Although your editorial under the above caption made interesting reading, the title was not apt. The ex-General never fought a war. He tried to complete a ‘humanitarian–operation’ to take out people kept hostage by a terrorist group. War was a term coined by international and national journalists. Some journalists who had hit former General, below the belt through their scandalous writing and reporting paid heavily for their incompetent journalism, in the process causing much harm to the General as well. Both parties paid very heavily for their errors. However the ex-General still continues to strive to up hold ‘democratic values’ much appreciated by men of principles, a fast disappearing group in a country dominated by opportunists and manipulators, where the word "democracy" doesn’t seem to have any meaning. In such a situation and circumstances will a ‘democratic party’ be of any use?
Unfortunately, over the years, commencing from the early seventies, with the change of status of the "state", the people lost their democratic rights as a result of a so called ‘socialist revolution’. (A death notice of a "Dem O crazy" appeared in a leading daily.)
Subsequently, an electoral contest ("the life blood of democracy" as stated in the editorial) helped the people regain what they had lost. However democracy survived only for a very short time. By 1978, all political parties except one or two, joined together to form a new constitution called the ‘Democratic Socialist Constitution’. One wonders how an anti- socialist, overwhelming electoral victory to a political party, enabled to put in place a ‘socialist’ constitution. Probably may have been due to under hand collaboration of people’s representatives. With hindsight we can now see how the ensuing events like change of the electoral process; removing ‘first past the post principle’ by proportional representation, introduction of executive presidency, introducing pensions to elected representatives etc. paved the way to the deterioration of democracy. Unfortunately for the people, the only form of complaint was through the ‘Leader of the Opposition’. But he failed as the "Leader of the Opposition" at the time, he walked out of Parliament, complaining that the move was "anti-Tamil". He was unable to recognize the move as anti- democratic, due to his preoccupation with ethnic, federal and anti-Tamil thinking. It was the misfortune of all the people that their elected representatives miserably let them down by shunning away from ‘democracy’ and by playing the ethnic/racial card. So ended democracy, drawing the nation into thirty years of terrorism, and separation!
And the ex-General still continues to have democracy. What is needed is not democracy but to make the people understand (a difficult task) that they are saddled with a constitution which relates 75% of the contents to the elected representatives and only 25% to the people, state and judiciary. It will be interesting to read the contents of the clauses relating to the independence of judiciary, mainly deals with salaries and appointments etc. Therefore what is needed before democracy is a change of the undemocratic- constitution. This has been previously promised during several elections but never implemented. This will continue since majority of the people are ignorant of these facts. It will be part of the duty of concerned and educated journalists to make the people ‘see light’ if they are democratic.
Srinath Fernando
island.lk