A Response:

Why try to undermine emerging consensus, Mr M?

by Chula C. de Silva

Mr. H. L. D. Mahindapala writes in a lengthy analysis in The Sunday Observer of last week, that Ranil Wickremesinghe does not respect the patriotic Wijewardene tradition, that laid the foundations for February 4th Independence day.

This is a complaint that is unreasonable for the following reasons: First, at this time when peace talks are at hand the effort should be to unite the Sri Lankan political forces - not to divide them. Second, essentially there is no such thing called the Wijewardene tradition. That is a somewhat rich product of Mr. Mahindapalas' imagination. Third, serious support for the peace efforts should come from Mr. Wickremesinghe in the form of support that is real and tangible in the negotiating arena.

Mr. Mahindapala however, is dwelling only on the cosmetic aspects of the support that can be offered by Mr. Wickremesinghe to President Rajapakse. (ie: being physically present at independence day celebrations.) Mr Wickremesinghe is not a man who may do well in the cosmetic department. As his enemies keep stressing he does look clumsy raising the Sri Lankan flag.

But it's in these references to Wickremesinghe as some sort of a clown that we see a needless effort to drive a wedge between the disparate forces of Sri Lankan politics. Never before has an opposition offered an olive branch, as it has been done on this occasion when President Mahinda Rajapakse has decided to sue for peace.

Wickremesinghe has been reviled and vilified, but the issue is not only about Wickremesinghe either. The opposition's offer of the olive branch is Mr. Rajapakse's victory too, and can be attributed to the fact that he is a consensus builder. He is a man who can forge great alliances, even to the extent of building a bridge to an opposition he does not share many views with. But Mr. Rajapakse would not have been able to play this game of consensus with a more aggressive opposition leader had there been one.

The writer also says, with transparent joy, that Mr. Wickremesignhe has been a negative force for his party for the last fifteen years, and that he has also been a negative force for the country.

That may be true, and there maybe be many who are willing perhaps to concede that point to Mr. Mahindapala, though personally I wouldn't. But Wickremesinghe happens to be the leader of the main opposition party, and the leader of the opposition also, and it must be said that this is whether Mr. Mahindapala likes it or not. Under these circumstances, to take a whack at Mr. Wickremesinghe is convenient, but is not practical. The end objective may be to get under Mr Wickremesinghe's skin, but if Mr. Mahindapala is worried about the country, the country's interests are served by looking at the issue differently.

The reality is that Mr Wickremesinghe is a prevailing force in Lankan politics.. This means perhaps that there is some meaning to the fact that he is prevailing.

Maybe it is some divine providence for the government that there is a person such as Mr. Wickremesinghe to deal with.

This last statement will be taken by the likes of Mr. Mahindapala with sarcasm perhaps but this is not a humorous reference. Mr. Wickremesighe is situated in a position of power as opposition leader, and it is he who offers one consensus builder, Mr. Rajapakse, the ideal arena to build consensus in. How else can consensus be built, other than by the people who are willing to work together towards it?

Perhaps the writer has an axe to grind on a party basis, as he takes on not just Mr. Wickremesinghe but the expresident as well. At least there is consensus there, so why is he so hopping mad about that? If two of the worst enemies of yesteryear have come together in common cause, then that should not be a problem? The problem according to Mr. Mahindapala is that they might get together to blow up the stage while Mr. Rajapakse is on it. He writes in jest of course.

But this is the kind of exaggeration that does damage to the national psyche when people are trying to make peace. To make peace the South should come together. But it is not happening when every effort to bring leaders to form consensus in at least some haphazard and gradual way is being torpedoed by writers.

When I say the Wijewardene tradition is a myth what I mean is that there was no special Wijewardene heritage. Most everybody in the national elite fought for peace at the time independence was granted, and if you look at the Wijewardene family tradition, we can see that they were also not as "nationalistic" at all times as Mr. Mahindapala portrays them to be.

Mr. Wickremesinghe also is perhaps the same kind of nationalist. He is not rabid in his nationalism. In this way he is like the Wijewardene's who may have fought for independence but had their windows open to the winds of change that blew from outside of their country. We all know that Mr. Esmond Wickremesinghe was a cosmopolitan gentleman - not a narrow 'nationalist'.
