MR vs. SF - an invitation to think

With her substantial foreign input, Kath Noble has argued that corruption cannot be the defining issue in this election.
I think if you have a bad taste in the mouth, you have an abscess in the oral cavity perhaps.
I don’t know, I’m not a dentist.
But it’s the bad taste in the mouth that would bother you more than the abscess, and the abscess can wait Gunadasa Amarasekera’s attention. Or Rajitha’s.
All I can say is that all dentists of every separate school of dentistry, have lined up in favour of incumbent president Rajapaksa.
That apart, back to juicier issues, such as bad tastes in the mouth.
Corruption per se can be stomached, but what’s unpalatable is the cavalier behaviour that goes with it.
For example, reducing the constitution to the status of something not worth the parchment it’s written on, elected ministers running around assaulting and hooting perfectly peaceful people, using the media that belongs to the people to harangue the very people, with sewer-rate innuendo and filth against opposing candidates. Now does all that fall under the rubric of corruption?
Strictly speaking, no. It’s the bad taste in the mouth that lingers; if the sore itself is corruption, it’s the bad taste that envelops the abscess that’s the clinching factor.
I don’t know therefore, whether pointing the finger at the opposition candidate’s sore in the mouth cuts ice under the circumstances.

Differing bad tastes

Does he also leave a bad taste in the mouth? They say he does, because he has displayed latent Pol-Potish tendencies, and a Last King of Scotland type of military panache. If the bad taste that results from that is worse than the bad taste left by what was detailed above as a result of the incumbent regime’s corruption, bad governance etc., people would soon make that relative judgment between differing bad tastes. I will then hold my peace.
Other arguments have been made, primarily one to the effect that Sarath Fonseka’s advent to power would mean anarchy, because the government that ensues would not have JVP support. In other words, what’s expected is a slide towards lawlessness in the event the opposition candidate wins.
In my book, anarchy manifests in various guises and in various dimensions. In a large swathe of rural and suburban Sri Lanka, the opposition candidate’s election posters are removed, or committed to the dustbin.
The president’s posters and cutouts remain — though perhaps not everywhere. Nobody can contradict this; I’ve seen it with my own eyes in a pre-election sojourn down south, and further into the deeper and deepest south.
This suspension of democracy is not germane to the honest above-board anti-anarchist S.L. Gunasekera. If subversion of democracy is not anarchy, what is?
I daresay that there is a risk involved in electing an untested candidate to office. Not only is he untested, he is also a military officer who has no affiliations to a political party.
Voting for such a candidate no doubt entails reasonable risk. Ratiocinating that risk with the risk of an incumbency that’s subverting democracy and furthering anarchy as a result, at the present time, is fair.
But saying that the incumbent’s anarchy is not important, is to say that democracy must be for one side - our side — only. Is that S.L. Gunasekera’s democracy?
Probably is.
Gunadasa Amarasekera has said that S.L. Gunasekera is an ‘upright man’ who has unlike others, characteristically been upright regarding the contest and the candidates in this election.
The probable endangering of democracy tomorrow is worse than the suspension of democracy today ——- now, how does that happen? Is democracy just the tyranny of the majority, or tyranny by and for the people you like?
However, this writer refuses to be blind-sided. It is correct that a considerable risk is entailed in voting for the JVP-UNP combine.
Talking of conspiracies, let’s just say that it is more likely that the UNP-JVP election operation is a ‘conspiracy’ than say, the Mahinda second term bid for the presidency is a ‘conspiracy’.
There is merit in saying that the greater risk is to vote Fonseka to power. Saying that is objective, but saying that without pointing in detail to the demerits of the Mahinda administration is not objectivity —- it’s just garrulous practice of narrow partisan politics.
What can be said is that while there is a category of people such as Gunasekera who are dogmatic and risk-averse about an anti-incumbency vote, there is also a category of particularly younger people who are not necessarily risk averse, considering the risks entailed in extending the incumbent’s term as well.

Weighing choices

In the final analysis the moot argument being made here is not about voting for a particular person — that argument can be made elsewhere — but that there is a case for ratiocinating the risks and weighing the choices on the balance. There is a real case for thinking long and hard about voting, because the incumbency is so far from perfect, and far from being risk free, while the challenger’s bid is risky per se.
Risk assessment also takes on a different character in a post war phase.
The LTTE is finished and the polarization therefore between the Sinhala and Tamil sides of the divide is necessarily less pronounced.
The term political solution is not only hackneyed, it’s also a misnomer. A solution for what?
But there is more room for political experimentation, and that’s the legacy of a brave and successful war. Why should the Tamils be afraid of the Sinhalese and the Sinhalese be afraid of the Tamils anymore in this society?
While fools should not dance where angels fear to tread (a la Gunasekera’s book title...) it’s worth remembering that risk takers are those who have a better chance of success, than those who peruse the straight and the narrow uber-cautious path.
In the end those who take risks no doubt can perish —- point well taken.
But the well-read might also say, one full glorious hour of life is worth an age without a name —- and besides, many calculated risks lead to great bounty, and that’s a life’s verity.
Well, either way, there is a decision to be taken on the 26th, and the citizenry must make sure nobody, incumbent or challenger, takes one vote for granted. I think we should all think hard and vote for the best man, even if it means being willing to reconsider our long held beliefs and positions.