groundviews is a Sri Lankan citizen journalism initiativeregister here.login.find out more
inicio mail me! sindicaci;ón

SAM THE INIMITABLE

Rajavarothayam Sampanthan M.P. (TNA/ITAK, Trincomalee District) gave Sri Lankans a wistful and even poignant glimpse of the ghost of parliamentary democracy a fortnight ago, when he delivered an incisive exposition of the arguments for the merger of the Northern and Eastern Provinces in the debate on the de-merger in Parliament. The speech was a three-fold argument that contains a masterful restatement of the historical dimensions of the merger. It also critiqued the reasoning of the Supreme Court’s decision, the gravamen of which was a mooted procedural flaw in the original merger, as well as the domestic and international political considerations applicable to the issue. The latter included the undertakings of the State under an international agreement, the Indo-Lanka Accord of 1987, the consequence of which was the Thirteenth Amendment, a pivotal re-arrangement of Sri Lanka’s constitutional architecture. The result of Mr. Sampanthan’s dispassionate yet pungent speech is that the State emerges as both pusillanimous and menacing at the same time. This is a bizarre feat, but it captures the State in a relentless spotlight, exposing its moral cowardice in the unwillingness to address its own political infeasibility while resorting to ham-fisted coercion to impose its unwelcome will.

The speech also tells us at least two other things. Firstly, it is a stark reminder of the utter redundancy of Parliament. Mr. Sampanthan’s luminous oratory exemplified in both the mastery of his brief as well as parliamentary procedure and idiom, reminds us of the lamentable inferiority of the vast majority of his colleagues, whose contribution to the devaluation of Parliament is legion. It does not do to indulge in unseemly nostalgia about an illusory glorious past of parliamentary democracy in Sri Lanka. Never has any legislature ever lived up to the theoretical ideal, in Mill’s terms, as ‘the Nation’s Committee of Grievances and its Congress of Opinions.’ But it is undeniable that the woeful decline of the average legislator from the 1930s gentleman-amateur to the corrupt careerist of the present has been central to the deterioration of democracy and politics in Sri Lanka. The introduction of the executive presidency by the Constitution of 1978 is only a partial explanation of the undermining of democracy: witness the criminal dereliction of duty on the part of the principal parliamentary opposition to attempt even a pretension of holding the government to account through Parliament.
Second, it tells us something of Mr. Sampanthan himself, and the dying breed of politician he represents. It is reminiscent of the time that brilliant lawyers dominated the legislative process, enriching it with the type of forensic skill that Sampanthan employs in this instance to leave the Supreme Court decision in tatters. The speech contains the occasional rhetorical flourish, including such gems of the Sampanthan oeuvre as the customary paean to the inherent decency of the Sinhala peasant that he knows so well. Caustic critique is leavened by a sagacity that embodies decency, fair play, dignity and justice. There is none of the crass contumely and plain vulgarity that alas characterises parliamentary debate today. In this he represents the last of the third generation of great Tamil parliamentarians and orators of the Grecian mould which began with the Ponnambalam brothers and the Saravanamuttus, through G. G. Ponnambalam (Snr.), Chelvanayakam, Nadesan and Dharmalingam. In the predicament that the country now finds itself, it behoves us well to remember that this is a proud Sri Lankan tradition, not merely a Tamil one.
Sampathan’s last outing was a virtuoso performance, combining the pizzicato of fine legal criticism with thundering moral chords of Gladstonian grandeur, and for the sake of parliamentary politics in Sri Lanka, we hope there will be many encores.


534 have read this this article so far. You may also find these articles interesting:
  • The MPs Pay Hike Case – An Opinion from Australia This article is based on the recent case on the Pay Hike for MPs. The Supreme Court was divided in rejecting the application made by Weliamuna. The S.C did not give reasons as they should. This response is based on an article which was published in the Island newspaper as a letter from me on... raja, May 13, 2007
  • TNA MP Mr. R. Sampanthan remembers the events of July 1983 Tamil National Alliance MP Mr. R. Sampanthan speaks of the anti-Tamil riots of July 1983. Speaking of the “terrible experience for all Tamil people in Sri Lanka” he says that the riot was “premeditated pogrom… largely believed to be with the support of very influential forces within the then government”. He notes that there were Sinhalese... groundviews, July 23, 2008

| Share this article on Facebook

foobar said,

January 24, 2007 @ 12:27 pm

I hope some of those encores will address that which Mr. Sampanthan is resistant to - the continuing intransigence of the LTTE to come into a peace process, resulting, in part, the current war for peace bent of the incumbents in power in the South.

That the TNA articulates not just a Tamil nationalist, but the LTTE’s definition of Tamil nationalism is well known. This makes it all the more regrettable that the erudition, personal charm, and wit of the likes of “Sam” and even Gajen Ponnanbalam don’t hold the LTTE accountable for their actions in the same vein as they do the SL State.

When the author says Mr. Sampanthan captured “the State in a relentless spotlight, exposing its moral cowardice in the unwillingness to address its own political infeasibility while resorting to ham-fisted coercion to impose its unwelcome will.” he neglects to perhaps ask why the LTTE is also not judged accordingly, by these very same measures?

Che said,

January 24, 2007 @ 2:08 pm

The point is not about the TNA having to display even-handedness in condemning the LTTE - they operate on a long-term strategy which must involve the LTTE because it is only the latter that has (or is it had?) the capacity to take a military struggle to the Sri Lankan State.

Personalities and parties that now comprise the TNA were pushed, nay shoved, into this course, not as first resort or as willingly as Southern nationalists would have it. They were impelled into this with tremendous personal and political sacrifice, when the peaceful politics of the old Tamil parties were met with total rejection by the State.

The LTTE is not absolved from any measure or standard of decent conduct that the State is subject to. But where do you have a Southern parliamentarian who is willing or able to make that case in Parliament, without resorting to crude nationalism or militaristic grandstanding?

The writer’s argument, as I see it, is about the role of Parliament and parliamentarians in a constitutional democracy - not about letting the LTTE off the hook for any of their eggregious human rights violations, past, present and continuing; nor the LTTE’s thoroughly reprehensible attitude to political pluralism.

foobar said,

January 24, 2007 @ 8:08 pm

Che,

Point taken - I think that (most regrettably) the next best speeches in parliament are possibly made by the JVP, although as you say, the timbre of their loquacity leaves much to be desired in the form of content that celebrates a larger Sri Lankan nationalism.

Seen another way, is it possible to think worse of the TNA for the very fact that they are above the fray? In choosing a seemingly more dignified erudite approach, they are even more isolated in word and action when compared to what the LTTE is doing on the ground in the North & East. This is surely an indictment against all parliamentarians - the implosion of this country is because there is no real accountability in parliament to actions conducted by the Executive with his limited imagination. However, does this absolve those who are committed Tamil nationalists in parliament from envisioning Tamil rights and Tamil dignity sans the LTTE? I think Blacker asked a similar question here - http://www.groundviews.org/2007/01/17/do-tigers-swim-in-the-sea/.

Put I think the writer would agree with me on this point - I just go a step further and say that glib gloss on the Hansard is no guard against the regression of peace in Sri Lanka today. Coupled with the inability and / or unwillingness of the TNA in parliament to envision securing Tamil rights without the LTTE (much as they are recognised, celebrated even, as the one force that brought the argument on Tamils to a head) and the equal inability / unwillingness and continuing reprehensible behaviour of the misguided Sinhala nationalists in parliament, parliament today is an echo chamber that sits in isolation of the larger events as they unfold with a life of their own in Sri Lanka.

Besides, the Sinhala MP’s in parliament may be less erudite, but tragically, isn’t their very crude, crass and thoroughly distasteful intercourse in parliament more a source of cheap entertainment?

Che said,

January 24, 2007 @ 8:43 pm

Naturally, I agree with you and Publius about the state of Parliament today.

Appropos your question whether those who are committed Tamil nationalists in parliament are absolved from envisioning Tamil rights and Tamil dignity sans the LTTE, my own experience is that one has only to read between the lines of the rhetoric to answer that with a resounding ‘yes’.

As for your final observation, I am tempted to say “Vive le Mervyn!”, but that would be to more than dignify addle-pated nincompoopery - it would be in thoroughly bad taste given his extra-parliamentary antics, for example, in the small matter of freedom of expression and the media. Ditto JVP and its breathtaking hypocrisy in having the gall to pontificate to anyone on parliamentary politics. But perhaps most odious, as Publius indicates, is the example of those in the mainstream Opposition - some of whom have the academic credentials, experience and intelligence to qualify for membership in the best Parliaments in world, but for unforgivable moral failure, executive fetishism and lack of integrity. This, you will agree, is most unfortunate.

groundviews said,

January 24, 2007 @ 8:53 pm

Che - well said and agree. The likes of Keheliya are already in denial about http://tinyurl.com/3dcxso and I don’t think we can expect much from the Opposition, given their parochial interest in hop-scotch politics, to bring this up in Parliament.

Surely you make a fundamental mistake though - when did academic credentials, experience and intelligence become a measure for sense and sensibility? Surely some of most misguided politicians and policymakers have been the most educated as well?

Che said,

January 24, 2007 @ 9:17 pm

Empirically, on the evidence of DS, Bandaranaike, the Old Left etc, you have a point. Perhaps even theoretically, you have a point in the sense that formally inducted knowledge is no guarantee of moral integrity or normative judgement on values or civic virtue. More specifically, there is no umbilical link between ‘liberal values’ broadly defined, and education, intelligence etc.

Thus your question is the riposte unanswerable by liberals - values are at the end of day, the ultimate relative concept, and the liberal is defeated by his very defence of freedom of choice.

This is a profound question meriting great attention, and perhaps we may have the opportunity of doing so sometime in more congenial circumstances and climes.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment

This is a moderated forum. Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy.

Please read our full submission guidelines before you comment.

Comments that do not adhere to these guidelines will be edited or deleted and those who repeatedly abuse this forum will be banned. Thanks in advance for your civil and constructive engagement.

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free