Political Alzheimer’s moral turpitude
by Shyamon Jayasinghe
The news website of February 27 this year reported a speech made by
former President Mahinda Rajapaksa where he stated that, “Not only
politicians but their wives and children have to be safeguarded from the
government now, as they are being harassed one by one.”
Rajapaksa was referring to the recent arrest of former Minister Wimal
Weerawansa’s wife, Shashi Weerawansa, on charges of falsifying documents
to obtain a Diplomatic Passport. He was speaking at the Colombo National
Hospital after having visited Mrs. Weerawansa who was warded in the
hospital.
Rajapaksa condemned this act as being “hateful politics,” or the
politics of revenge. “I believe it’s wrong to do such things to extract
revenge from politicians,” Rajapaksa added. Capping it all the former
President reportedly said, "I didn’t do that. No one can point the
finger at me. This is why I can point the finger at others.”
Peak
Mahinda Rajapaksa has got Alzheimer’s. Most pollies do, but this
statement by MR represents the peak of political Alzheimer’s disease.
The disorder known as Alzheimer’s disease is defined as a progressive
degeneration of brain cells that causes memory loss, thinking skills,
emotions, behaviour and mood. In the political version of the disease
there is no physical damage to brain cells.
The memory loss and the stultification of emotions is virtually
unconsciously generated to overcome guilt for heinous misdeeds. The
misdeeds can include lying, cheating, bribery, theft of public property
or of the spouses of others. Most politicians live on promises they know
they cannot fulfill. They lie.
Members of Parliament are entrusted with power over us and many do
abuse that power or utilize that power to gain advantages for themselves
or their families or parties. They lie to conceal the abuse and thereby
pretend innocence. In all instances they conveniently forget the
specific offence and the lie and get along without batting an eyelid.
Quite cool, they are.
Even exercising great caution to be fair I don’t think Sri Lanka has
seen any leader who has taken revenge on his competitors and opponents
as Percival Mahinda Rajapaksa had done during his ten years of rule. I
say “rule,” and not stewardship deliberately as Mahinda exercised the
considerable power he received from the Constitution and added still
more powers just in order to rule like a monarch.
He thought he was entitled to ownership of the country and his whole
style of management was based on such an implicit assumption. By
extension, other key men and women of the executive shared the sense of
entitlement.
Two examples
Take the start of his rule after the war had been won. Soon after the
war, President Mahinda Rajapaksa praised General Sarath Fonseka as ‘The
greatest army commander in the world', thereby acknowledging the
decisive role that the General had played in winning the 27-year-old
war. General Fonseka decided to contest Rajapaksa at the following
Presidential elections. Rajapaksa won. It is particularly easy for a
victor to show generosity toward an opposing competitor.
Evidently, Rajapaksa had no reserve of generosity in his breast. He
got Fonseka jailed on a framed up charge. The normal procedure is to
have the civil courts hear the charges because such a court has a high
standard of rigour with regard to evidence and the accused gets a fair
chance. But Rajapaksa wasn’t interested in that.
He placed the case before a Military Court. Fonseka complained that
some of the members of that Court were his former subordinates in the
army whom he had punished. That preliminary objection was overruled and
the Military Court proceeded to convict Fonseka.
Rajapaksa did not stop at that. He took away Fonseka’s hard-won
medals of honour and even his civic rights. The records at military
headquarters where Sarath Fonseka was army commander were deleted,
leaving a ludicrous situation where the war had been won without an army
commander.
While SF was in this state of incarceration, Rajapaksa went after his
son-in-law over some trifling issue. The son-in-law now states that he
was pressurised to give some damning ‘evidence’ against his
father-in-law. The young man, Danushka, fled underground as the only
option.
The third case was that of Dr. Shirani Bandaranaike, our 43rd Chief
Justice. CJ had turned down the Rajapaksa sibling- Minister Basil’s Bill
on the Divineguma. Down came the sword of the High King on CJ and she
was impeached violating due procedure.
The Rajapaksa government did not stop at that point. It went further
by framing a controversial case for bribery against Shirani. Here was a
helpless woman being seemingly harassed.
Fourthly, multiple cases are reflected in former President Mahinda
Rajapaksa’ 'files' story. During the elections Rajapaksa brazenly
claimed that he had the files of those who jumped or would jump and
suggested that he can do damage to them.
This claim implied that Rajapaksa had the practice of keeping files
of corrupt and wrong-doing Ministers/MPs and that he would use them
(revenge) against anyone trying to leave him.
Duminda drama
The most dramatic case of political Alzheimer’s, however, comes not
from the former President himself but from one of his key government
members, namely Duminda Silva, Member of Parliament. Duminda, whose name
has been associated with drug trafficking allegations, was accused of
murdering Bharatha Lakshman Premachandra, Kolonnawa SLFP leader.
In the shoot-out that took place, Duminda also suffered gun injuries
and was hospitalised. He later transported himself to Singapore for
treatment on the claims of brain damage and memory loss. When he
returned, he was questioned in court and his response was that he cannot
remember anything. Discharged from court the man laughed his way to meet
the President at Temple Trees. He has now ‘recovered’ fully and was
politically rehabilitated by President Rajapaksa and put in charge as
the Supervising MP for Defence.
Amorality
Something especially dangerous about those afflicted with political
Alzheimer’s disease is that the affliction seems to be rooted in an
individual psyche that is essentially amoral. Politicians who 'forget'
their wrong deeds do not entertain a counter guilt about having done
something unethical. The emotions don’t touch their nerve. Ethical
considerations don’t prick such persons for the simple reason that they
are amoral or are insensitive to moral considerations. Moral issues do
not occur to them at the point of the offence and associated emotions do
not spring in their hearts. Such persons are called amoral persons.
Being emotionally hardened, they are a sure danger to society.
Serious killers and rapists are known to be low on emotions or have
the capacity to switch off emotions. “Psychopaths lack empathy and
possibly even the most basic understanding of human feelings,” said Paul
Bablak and Robert D. Hare in a study paper entitled, 'Snakes in Suites:
When Psychopaths go to Work'.
In similar vein, well-known pioneering writer on emotional
intelligence, Daniel Goleman, states that “the heart of the psychopath’s
coldness seems to lie in an inability to make anything more than the
shallowest of emotional connections.”
Particularly in view of the previous consideration the question
arises as to whether personalities predisposed to grave political
Alzheimer’s are suitable to hold responsible leadership positions in a
country. A leadership position in a country is essentially a position of
public trust. Public trust entails qualities that include integrity,
fairness, accountability and responsibility.
Shyamon Jayasinghe, now domiciled in Australia, read Philosophy at
the University of Peradeniya and has an MBA from Melbourne University.
He worked in the Ceylon Administrative Service and headed many
government departments before retiring in 1994 as Secretary, Ministry of
Labour and Vocational Training.
He specialised in Management and authored the first published book in
Sinhala on Management. He is best known for his widely acclaimed
performance as first Pothegurunanse in Sarachchandra’s landmark play, 'Maname'. |