Fallouts on : three-term Presidency

---

A third term in office can have a bogey trap set for devaluation or diminution of any Presidential image in seeking to do such overtime. Therefore a new candidate was the option taken previously.

To obtain a third Presidential term is improbable unless; (a) there is overwhelming support from the people, who are pleased with the ruler or (b) foreign props want to keep the holder in office and provide the necessary loot to keep the populace pleased.
Otherwise seeking an extension beyond two terms is hazardous if there is an attractive Opposition in the equation.
To the present holder, the one-way flow of votes from the north is a disturbing issue. He could off set the trend with a counter flow on educating the south of a northern manoeuvre.
Vote from the East might tilt the balance if the majorities in the expanded south are slight. Majorities in the south are the key to the next elections.
It is said irrespective of the popularity of an iconic President, his Ministers or minions may have often done sufficient to foul the air and displease voters over a decade in office.




Two - term presidency was an honourable exit route written into the Constitution for a once popular politician to go home with respectability after ascending to high office on receiving a vote of over 50% of the total polled.
A third term in office can have a bogey trap set for devaluation or diminution of any Presidential image in seeking to do such overtime. Therefore a new candidate was the option taken previously.
The present incumbent has a war victory behind his name that endeared him to the people and cleared the decks for a
third run.
Is that sufficient to carry him to victory under the present circumstances? Indeed it is becoming closer.
Yet the Opposition has failed to name a credible opponent. Having forfeited the candidature last time; UNP cannot afford to chuck it again and desire to be taken as a serious Opposition. For the UNP choice is limited; it has to be Ranil Wickremesinghe or Karu Jayasuriya.
UNP fears to name the elusive candidate. No other - individual or monk or party (except in the role of spoiler - purchased or otherwise)has the strength UNP possesses at ground level.

"It unbinds the opportunity to combine. Government will pat its back by saying  UNP  or JVP did not vote against the decision they proposed: the Opposition could say they did not betray the nation to side with the enemy. In sporting terms it is a tie: in non - sporting terms they bashed each other sufficiently to provide amusement for Western embassies to write home about throwing daggers at each other and directing water pistols at the foreign menace."

In the local front, the forthcoming Uva elections are critical both for the Government and the Opposition while a second front is opened for an investigation in Geneva that carry attempts to change a regime, beneath its outward appearance.
Results of the Uva elections can give the government a whiff of oxygen while the winds blowing from Geneva will carry noxious fumes with which the government might wish to rekindle patriotism.
The foreign component has a place in the coming elections.
The West and India would prefer a weak government that will bow to their fancy and consider a Rajapaksa administration too entrenched for comfort.
What impact could they make to help the Opposition from across seas? They could bankroll campaigns for multiple candidates from the Opposition with a flow of funds (many a hopeful candidate will bloom for the Yankee dollar?) to break core votes in the
Rajapaksa heartland.




Remember India helped the opposition financially at the last Presidential election: Against the advice of RAW. The West and India can help with such largeness at the coming elections.
The West would want the government carry on with the present economic policies to help the rich and alienate
the poor.
HSBC global review shows a booming economy at the doorstep: which is not visible at ground level.
It sure would bloom for the rich at the expense of the poor and the middle classes? Rajapaksas leave economics to their advisors and the West has reached their designated target to destabilise from within the palace.
At the last provincial election the absentee vote was indeed a worrying factor for the government. At a Presidential election every vote counts; if life is hard, numbers that trek to the polling booth may want a change.
The West is working intensely according to a plan in a workshop in Geneva where, a vehicle is being assembled to place it on a collision course to fell our military and political authority on war crimes.




Back home, the responses are incoherent, ad hoc and ill timed; at best, reacting is the rejoinder without weaving trends to make our opponents run
in circles.
Consequences are not comforting: obviously when there is no planning or strategising. We should stand up to the challenge and trade punches with all our resources pooled together. Instead we are engaged in intrigues to gain a negligible distance of political expediency while searching for a good reading of the peoples’ pulse.
Eventually we bash each other wildly without forming a line targeting fire at the common enemy.
Thirty years of brutal terrorism calls for a chronicle of horror. A writing that will receive a passing reference to the LTTE at the Geneva sittings – their preference is to itemise crimes against the military in greater detail. There is no better forum to place a recorder than at a domestic inquiry where witnesses both for and against terrorism whether by the State or the LTTE on allegations levelled is heard by a panel that should consist of eminent unbiased persons from Sri Lanka and from countries that are not outright hostile.

"Fair enough, never was a fair trial contemplated. If so, why give credence by participation? Yet, cannot live by merely displaying a ‘no show’ board since the report will be damning. The government needs do something more to outfox the alien inquiry by initiating a domestic mechanism before the mock trial began in a foreign territory. A bold response with an effective counter is the requisite."

It could hear direct evidence from witnesses’ of 30 years of horrederous acts of terrorism and the allegations of
military excesses.
A report published locally will have greater authenticity if the panel elected to hear is deemed independent in the public realm. Such an inquiry will make the distant sitting in Geneva meaningless.
Delay in holding a domestic inquiry will be a substantial objection. There is an answer – sell it as a sequel to the findings by the Commission into Disappearances.Naturally for reconciliation purposes a general amnesty for all from any crime committed during the war period should be on offer:such is not possible at a sitting in Geneva and is a safer surer option.
Route most South American countries took after an upheaval. Reprieve brings the disenchanted factor to the mainstream.
Responsible elements in the Government and Opposition must realise an alien threat is in the offing directed at the nation; there is a crisis looming ahead – it is not a time to play silly politics and score brownie points in Parliament but close ranks to face an imminent foreign threat.




There must be a national consensus emerging (mercifully leaving the TNA aside as they are a part of the foreign plot) where Sri   Lanka must stand as a squad to confront the oncoming peril. Forget the past and don’t think of the future, think of the present; people would be grateful whoever gives a lead to create a national consensus against an
international conspiracy.
It is the Government that must take the role as the front runner without looking at it, as an opportunity to decimate their political rivals; the opposition, battered and divided, must not offer conditional support like calling for the 17th Amendment or including Rathupaswala when the security forces are targeted.
Whom are the government and opposition called upon to support?
Remember: At stake are those that eliminated terrorism and made the country safe and secure, for us to live in peace. We owe it to them in the name
of gratitude.
Taking it to parliament is like visiting an amusement park: looked upon with mirth in Western capitals knowing the iron fist with which the party whips control their Parliamentary flock.




Result was obvious and it did not bind the parties to a consensual position. Parliamentary debate is not the answer to the issue at large.
 It unbinds the opportunity to combine. Government will pat its back by saying  UNP  or JVP did not vote against the decision they proposed: the Opposition could say they did not betray the nation to side with the enemy. In sporting terms it is a tie: in non - sporting terms they bashed each other sufficiently to provide amusement for Western embassies to write home about throwing daggers at each other and directing water pistols at the
foreign menace.
The country cannot twiddle thumbs doing sweet nothing with an international inquiry on display.  Government took a stand to ignore an inquiry under auspices of the UNHRC.




 Fair enough, never was a fair trial contemplated. If so, why give credence by participation? Yet, cannot live by merely displaying a ‘no show’ board since the report will be damning. The government needs do something more to outfox the alien inquiry by initiating a domestic mechanism before the mock trial began in a foreign territory. A bold response with an effective counter is
the requisite.
Instead we react to a foreign movement with a bland response and then go to sleep by doing nothing more.
It is most convenient to do little or nothing; as there is no supervision.
If a regime change is inspired by foreign sources people will rally around the government, provided the government is not awesomely unpopular due to inflicted economic hardships. Foreign interferences are intensely disliked by the rural majority that knows the true benefits of eliminating terrorism.
Lakshman Kadirgamar’s presence with his ability to express an opinion convincingly where it is heard and digested is sadly missed at a moment like this! Don’t blame the foreign office – Minister or officials can hardly show results when those entrusted with the homework fail to do their share.

"If a regime change is inspired by foreign sources people will rally around the government, provided the government is not awesomely unpopular due to inflicted economic hardships. Foreign interferences are intensely disliked by the rural majority that knows the true benefits of eliminating terrorism."

Elections issues will vary from north to south on terrorism to patriotism; from rural to urban on social elevation/ rural upliftment to governance/corruption; but eventually many a vote will turn on the economic issues, as this government’s financial advisors have been kinder to their richopponents than to their
poor supporters.
The opposition’s main difficulty will be to wed the candidate to the voter while the Government will have to ensure their soft-core supporters do not abstain from voting. Election will depend on majorities and for majorities to materialise: the voter turn out
must be high.