Sri Lanka held its presidential election yesterday, and only 0.014% of Tamils in Jaffna, the capital of northern Sri Lanka, voted, according to the BBC. This figure was typical of Tamil turnout in most other places in the north and east, which are dominated by Tamils. This is compared to 19% of voters who turned out in the 1999 elections, which, while appalling, seems to be a gold mine compared to the turn out this year.
Tamils are disillusioned by both current Prime Minister Mahinde Rajapakshe, and former Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe, who was replaced by his rival. But there is some slight support for Ranil from Tamils, who seemed keen to work out a peace agreement between the government and the Tamil Tigers when he was Prime Minister. Apparently, though, this little support is not enough for them to come out and vote for him, which means that it is now likely that Rajapakshe, with the support of Singhalese nationalists and Buddhist monks - who are vehemently against the Government coming to any agreement with the Tigers - will probably win.
Why do these people do this? There was a similar situation in Iraq when Sunnis boycotted the elections, and then realised their mistake when they had such little voice in the creation of the Constitution. People need to realise that boycotting elections is not the way to make their voices heard. In fact, it accomplishes the opposite - it takes away what small voice they have and leaves them without even the little power they had before.
If Rajapakshe comes into power, the fact that he has the blessings of Sinhala nationalists speaks volumes about the kind of president he will be. With Wickramasinghe, even if he doesn't accomplish much, at least he won't be in the pockets of the monks and nationalists as much as Rajapakshe.
In this case, it is a matter of choosing the lesser of the two evils. But, by boycotting the election, the Tamil people have relinquished the power to put into power the person who will do the most for them - or at least, the person who will do them the least harm. They have sealed their fate, and by their inaction, will probably put into power the greater of the two evils.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Nixon, interesting point you have raised. Let me give a more 'political' perspective
Running in elections provides risks and opportunities.You get to voice your opinion through a legal channel while you are campaigning.
At the same time you could be perceived as opportunistic by joining a venture others oppose.
You can also be called hypocritical if criticizing the regime while campaigning (which you HAVE to do, it's a part of campaigning!).
Formally absitaining however challenges the main regime, it denies the more 'authoritarian' incumbents whatever legitimacy they might claim from running.
Boycotts are most effective when linked to specific demands for reform. Parties may have different long and short term goals. For larger groups, having representation may be more important than bring about reform.
Smaller groups have less to lose from boycotting. Larger groups are scared someone may break the pact last minute.
Now let's talk about Sri Lanka: Hardliner Rajapakse of SLFP won. Wikramasinghe lost because hardly any Tamils voted in certain areas. The said They had NO INTEREST in the election or its outcome. They felt alienated ANYWAY. SO looking at the above theories, you can see how it applies to Iraq but not to Sri Lanka. In Iraq they wanted change - in Sri Lanka, the Tamils don't CARE. They have resorted to less conventional ways of preserving their political power and identity.
This is not a good sign - when people resort to unconventional,often illegitimate ways of retaining power, shadow economies strengthen and crime, smuggling, arms trade goes up.
Not to be pessimistic, but if there is no willingness to make peace, no peace agreement can last.
I"m just curious..why did the Tamil Tigers lose faith in any potential for peace?
Nayma, I agree that the Tamils boycotted the elections because they don't care. But, bad as things are now, their inaction is just going to make things worse. They might be trying to send a message that they don't care by not voting, but in the long run, they are just setting themselves up for failure, by putting into power someone who will take a harder line on the peace process, and who will give little consideration to Tamils' needs.
The Tamils have lost interest primarily because neither the United National Party (Wickramasinghe's party) nor the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (Rajapakshe's party) has done much by way of coming to any agreement on the peace process. I guess they feel like no matter who's in power, their first priority will be to advance their own agenda, and not to bring about peace. Which might be true, but now they've put someone in power who would actively support Sinhala nationalists and their demands, rather than someone who at least claims to be more neutral, and with whom they would have had more chance of coming closer to achieving their goals.
Post a Comment