When sugar price shot up from Rs. 90 to Rs. 105 last week a section of the people in the country silently rejoiced over it. They are the followers of the opposition political parties. On the other hand ruling party seemed to be cheerful when one of its supporters was shot dead allegedly by the supporters of the opposition. The state run TV stations repeatedly showed the bullet riddled wounds on the body of the victim.

This is our politics. Sugar price hike would certainly be a burden on the people, which in turn, according to the opposition’s thinking would pit the ordinary people against the Government. And finally, they hope, or at least they pray, more people to turn against the Government when they vote at the Presidential election on Tuesday. Therefore they are upbeat over the price hike despite it being a burden on them as well.

When a supporter of the ruling party was killed in a shooting incident in Madurankuliya in the Puttalam district on January 16, leaders as well as the members of that party were seen elated, since they apparently hoped that the incident will provoke sympathy among ordinary people, especially the floating voters and they would vote for their candidate.

The state TV disregarding the professional ethics and the feelings of the family members of the victim, repeatedly showed the bullets wounds of the victim apparently with the hope that the anger and the sympathy of floating voters over the unjustifiable killing would be translated into votes in favour of their candidate. So death of a member of a political party is a matter for the leaders and the other members of that party to be happy about during elections.

This mindset is not peculiar only to the ruling party, since posters with the picture of a woman shot dead while travelling in a bus to attend an opposition rally in Hungama in Hambantota district on January 12 have sprung up even in Colombo. The opposition seems to attempt to exploit the death of its own supporter.

Opposition’s common candidate for the Presidential election General Sarath Fonseka’s alleged comment on killing of surrendered LTTE leaders during a newspaper interview last month was not something gainful to the Government in general, since it speaks of war crimes. Minister GL Peiris at a press conference recently had reminded that leaders of some countries were arrested for war crimes in some other countries when they arrived there for medical treatment.

However, interestingly, leaders of the Sri Lankan Government were so eager to enliven Fonseka’s allegation that they refused to accept his denial that he made such a comment later. They went to the extent to withdraw a letter sent by the secretary to the Disaster Management and Human Rights Ministry, Professor Rajiva Wijesinghe to Phillip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Summary or Arbitrary Executions, which said that UN query on the matter was irrelevant as Retired General had distanced himself from the comment in question. The withdrawal of the letter is may be interpreted a case of preferring a UN probe on the allegation.

Another case in point in respect of the mindset with which the Sri Lankans are preparing to encounter the January 26 Presidential election was the debate as to whether it is the military leadership or the political leadership that won the war against the LTTE. Both ruling party as well as the opposition took their stand according to whom they support and not taking into account the main factors that contributed to the successful conclusion of the war. The ruling party claimed that only the political leadership must be given the credit, while the opposition arguing that it was the military leadership that has to be praised.

Both sides conveniently ignored the fact that neither a weak political leadership that would submit to the foreign pressures nor a weak military leadership that would fail apply novel tactics can win a war.

It is disheartening to note that both sides, after sacrificing tens of thousands of lives in the ethnic war, resort to incite racism and violence for the election victory. The state run Thinakaran on Thursday quoted Minister Douglas Devananda who is also the EPDP leader correctly saying that the JVP was rousing racism citing the Government’s agreement to his ten demands which he says put forward in the interest of Tamil people.

The other side of the story is that the leaders of the Government too doing the same by saying that the opposition has signed a secret pact with the TNA, a point that Government leaders have never substantiated. They claim that Fonseka has pledged to TNA to merge the Northern and Eastern provinces, to release the LTTE cadres and to dismantle the high security zones.

The simple truth is that Government has agreed to EPDP’s ten demands while Opposition Leader Ranil Wikremesinghe and the opposition’s common candidate General Sarath Fonseka have pledged to the TNA in writing that they would implement some of the Tamil demands.

A major contentious issue with regard to these agreements, written or oral is the merger of the Northern and the Eastern provinces which was annulled by the Supreme Court in 2006 following a petition filed by the JVP. According to Tamil newspapers nothing concerning the merger of the provinces has been mentioned in the document that contained opposition’s pledges to the TNA while there is a reference to the homeland in the EPDP’s demands.

It is unrealistic to expect any of the two main parties or JVP, for that matter would agree to the merger of the two provinces, especially during an election campaign, if they are politically sane. However, it is ironic that both sides believe the promises given by the opponents to the north would be met, while those given to the south would not.

However, history of election promises has it that people have repeatedly been deceived by the politicians in this country, especially by the two main parties. Former Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake during the 1965 general election promised to provide two measures of rice to each citizen free, but he miserably failed and supplied through co-operative societies one measure of rice free and another at double the price that the rice was sold then.

Sirimavo Bandaranaike at the 1970 general election gave a ridiculous promise to import rice even from the moon and to provide two measures to each citizen. However, people had to encounter a near famine during her rule, because of the closed economic policy she perused. Then came the promise to provide eight pounds of cereals by the UNP during the 1977 general election which again turned to be another hollow promise. 

One of the major promises given by Presidents Chandrika Kumaratunga and Mahinda Rajapaksa was the abolition of Executive Presidency. Reminiscing famous folklore about Andare’s removal of the boulder from the paddy field, they requested two thirds majority in the parliament to abolish the Executive Presidency after coming to power. It is not clear as to on what ground people have to believe that the person who would win the election this time would keep his promises.