In writing these words, Shakespeare was contemplating on the different ‘ages’ that man plays in his lifetime. But we also know that it is not uncommon for men to play many parts within the same ‘age’. A hero one moment becomes, in the sight of his opponents, a villain the next; a patriot today is considered a traitor overnight; the ‘good boys’ who spearhead your victory at one election become ‘bad boys’ at the next. This is the stuff of Sri Lanka’s politics today. A cynic may say that that had been so over several decades. But our politicians have now turned all this into a despicable art.

But men, as players playing their part on the country’s political stage, will have their ‘exits and their entrances’. This is the political stage that our country will soon be watching with somewhat mixed feelings. After some unexpected delay, Mahinda Rajapakse and his advisers have finally decided that a Presidential Election should be called early to precede the parliamentary election that has to be held in the first quarter of next year. A proclamation has been made but, as at time of writing, the Commissioner of Elections has yet to set a date for receiving nominations and for the subsequent poll. But it all points to Mahinda Rajapakse and Sarath Fonseka being the main contenders. Wickramabahu Karunaratna, representing a common left front. will be the third national candidate. We could expect a few more candidates who are unlikely to have any impact on the outcome of the elections. It is expected that the contest between Rajapakse and Fonseka will be a close one. But there also will be some who may not want to support either of the two leading candidates; and Wickramabahu may be the beneficiary of those ‘protest’ votes. If neither Rajapakse nor Fonseka pick up more than 50% of the votes in the first round, then the second preferences for Wickramabahu may be crucial.

We hope all three candidates will focus on their respective manifestos and not engage in personal abuse and vilification. As far as the war against the LTTE was concerned, both main candidates have been considered heroes – one politically and the other militarily. They both played crucial roles. The supporters of the two candidates must be restrained from downplaying the role played by the other. On the national question, Wickramabahu has always taken a principled stand and we have to respect him for that, even if we disagree with his stand.

Politics and the Military

Rajapakse and Wickramabahu have been in politics for a long time; the latter is also an academic. Fonseka has basically been a military figure and will therefore be new to politics. But army generals turning to politics is nothing new. Some have been disasters and some have proved extremely able in statecraft and governance. If we look aroundthe world, the disasters have always been those military figures who took political control after a coup d’etat. Pinochet of Chile, Suharto of Indonesia, Yahya Khan of Pakistan, Ershard of Bangladesh and Than Shwe of Myanmar are recent examples of army generals who seized power unlawfully and led their country to ruin. But, on the other hand, nearly all military leaders who took to politics and came into positions of leadership in their countries have done well. In the fifties in the West, General Dwight Eisenhower was elected President of USA and General Charles de Gaulle President of France. Both did a good job and proved extremely popular with their countrymen. They both were re-elected to a second term with a big margin.

In Asia, another General who took to politics was Fidel Ramos of Philippines. He had served the Philippine Army for thirty seven years, beginning as a Second Lieutenant and ending up as Commander-in-Chief. Before he entered politics, he once spoke on the role of the army: "That’s why we’re here enjoying our freedom, Ladies and Gentlemen. You are here. If the majority of the Armed Forces did not do their job, I doubt very much if you’d all be here." Sounds familiar? Ramos decided to enter politics when the Presidential Election fell due in 1992 on the expiry of Corazon Aquino’s term. He had served in Aquino’s government as Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces and as Secretary for National Defence. But he was denied nomination by the ruling party and promptly formed a new party and decided to contest the Presidency. Again soundd familiar? In the end, in a seven-corned contest, Ramos won a closely fought election. In a country whose population is over 80% Roman Cathoilic, Ramos was the first and only non-Roman Catholic who was elected to serve the country as President.

The General Ramos Presidency has been seen by many analysts as the best years for Philippines. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says he was regarded as the most effective President in Philippines history. The country during that period experienced political stability and rapid economic growth and expansion. He purged the national police of corrupt officers and encouraged family-planning practices in this Roman Catholic country. He entered into peace agreements with the Muslim Moro National Liberation Front and the Communist New People’s Army and brought about national reconciliation and unity. The Britannica article goes on to say: "Ramos’ governing coalition won a decisive victory in congressional elections in 1995, midway through his six-year term as President…. (His) reforms helped revitalize the Philippines’ economy, which emerged from years of stagnation to grow at a rapid rate in 1994–97. The country was thus able to weather a severe business downturn that crippled national economies across Southeast Asia in 1998."

Ramos’ was a success story of an army general turned politician, like Eisenhower and de Gaulle before him. So this column does not believe that lack of political experience is a handicap to being an effective President. What are important are the issues that a Presidential candidate intends to address if elected to the Presidency. The public will then have an opportunity to decide if those issues are important to them and if they believe that that candidate can deliver on those promises.

The Presidency Issues

The abolition or retention of the Executive Presidency is not the pressing issue facing our country now. Undoubtedly, like the proportional representation system, the Executive Presidency also needs major reform. It may even need total abolition in favour of an executive Prime Minister heading a cabinet of ministers. At every election, including the last one, the proposal was made to abolish it. It was only Chandrika Kumaratunga who brought constitutional proposals to Parliament to revert to the Westminster style of governance. This was as part of a new Constitution that had been agreed upon between the major national parties. The only provision in that proposed 2000 constitutional bill on which consensus was not reached was in respect if the interim arrangements for the then incumbent President to continue in office until her term expired. But the then PA Government was willing to drop that clause and gave that assurance in writing. For reasons best known to the UNP, they created a drama in the chamber of the House, and threw out those consensus proposals. Today, while there is a need for major reform, it is not the most pressing issue before the country.

We believe the most important issues that the electorate should be concerned are:

1. Every Presidential candidate must give the assurance that he or she would uphold the Constitution at all times. For this, he or she must not take cover behind the clause in the Constitution providing immunity to the President for any action he takes or does not take, even in violation of the Constitution. It is best that this clause is permanently removed from the Constitution. We would have had much better governance if, in terms of the Constitution the President had appointed a Constitutional Council and thereafter, on the recommendation of that Council, appointed members to all the independent Commissions. The absence of an independent Public Service Commission, National Police Commission, Judicial Services Commission, etc has led to credible charges of the politicisation of these institutions.

2. Each Presidential candidate must give the assurance that the rule of law will be upheld, that dissent will be welcome and that there will be no pressures on journalistic freedom. Every citizen must have the right to life, be free from the fear of abductions, physical harm or unlawful killing. That is the only way for democracy to flourish in our country. We have eradicated a group of terrorists; let us not have clones of those terrorists continuing to stalk us.

3. Every Presidential candidate must pledge to adopt policies and programmes that will stimulate equitable economic growth so that every citizen, wherever resident in the country, can enjoy a basic standard of living – access to clean water and sanitation, adequate educational and health services and the facilities to earn a livelihood.

4. Each Presidential candidate must pledge to take all steps to promote national reconciliation and unity. More than sixty years after independence, ir is a shame that we are still very much a divided people with the minorities still nursing grievances. All ethnic and faith groups and those socially marginalized, must be made to feel that they are equal citizens in an equal society.

These four basic issues are not idealistic unreachables. If there is political resolve, these can be addressed and achieved. Remember the example of General Ramos in the Philippines.

We began with a quote from Shakespeare’s As You Like It. We can end with another quote from the Bard’s Hamlet where Polonius gives advice to his son Laertes – advice which perhaps is appropriate to our Presidential candidates:

Beware of entrance to a quarrel,

but being in, bear’t

that the opposed may beware of thee.

This above all: to thine own self be true,

And it must follow, as the night the day,

Thou canst not then be false to any man.