’s in International Development behind you, you could be the well-informed driving force improving human wellbeing.

Follow the University of Bath on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube

Assaults on mental health staff up 25% in four years

By Ben Robinson & Paul Grant-8 October 2017

 

Mental health staff in the UK are working in a "powder keg" environment, as assaults by patients soar, a BBC investigation has revealed.

Figures obtained by 5 live Investigates show there were more than 42,000 reported attacks on staff in 2016-17 in the mental health trusts who responded.

The figure is more than a quarter higher than for the corresponding trusts four years earlier.

Health bosses say violence on NHS staff is "completely unacceptable".

Nearly two-thirds of mental health trusts in the UK provided data under a Freedom of Information request, which revealed assaults increased from 33,620 in 2012-13 to 42,692 last year.

They included a healthcare assistant who was stabbed to death and a worker having part of their thumb bitten off.

England, where assaults were up by more than a third, accounted for the vast majority of the rise.

The number of attacks recorded by providers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland showed little or no overall rise.

There were also more than 17,000 assaults by patients on other patients in the UK last year.

Nurse Sharon Morris was on duty in a secure unit when she was attacked by a service user

Sharon Morris and a colleague had taken two patients out into a courtyard so they could have a cigarette when she was punched to the ground.

Her attacker hit her several times in the face before she passed out. She was taken to hospital suffering from concussion and bruising to her face.

"I had known the patient for 18 months, and the attack came out of the blue. I think it was opportunistic.

"I've been a nurse for 30 years and had scratches and been shouted at before, but nothing as serious as this."

'Powder keg'

Sharon was off work for weeks and suffers from flashbacks and panic attacks. She no longer works with mental health patients.

"People are now much more unwell when they come into units, there's a shortage of beds and staff are stressed," she said.

"It's a powder keg. It just needs the slightest thing to happen" she said.

Her concerns are echoed by public-service union Unison: 5 live Investigates has been given exclusive access to its survey of more than 1,000 mental health staff working in a range of roles with children and adults in hospitals, secure units and in the community across the UK.

In the report, called Struggling to Cope, 42% of responders said they had been victims of violence in the last year.

Staff shortages

One worker described being "repeatedly punched to the floor", while others spoke of "attempted strangulation" or being head-butted, spat on, kicked and bitten.

Nearly a third of mental health workers said levels of violence had risen in the last year and most blamed staff shortages and overuse of agency staff for the increase.

Sara Gorton, head of health at the union, said staff shortages meant fewer people were around to deal with rising numbers of patients with complex needs.

"This is leading to an increase in violence and a working environment that makes it more difficult to retain staff," she said.

The Department of Health said it was "completely unacceptable" for NHS staff to face violence or aggression at work.

"All incidents should be reported, and we expect the NHS to work with the police to seek the strongest possible action."

It said £11.6bn had been invested last year and it was creating 21,000 new posts by 2021.

---

5 live Investigates: Attacks on Mental Health Staff is broadcast on Sunday 8th October 2017 at 11am BST. If you missed it you can catch up on the iPlayer.

Have you got something you want investigating? We want to hear from you. Email us.

Adding insult to a very deep constitutional injury

Sunday, October 08, 2017

Sneaky strategies adopted by the Government to smuggle hasty amendments to the Provincial Councils Elections (Amendment) Act at the committee stage so as to transform that Amendment into an entirely strange creature altogether must be condemned, strongly and categorically.

A nightmare becomes real

Such wily tricks on the part of those in political power are not unknown to us. Previous Governments also attempted to twist Bills employing this device. Anxious care was taken when Bills were constitutionally challenged in the past therefore to ensure that no committee stage amendments were brought in later so as to reverse judicial rulings already made.

In the mid 199O’s when the Supreme Court took its constitutional role of checking executive and legislative excesses with due solemnity, I recall perturbed conversations following the Court’s jurisdiction being invoked, as to what preventive action could be taken if, in fact, entire sets of committee stage amendments were passed bypassing public scrutiny. At that point, the dangers were intermittent. None involved pasting entirely different amendments to a Bill of a much different character. Now it appears as if this nightmare has indeed become real, ironically under the seal of the ‘yahapalanaya’ (good governance) administration.

In this instance, the exercise is both blatant and unscrupulous so as to circumvent a recent ruling of the Court. It effects amendments (totally unrelated to the initial Amendment) which interalia, results in the postponement of provincial polls. This is certainly not a feat that this Government should be proud of. More than a decade ago, it had been sternly warned by the Court that the power given to the Commissioner of Elections to determine the date of polls is not merely symbolic. It is a substantive power and must be exercised independently. That reasoning holds true even now.

This is not responsible law making

Surely these dubious machinations could not have been intended when Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, enveloped rosily in the 2015 election euphoria, promised that Parliament would return to responsible law making. Yet what is happening now is exactly the converse of what was promised. In the first instance, Sri Lanka allows only for judicial review of Bills rather than scrutiny of unconstitutional laws. This is the very anti-thesis of a democratic process. Advocates had long been fighting for this to be changed. Denying even that slim window of opportunity for public challenge by a devious tactic of committee stage amendments is adding insult to a very deep constitutional injury.

It also exposes the 19th Amendment to be farcical in its avowed objective of reversing past constitutional degradations. And in a context where the legislative process is instrumentally subverted, how can discussions on reform of the Constitution take place with any credibility, I may ask with reason? It beggars the imagination as to how good citizens of Colombo who flock with delight to seminars and discussions on constitutional reform can afford to look away when this flouting of the legislative mandate takes place. On the contrary, these honourable gentlemen and gentlewomen should hang their heads in shame, if shame is indeed an emotion that is still experienced. Out there and beyond the artificial comfort of the ‘Colombo bubble’ Sri Lanka voters grasp precisely what is going on. And their displeasure is great, make no mistake about that.

Let us take the facts. Here was an Amendment which was unimpeachable at first blush, relating to a minimum quota for women candidates. It attracted no critical scrutiny. Then the Government had the brazen effrontery to take the Bill and use it to stare down a decision of the Court which decided, on a constitutional interpretation of relevant provisions, that Parliament cannot extend the term of provincial councils without the approval of the people at a referendum and a two-thirds majority in the House as the franchise was affected. No doubt, this exercise is an insult to the very campaign for a quota for women candidates given the casual and contemptuous use of a long needed corrective for a very different purpose.

Setting a disastrous  precedent

Some have attempted to defend this on the apparent logic that the amendments were progressive on the whole and that therefore, the means of passing them should be winked at. But this is most unacceptable reasoning. It is exactly the same rationale in play when a Chief Justice was removed from his seat by a letter of the President weeks after the 2015 election victory, cheered on by the Bar and other sundry groups. Certainly the profound unsuitability of this gentleman to occupy that seat had been well proven during the Rajapaksa period, as observed trenchantly in these column spaces.

However, the means employed to eject him from that seat set a disastrous precedent. At the time, it caused many of us, including this columnist, to look askance at contradictions between ‘yahapalanaya’ rhetoric and the reality. Now these contradictions have become so problematic so as to impact on the very integrity of the unity alliance, to the dismay of all those who hoped for a genuine change in 2015.

Of course, the hypocrisy of Rajapaksa loyalists in their dancing on political platforms and leveling shots at the subversion of the Amendment is palpable. These characters can scarce afford to talk of democracy when they were responsible for the violation of every single norm in the rule book. Equally, those who have taken upon themselves to file a legal challenge to the amendments, were responsible for chaos and political controversy during their tenure in office. Talk of interventions in the ‘public interest’ in these contexts must be taken with more than the proverbial pinch of salt. Regardless however, the issue must be distanced from personalities, good or bad as they may be.

Bitter lessons forthcoming  in the future

In sum, there is little doubt that bitter lessons will be taught to those who imprudently gamble with constitutional imperatives. History teaches this to very good effect. The postponement of provincial polls will not accomplish anything very much. It will only postpone the inevitable. Where the popular mandate is concerned and if that hope in 2015 to be captured anew, the Government must look to changing its own dynamic with the people. Its badly battered financial probity must be restored. Democratically cancerous tactics of effecting committee stage amendments to change the basic structure of a proposed amendment must be abandoned.

In the default, grand talk of constitutional reforms makes little sense.

Islam, Extremism & Hypocrisy

By Nur Yalman –OCTOBER 7, 2017

Prof. Nur Yalman

Suicide attacks in beloved Barcelona. We are once again left aghast at the cruelty of an entire group of malevolent people. These evil acts should have no place in civilized existence. Where do they come from? What is their purpose? What is to be done?

First of all we must note that these murders are part of a “Death Cult” associated with the profound radicalism deriving from an unusual Wahhabiversion of Islam.

This is a reactionary development emanating from shadowy organizations in the Middle East. ISIS in Iraq and Syria is only one of them. There are many others. They provide the organization, the political direction, the financial support and the spiritual encouragement to vulnerable individuals in the West. The persons who commit them are themselves “suicide bombers”. Many intend to kill themselves with their victims. The idea of “suicide bombing” as a weapon of choice was invented by the Tamil Liberation Tigers in Sri Lanka and has since had an enormous range of application in many unfortunate countries. We had seen a full demonstration of such group suicide work in the 9/11 attacks in New York.

The vicious xenophobia exhibited by the extremist Wahhabi version of Islam that has been propagated by various well financed organizations in the Middle East for many years has taken root in a number of unhappy Islamic countries. This medieval Wahhabi interpretation of Islam has become even more poisonous when combined with those profound grievances arising from the colonial and imperial policies of France and Britain in the region since the First World War. Add to this already combustible mixture the tragically ineffective military interventions of the US “War on Terror” – seen in much of the Muslim world as a “War on Islam” – and you get the violent background to the murders in Barcelona.

The ideological background of this xenophobic puritanical Islamist movement derives mainly from the many writings of Abdul Wahhab (b.1704). This puritanical interpretation of fundamentalist Islam was originally directed against the more sophisticated Sufi-tinged cosmopolitan Islam as practiced in the vast Ottoman Empire in the 18th century. Their openness to the large Christian populations in the Empire, as was the case in old Andalucia, was particularly resented by the Arab tribes of the desert who had turned to the teaching of the Wahhabi’s. In 1804 the Wahhabi scholars created an efficient alliance with Ibn Saud, the leader of the Saudi tribe in Arabia. They sacked the famous Shi’a city of Karbala and destroyed the venerated tomb of the Imam Huseyin in 1802.  By 1805 they were in control of Mecca and Medina.  They expressed their hostility to the Ottoman Turks by claiming that all the Shia’a tombs of Saints in Iraq they had destroyed were sites of “idolatry”. The Ottoman Sultans did not tolerate this “primitive” challenge to their rule. They captured Ibn Saud as well as the Wahhabi religious leaders and had them executed in Istanbul. Mecca and Medina returned to Ottoman rule in 1811. These events were an early indication of the major division in the interpretation of Islam that continues in our day. It has been very useful for “divida et impera”.

The Wahhabi ideological message received a new lease of life when the British military joined forces with the Saudi tribes in 1917 during the First World War to defeat the Ottoman Turks in Arabia.  Mecca and Medina were once again returned to the Wahhabi Saudis. Since these cataclysmic events, the puritanical message of Ibn Wahhab, so disdained by Ottoman Scholars, has been propagated with billions of dollars of oil funds available to many sinister groups in the region. Their “message” to put it succinctly is that “the killing of unbelievers is essential to purifying the community of the faithful”. And by “unbelievers” they include all those more easygoing cosmopolitan Muslims, Sufi lovers, saint worshipping Iranians, and all others who do not follow their harsh Wahhabi line of thought.

Our modern problems with these radical elements can be traced back to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. This time it was the CIA that made the strategic decision to support radical jihadist fighters to undermine Russian power in that unfortunate country. The Arab fighters of Bin Laden, fired up with the ideology of Abdul Wahhab and also the thoughts of Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian anti-Imperialist writer, made an alliance with the local Pashtun tribes, the “Taliban” (“religious students”), to chase away the Russians and then the Americans.

The Western and in particular American and British response to these complicated developments in the Middle East has been to “put boots on the ground”. The military response in Afghanistan, later in Iraq and in Syria, has been disastrous. The militarization of the conflicts, instead of dousing the flames, has extended them. They have destabilized major countries and their huge populations.  Criminal acts that should have been dealt with as local limited “police” events by local forces have become major international causes. They have electrified millions of radicals.

Read More

Devanampiya Tissa was a Tamil king Wigneswaran

By Sulochana Ramiah Mohan-2017-10-08

Descending from the family that produced Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan, C.V. Wigneswaran is a celebrated Sri Lankan. Lawyer, Supreme Court Justice and now Chief Minister of the Northern Province, he is also a man unafraid to voice his convictions. Recovering recently from minor surgery, Wigneswaran responded, via email, to some questions from Ceylon Today over the debate on the proposed new Constitution.

Here is the first part of that email:

You visited the Mahanayake Theras recently. Later at a public event you said they suffer from misunderstandings. Could you please elaborate?

Answer: Firstly, they feel our request for Federalism is indeed a request to divide the country.

Secondly they feel this country is Sinhala Buddhist and therefore all other communities must accept that Buddhism must be given the foremost place. Thirdly, one of the priests referred to Devanampiya Tissa as a Sinhala King.

There were other statements made by them from wrong perceptions. But let me deal with these three for the moment.

When the whole world says federalism is a constitutional method to keep disparate units together as one composite-whole, the priests continue to say that federalism is separation. I think they fear that recognition of the individuality of the North and East would one day allow the North and East to separate. There is no basis for that fear. If that were so each unit in a federal country would have separated. But that has not happened. French speaking Quebec preferred to stay with English speaking Canada.

In reality there is already a separate existence under the 13th Amendment in relation to each Province. Federalism is not going to make a significant difference in relation to the manner in which people presently live. If you bring into being a fully-fledged Federal Sri Lanka, giving federal rights to each of the nine Provinces, still there would not be any mass exodus of people from one Province to another. The fear that federalism entails all Tamils to be packed off to the North and East and the Sinhalese to the Southern areas is baseless. The choice is theirs. They are still Sri Lankans. They have a right to travel from Point Pedro to Dondra as citizens of this great country.

Further, the Colombo Tamils must realize they are living in a Cosmopolitan Metropolis. I believe there are more non-Sinhalese in the Greater Colombo area than Sinhalese. There would not be any need for the Colombo Tamils to move to the North or East. There would not be any mass exodus of Sinhalese from the North nor East. They could continue to live where they live now. They would be dealt with just as how the Centre now deals with the Tamils. The two Sinhalese Provincial Council Members amidst us in the NPC speak in Sinhalese in the Council. We reply them in Sinhala. Translations of documents are given and interpretation facilities are granted.

Therefore, the fears of the Asgiriya Mahanayake Thera and the Members of his Karaka Sabha are baseless.

Next, is their belief that this country is Sinhala Buddhist. It is not so. A majority may be Sinhala Buddhist. That does not entitle them to call the country 'Sinhala Buddhist'. Doing so amounts to bullying. In fact, the bringing in of the 'Sinhala Only Act' was also bullying. Brutally assaulting those who opposed the passing of the Act, was also bullying.

It is dictatorship of the majority!

Recent inscriptions and excavations have proved that the original inhabitants of this island were Dravidians. DNA tests show the Sinhalese to be the progeny of the original Dravidians. The Sinhala language came into use only by the 6th century AD. The Mahawansa is in Pali not in Sinhala. That was because the Sinhala language was yet to be born at that time and 40% of Sinhala words are from Tamil.

Also, for about 3 to 4 centuries, the Tamils in the North and East were Buddhists. Our famous literary works like Manimekalai were Buddhist in content. There were Buddhist Tamil places of learning in South India during that period. Thus, the original Buddhists of Sri Lanka were Tamils (The Demala Baudhayo). They gave up Buddhism when the four Nayanars emerged. By their uncanny spiritual powers and devotion, they were able to draw back the original Hindus who became Buddhists into the fold of Hinduism once again. Therefore, Buddhism was rejected by the Northern and Eastern Tamils quite some time ago. The archaeological remains in the North and East were left by the Demala Baudhayo not Sinhala Baudhayo. Therefore, if Buddhism is to be given foremost place that should be relegated to the seven Provinces South of North and East because the Tamil speaking non Buddhists are the majority in the North and East and the Hindus had rejected Buddhism long ago. North and East could be federal and secular.

Giving foremost place to Buddhism does not have anything to do with the Buddha nor his teachings.

It has something to do with the organized Buddhist religion which means the Priesthood would expect a special place for themselves and the right to interfere with the Government and its administration. That is what they do now bringing disrepute to the religion founded on the teachings of the Great Buddha. If the Constitution says the basic tenets of Buddhism viz. Metta, Karuna, Upekkha and Muditha should govern the actions and activities of all citizens, I do not think anyone would mind it. But it would be better to include also the charitable disposition of Christians, Brotherhood of Muslims and selfless love of Hindus into the equation. But giving foremost place to Buddhism in the Constitution would lead to the Sinhalese Buddhists building unwanted places of Buddhist worship in the North and East and surreptitiously converting our people. The Buddhist leaders who object to conversion by Christians and Muslims must not do themselves the very thing they object to of others.

Only a Hindu could point this out because we have never been known to convert others to our religion.

You would see that Buddhist priests are a law unto themselves in the North and East as elsewhere, while Buddhism being given foremost place in our Constitution has given rise to such aberrations among our Buddhist clergy. Knowing what it does, should we continue to agitate for such special position to one religion?

Referring to Devanampiya Tissa as a Sinhala King was historically wrong. There was no Sinhala language at the time he was alive. His name was Devanai Nampiya Theesan – one who believed in God – his name was Tamil.

Therefore, the Asgiriya priests should get rid of their misunderstandings and wrong beliefs before finding fault with us Tamils. They could refer to books by Tamil historians like Professors Pathmanathan, Sitrampalam, Indrapala (his latest book in 2005) and Pushparatnam to get the correct view of our past in the North and East.

Read the next part of Wigneswaran's responses in next Sunday's Ceylon Today.