Any observer would claim the ‘so called’ protest held in Maradana on November 2, calling for the Government to stop its suppression and to scrap the Prevention of Terrorism Act organised by the Samagi Jana Balawegaya, Sri Lanka Freedom Party, Frontline Socialist party and others ended on a sour note highlighting the inherent fundamental weaknesses of the event.
A new lease of life
The country is now in revival mode after going through several months of intense economic, social and political uncertainty. The prices of goods and services that skyrocketed have now stabilised and are at acceptable levels. The tourism sector that suffered severe losses and setbacks has also been given a new lease on life with experts claiming the high inflation rates in Europe would drive more tourists to Sri Lanka.
In addition, the 21st Amendment to the Constitution has been passed while many issues faced by farmers including the chemical fertiliser shortages have now been rectified with businesses now preparing to return to normalcy.
Therefore, with the country’s situation becoming more favourable the need of the general public as well as organisations including unions to hold protests that would negatively affect and disrupt the people’s lives and their livelihoods is dwindling.
In fact people and unions do not wish to become instruments of political projects launched by various parties with vested interests. Only those without any political acumen would believe they can convince the people to come out on to the streets and launch mass anti Government protests in this situation. This is because the people have no intention to bring upon more destruction on themselves.
A soup of many cooks
In reality supporters of the Samagi Jana Balawegaya as well as apolitical members of the public have expressed their displeasure at the party for joining a protest to achieve the ends of several parties and groups who do not have the best interests of the public in mind and are ignoring the aspirations of the public, businesses and other groups for social, economic and political reconciliation as well as the current upward social and economic trend.
They say it is laughable that leaders who failed to take the opportunity given to take the reins of the country are now protesting against the Government in this manner.
From the beginning of the November 2 protest the Frontline Socialist Party and their stooges of the IUSF appeared to be in a tussle with other political parties to gain control of the organisation aspect of the event.
This is because other main parties such as the SJB and the SLFP had hoped to ride on the coat tails of this event to bolster their power. They had no genuine interest to secure the release of the IUSF convener and instead merely wanted to either create a SJb Government or a Sajith-Maithri Government in Sri Lanka.
However, as it was to be expected the protest did not get the full support of the SJB. Only several leaders of the SJB took part while Sarath Fonseka and Patali Champika Ranawaka were in attendance to further their own narrow political ends.
The FLSP’s feigned discipline meant a scuffle took place when its workers attempted to remove inebriated supporters of the SJB and SLFP from the protest.
JVP’s avoidance
The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna who attempted to run a one-man show during the Araglaya is now near political annihilation. From the beginning the party distanced itself from the November 2, protest and refused to express its support to it. This was criticised among the Opposition parties and groups supporting it and they claimed this would result in the weakening of the Aragalaya. However it was clear the JVP facing a political conundrum had no other choice but to avoid the protest.
Wasantha Samarasinghe, JVP politburo member said the JVP engages in an honest struggle and therefore should attend the November 2 protest.
However, he said those attending it now are opportunists and is not a true struggle. “They are claiming they are fighting for the release of Wasantha Mudalinge and Siridhamma Thera but in Parliament they raise their hand to sell State assets. What type of struggle is that?
K.D. Lalkantha, another member of the JVP had posted on Facebook explaining the difference between the struggle and the violence.
Fire
We do not burn tyres
We do not breakdown gates
We do not break in to houses of MPs
We did not set fire to Ranil’s house
These are acts of violence
Many felt this was an indirect comment on the November 2, protest and the JVP’s decision to avoid it.
In the end the protest with an attendance of 2000 people became a flop as it neared the Fort Railway Station as Opposition leader Sajith Premadasa was hooted out of the protest with crowds chanting and leering at him.
The SJB blamed the JVP for this but however many are of the opinion that it was an act carried out by the FLSP. But it is also said that some SJB stalwarts are secretly pleased that this marriage between the SJB, SLFP and the FLSP has ended in this fashion before long.
A university lecturer expressed his displeasure saying he cannot understand these actions of the SJB. “They were offered power at a critical juncture but they refused in fear and due to the incapability. I cannot understand what Sajith is attempting to do with extremists now.
Kumar Gunaratnam was a pioneer of violence during the 88-89. The only leader of the insurrection that survived. It is a tragedy that Sajith Premadasa is now in cahoots with them. They are attempting to get Premadasa to do what they can’t do with a bullet. This highly despicable political marriage must be defeated” he said.
This has now become a common topic of discussion among the people. Many are criticising the attempt of the FLSP which has no political hold in the country to come into power in this manner.
For example their candidate at the last Presidential election only received 8219. The same applies to the IUSF. Though the student group has dominated all university unions and carry out ragging as well as organise anti Government protests in reality not even one percent of the student population belong to its group. The IUSF has managed to become the sole voice of the student movement through violence, threats and intimidation. This must be a fact that should be questioned.
The attempt of a party who is unable to even secure one percent of the vote and directly responsible for the violence in 88 - 89 to write the country’s democratic future must be defeated by the entire society. In addition to this democratic forces must come forward to defeat the attempt by a failure such as Sajith Premadawa from forming a Government with extremists and terrorists.
Damith Kottegoda