Friday Apr 26, 2024
Friday Apr 26, 2024
Friday, 24 April 2015 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
nalogy is appropriate enough. Both the sport we knew and loved (and about which we now have mixed feelings) and that ideal of good governance (which has had mixed results) used to be a “summer game”. High-minded, but light-hearted. Heavy on ethics, but light on hard knocks against the other team. In that sense, the incumbent administration’s ‘ton’ has been a chanceless knock because it has celebrated the ‘good’ and cast a blind eye over selected bits of ‘governance’. Oh yes, except that they almost lost the Central Bank Governor rather early in the innings; and, again, dropped him towards the end in a scandal worthy of corrupt high-stakes cricket.
Looking back
Well, beggars can’t be choosers when “the boys” are playing on a sticky wicket. Because really, when MS surprised MR at the January polls a tad over 100 days ago, no one was more surprised, probably – or more stressed at the prospective innings ahead – than a motley team of second XI seniors and an erstwhile former skipper (who retired hurt as far back as 2004, after a sterling innings at the time).
Today, a semi-solid 50:50 partnership later, MS and RW can look back – not in anger, nor apathy; but maybe more in amazement – at their short stint, a still-impressive knock together. And, when all has been said and done – and, more has been said than done; and, more has been seen to be said than done – we can all settle down to a smattering of polite applause from the pavilion (if not from parliament in the main, where the spoilers are sitting in these days). “Well played, sirs!” “That’s the spirit…” “But is it cricket?” – just about sums up the sentiments of the more discerning, more distinguished Members (if not those allegedly impeachment-considering MPs). 
It has been a strong – if not a spectacular – outing for the coalition- turned national-unity government. If it was in any wise an innings that lacked the flair of the flamboyant efforts of previous occupants of the crease, this particular 100 n.o. has all the hallmarks of a nice enough knock essayed by a technically capable team… that is, regrettably, apart from a few questionable ‘imports’ and ‘substitutions’ of ‘surplus players’ towards the end of an otherwise little-marred innings.
Sometimes, one got the distinct impression they didn’t really care enough what the polity thought about them… and got on with the business of governance – sans the usual propaganda. With a sharp focus on fundamentals rather than style, and a clear determination to play a straight bat rather than strike dangerously all around the pitch – like flashy and dangerous players of the recent past – this side delivered some surprising (if not striking) results in the short time in which it hunkered down to play the game of good governance.
Consider these boundaries, if you will, o ye spectators:
Pragmatic
First of all, the side that was ‘in’ didn’t go hell-for-leather after the side that just got ‘out’. In fact, if there was anything over which the ‘in’ side could be accused of dragging their feet, it was the way in which they let the ball drop on many sitting ducks just begging for arraignment, indictment, and incarceration. No one took the many of the summons seriously, the cynical view being that these are showcase interrogations.
But in their defence, as many a stalwart has made their case for them, you can’t undo in 100 days what has taken 10 years (or 20?) to do. You can’t press charges when the policing and prosecuting authorities don’t play ball quite as professionally or as passionately as you’d want them to commit to playing. You can’t cleanse the Augean stables when the boys in your own backyard are in danger of crying “foul!” or “unfair!” or “that’s not cricket!” when the heat is turned up on them or those close to them… the sea-green incorruptible at the head of the real party in power has less than squeaky clean senior associates – to include them in the scope of CIABOC’s scrutiny would be less than pragmatic.
Second, the sheer scope and volume of changes to the playing field that the ‘in’-side made… and attempted to make… and made every ounce of convincing acrobatics in the outfield make it look like it had every intention of making. These all but beggared belief for a minority government which was clearly driving a reforms-based agenda, while subtly driving a wedge into the very heart of the opposing side’s already divided team.
Could it be simply the incumbent skipper’s debt of gratitude to the vice-captain that saw the ‘in’ side get so far as it did in terms of policy changes and proposed constitutional amendments? Could it be the culpability of a corrupt opposition that rubber-stamped 18A and its cupidity at that much-talked-about parliamentary pension that pre-empted stronger opposition? Could be it be that this administration achieved as much as it did because we are no longer a bipartisan polity, not despite it?
These achievements included some cheeky singles like the Right to Information Bill, and risky but well-taken ‘twos’ and ‘threes’ such as reduction of prices at the pump. Of course, there were some near run-outs, like the UNP proposal to raise a quantum of money “in the public interest” (so said the Finance Minister) through Treasury bills, but not beyond a certain threshold – which was soundly rejected by the House. (“That’s not cricket!” – the same cry the UNP would have raised, had it been in opposition.)
Third, a change to the very state and vital spirituality of the nation, as the three spheres below show:
Naïve
The tone of press-commentary that was not only tolerated, but also encouraged and endorsed, made most of the free media feel it could enjoy the freedom of even the proverbial wild ass – for a while, at least. This has been most refreshing – the gradual dawning of the realisation of just how great the pen can be under the swashbuckling bats of committed democrats. Of course, we wild asses might just be naïve – it could be that government is ignorant (“we don’t know”) and apathetic (“we don’t care”) of critical engagement.
Then there was the tenor of government’s engagement with the fifth estate – civil society – and also the civil manner in which it conducted itself in the public space. So appreciative were its citizens that hardly is it heard of late: that sad unsung lament: “Where have all the convoys gone?” High-speed presidential motorcades stopping at traffic lights to let pedestrians cross? Laissez-faire premiers and sundry mandarins dining al fresco sans a power-packed bodyguard? Few outriders for star players in the new side? Unheard of! (“Well played, sirs!” “That’s the spirit…”)
There was also the timbre of the National Unity Government’s dealings with its people at home (a velvet glove was felt, especially in the north) and abroad (an iron fist enveloped within was brandished, at particular neighbours, at the same time as a cordial hand-shake). Neither tyrants at home and democrats abroad, nor tyrants at home and abroad; but a bit of democrat tinged with patriot at ‘home’ and ‘away’ (to keep the cricketing terminology going). And the demilitarisation of public spaces like parks, for example, coupled with the return of tranches of land to their rightful owners in former conflict zones, set the stage for first steps towards at least a return to civilian normalcy, if not national reconciliation in the medium term.
Strategic
Last but by no means least, there were the big guns being brought to bear on the big ’uns. This column predicted (although any armchair essayist could have second-guessed this strategic move) that the most senior members of the former regime would be investigated and interrogated: at just the right time.
Some uncharitable theorists have it that this was a deliberate full toss, designed to have the ball of public attention knocked out of the stadium at a time when the government was feeling the heat from the Great 19A Non-Debate. This is the subversive view… that even this – the most promising (pun intended) of incumbent administrations – was not above the machinations of realpolitik.
Subversive
Oh yes, and then there was that long and loud LBW appeal against the ill-fated Governor which was met with another fait accompli (again, going with the uncharitable subversive view). This was followed in short order by a snick to the keeper off a no-ball (the fait accompli being throwing the accused to the wolves – or appearing to do so, only to exonerate him).
But predictably the old guard staunchly denies that it is a red herring to demonstrate the government’s bona fides on good governance. So much so that defenders of the National Unity Government’s strike rate hallooed and hallelujah-chorused that if the man himself (AM) walked off the field – and his captain himself (RW) referred him to the third umpire (or a three-man match referee) – then the 100 must be a matchless knock, indeed.
Well, bankers can’t be juicers and suckers at the same time. (“That’s not cricket.”) And, besides, one swallow doesn’t make a summer. Nor does one big fish netted make angling for gravitas like this a summer game. There are other Central Bank Governors to catch and fry before this one is. That’s the least of the sharks that seem to have gotten away… and are swimming free… or seem to be doing so – for now. Some ton! But something’s got to give?
Endgame
Hundred days are up. Compared to previous innings, a ton for the record-books – if not an entirely chanceless knock! But the real slog starts now. Must 19A go through for the sake of the 17A it seeks to resurrect? Will MS dissolve the House, to save party and presidency from sea-change into something rich and strange? Does ‘national unity’ work as a model of government in an intrinsically multi-partisan polity with no war or other dire threat to unite it? Can MR return in a Mayday coup de main? It’s realpolitik, not cricket.
