Post-war debate:

National Security, the overriding political paradigm

Being aware of the risks of LTTE remnant killing paraphernalia should be the constant concern of the Government during the IDP resettlement process. Hyper criticism of that process is abhorrence to any attempt to build a good national security record. Sri Lankan voters would never forget that almost all suicide attacks on innocent people were carried out by terrorists who posed as civilians.

The current national political debate is about people's overriding concern how best to handle the remnant terror threats to the country as well as the convergence of political alignments called a coalition headed by the UNP, a fore-taste of an impending election campaign. Beneath intense polarization of views between the Government and Opposition there is that feeling etched in historical memory: "No. never again would terror torment the country!"

The debate is flavoured by issues of what suits Sri Lanka better, the executive presidency or the Westminster model rejected in the 70s and the notion that a person of high military calibre could head the UNP coalition.

Some questions surface here. First, any military mercenary even if found by those hell-bent on winning, would easily be seen as a ruse to make the race a three-way affair. Besides, no military brass worth his imposing insignia would likely seek marching orders from a political apparatus with wobbly national security credentials. The company itself would be uncomfortable to any aspiring candidate.

For UNP to pitch itself as the party of the new era there has to be policy revamping with national security as its central theme. A short list of priorities for the next election campaign has to begin with the IDP settlement aimed at finding pragmatic solutions to problems that concern the vast majority of Sri Lankans. To be holding back support to eliminate the Tiger threat would be "suicidal," pun unintended.

Coalitions come and go

There are certainly extraneous or structural reasons for new coalitions to arrive every now and then: to micro-target geographical and ethnic voter pools scattered throughout Sri Lanka. Those are slices of voters marginal at best by themselves but may matter if pooled collectively. Such a coalition in itself, however, would not guarantee victory.

A voter based security must precede any fancy confluence of alignments to be victorious. Mathematical projections of voter configurations called coalitions are no substitute for rock-solid policy choices put before the voters, whose voice is vital to success.

Opposition faces a set of fundamental policy challenges that demand truly national responses and not just a tendency to cling to expediency if the next Parliament is not to be exemplified by petty squabbling as ones before. Decisions have to be made on reality and not based on false choices.

Perceptibly, Sri Lanka is in a period of civic renewal. Any election campaign would give rise a debate on the meaning and political content of patriotism, the side that embodies an evocative interpretation of that would end victorious.

Any civic deficit is particularly acute since citizens find themselves squeezed between the LTTE forces joining hands with international foes to derail Sri Lankan stability and the need to ensure security in a real sense at home. The number of LTTE moles getting exposed internationally as racketeers is rising as we write. A big one got nabbed last week.

However, the UNP leadership has so far not shown their displeasure at separatists concentrating on nefarious activities to achieve their goal through implied assistance from international forces as shown by harebrained Eelam government in exile movement. Southern provincial elections provided a rude awakening that the much hyped coalition idea bereft of a revamped policy vehicle would not take-off. It crumpled. Putting the coalition idea ahead of a major policy overhaul is like putting the cart before the horse.

There is an eye-popping adage that "all politics stopped at the water's edge." Harsh criticism of the country before the Human Rights Commission or else where would turn be non-productive and bring discredit at home. Conversely, the commonality of interest surrounding national security, if tapped creatively, would have put the Opposition in a favourable stand with the people.

Being aware of the risks of LTTE remnant killing paraphernalia should be the constant concern of the Government during the IDP resettlement process. Hyper criticism of that process is abhorrence to any attempt to build a good national security record. Sri Lankan voters would never forget that almost all suicide attacks on innocent people were carried out by terrorists who posed as civilians.

The UNP has to avoid being shown off as not giving national security top priority in their mind-set. The result has so far failed to bring them victory. Diminutive British Leader Clement Atlee ousted war hero Winston Churchill in 1945 in what is acclaimed a masterful odyssey to capture power based on a manifesto that called for a greatly enlarged system of social services, a campaign model for any aspirant to high office.

UNP leadership failed to exude that kind of reaction except to complain about the incumbency the Government has. Instead of distancing from the anti-nationalist stance they are wallowing in it.

Executive presidency

For example, even the talk of abolishing the executive presidency seems to be unilaterally dictated, contrived rather than research-based, a broad sweep at the existing office holder's popularity and stature. Many had opposed JR's executive presidency previously but in a war situation with terror remnants still haunting the country, a strong executive presidency clearly self-evident so far, may be the only thing worth keeping in that jumble of constitutional paraphernalia with all its manape slicing and dicing spawned by the JR constitution.

Opposition's harried hostility to the executive presidency with no heir apparent so far from their own ranks to replace the current one could further exacerbate their national security impasse. Ironically, the Westminster parliamentary model with Gordon Brown as PM to show-case it, has not been exemplified by good governance even in UK either. UNP leaders invoking it may be too much for the average voter to swallow. Certainly, it is no vote catching wizardry. Coupled with their questionable-IDP settlement rant, the Opposition may be in for some rough weather at the polls.

What is at stake is much more than the depth of Ranil's patriotism but his ability to assess the political climate in a jiffy. Any come-back strategy needs to be earned by sustained and vigorous action, almost like a great war general in combat with the finger on the pulse of all aspects of the struggle from the simplest daily activities to the most complicated strategic planning including seemingly mundane but vital matters like appointing key electoral leaders.

Campaigning is often centred on developing gut instincts to enhance confidence in party followers and then achieve intended results almost at will by sharp impulses inherent in good leadership.

Some called it the ascending political morality running berserk like a ceaseless strand sustaining a leader. President Rajapaksa is often mentioned as a classic example of that quality.

Tiger remnants have the potential to put paid to the country's victory over terrorism if allowed to escape. No amount of hemming and hawing would cause a paradigm shift in the context of the danger present.