Two articles in this issue of our newspaper, one by a group of Catholic and Anglican Bishops and the other by Mr. Nanda Godage, retired Ambassador and Additional Foreign Secretary, deserves reflection by our readers. Many would note that the Bishops’ statement does not include the signatures of all Sri Lanka’s Catholic Bishops although the great majority has signed. That would imply that unanimity, for whatever reason, had not been possible. Nevertheless that does not detract from the value of what has been said and we hope that our readers no less than our leaders absorb and digest the matters dealt with in that statement. But it must be said in fairness that the group of signatory Bishops is the same that has in the past commented on matters of public importance and that group remains intact.

Mr. Godage is an indefatigable public interest activist with long years in the public service, most of them at a senior level. The He has worked closely with and interacted with some of best bureaucrats this country has been blessed with in the past as well as with political leaders, good, bad and indifferent. Much of what he says is leavened by his own experience in public service as well as close contacts with political leaders with both wisdom and intellectual acumen. Among them are J.R. Jayewardene, Lakshman Kadirgamar and Lalith Athulathmudali. A friend and confidante of a presidential aspirant, Upali Wijewardene, Godage served as Executive Secretary of the Greater Colombo Economic Commission of which Wijewardene was Chairman and Director General. He is a frequent contributor to the newspapers and readers will no doubt be familiar with his name.

The Bishops have identified some trends that surfaced during the presidential election campaign which they say that many Lankans, regardless of how they voted, would strongly disapprove – continuous personal slander, willful violation of electoral law and the loads of money spent by the two principal contenders in their bid to get elected. We must all be glad that these church leaders have without recrimination brought these matters out in the public domain. Their intention is to persuade the country’s political leaders to correct themselves. With a parliamentary election just ahead of us, we must hope that our leaders will have the good sense to impose a code of conduct on themselves and ensure that candidates running on their party tickets do likewise. This also holds true for public servants and election officials who must do their jobs fearlessly and also create the public perception that this has been the case.

Godage’s point that those responsible for bringing General Sarath Fonseka into the political arena had done this country a disservice will find many takers. There is no doubt that Fonseka was made the common candidate for the only reason that his backers saw in him the potential of toppling the incumbent. President Rajapaksa had declared the election two years before his first term ended with the obvious intention of making political capital of the victory of the armed forces over the LTTE. As commander-in-chief and, more importantly, as the national leader who refused to cave into the massive international pressure mounted to halt the final offensive, he was undoubtedly the major reason for that victory. General Fonseka on the other hand was the man who led the physical fighting having narrowly survived a suicide attack and was publicly hailed by his later detractors as the world’s best army commander. Those who backed him for president obviously saw him as a countervailing force to Rajapaksa on the war hero issue.

It is now public knowledge that in the weeks after the victory on the banks of the Nandikadal lagoon relations between the president and the general went sour. Fonseka perhaps may have continued longer as chief of defence staff, a ceremonial position without command responsibility, if a tempting carrot was not dangled before him by opposition political forces who came up with an offer too good to refuse. As we have commented previously, the gap between the two contenders eventually proved wider than many had expected. Various allegations in this regard are now being bruited around but it is not just improbable but impossible that the declared result will not be allowed to stand.

As Godage pointed out, except for the aberration in 1962 when a group of senior police and military officers unable to come to terms with 1956 attempted an abortive coup d’etat, the armed forces of Sri Lanka have stayed away from politics. There were allegations of what Mr. Pieter Keuneman famously called a kakussi coup in 1966 when a laughable attempt to father a coup on General Richard Udugama was made. But now, there are reports that serving soldiers perceived to have been supporters of Fonseka are being asked to retire. Any retired serviceman has the right to engage in the politics of his choice and any interference with that would be undemocratic. That is not the case where serving personnel are concerned. However witch hunting and acting on suspicion rather than hard evidence may well lead to unfortunate consequences in the future.