One popular question regarding the upcoming presidential election is whether a third candidate should be fielded, apart from the two candidates nominated by the two main stream parties. This discussion did not commence recently. A certain group of people came up with this idea during the very first weeks, after the appointment of the Good Governance regime in 2015. I thought to discuss this “alternative candidate” because there are many important issues raised by various sectors of society. It should be noted that this was a trick which was experimented with in previous presidential elections in Sri Lanka. The first election to elect an executive president was held in 1982. In that election, Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna’s (JVP) Leader Rohana Wijeweera and Lanka Sama Samaja Peramuna (LSSP) Dr. Colvin R. de Silva contested the presidential election opposite the two main candidates – J.R. Jayewardene of the United National Party (UNP) and Hector Kobbekaduwa of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP). However, it is important to note that during that presidential election, no one contested with the hidden agenda of supporting the defeat of one of the main candidates. But Ossie Abeygunasekera, who came forward claiming that his candidacy was fielded against both main presidential candidates in the second presidential election in 1988, both indirectly and directly supported the victory of UNP candidate Ranasinghe Premadasa. It is correct to acknowledge that the 200,000 votes cast on behalf of Abeygunasekera was a major factor in Premadasa’s victory at that presidential election, which was held in the wake of terror generated by the JVP movement. It is my observation in almost every election since the 1994 presidential election that, apart from the two main candidates, no other candidates have caused a real impact towards the outcome of the election by coming forward to contest. It is therefore very clear that this so-called third candidate scenario was merely a ploy used by the two main parties to set up more campaign offices and increase the number of polling booth agents. As I said in the beginning, the discussion about this third “alternative” candidate began end-January 2015. The Government that achieved power promising good governance fantasies shattered the hopes of many who campaigned for their victory within the first few months, especially with the Central Bank Bond Scam. The discussion on an “alternative” non-aligned candidate came into the scenario as a result of this. The discussion got stimulated from certain international elements such as the French presidential election, where the alternative candidate emerged victorious, defeating both major parties. Accordingly, a number of characters who were critical of the two mainstream candidates and the forces behind them emerged in the country during the last three to four years. Among them, Dr. Rohan Pallewatta, Nagananda Kodituwakku, Dr. Ajith Kolonne, and Dr. Vinya Ariyaratne were at the forefront. The “alterative” NPM candidate Their views were initially presented as their personal thinking. However, they then came under a common umbrella as a political movement with the branding “National People’s Movement” (NPM). Their basic argument is that the candidates nominated by both mainstream parties are more or less flawed. Some of the allegations levelled against the mainstream candidates are as follows: They come from a military background which does not recognise democracy as a main priority, do not possess expert knowledge in economic development like those in their movement, and lack private sector administrative experience unlike the members of the NPM. Another accusation they made against mainstream politics is that their candidates change depending on the requests from the gallery. In contrast, candidates fielded by the NPM are intellectuals who enter politics with consistence. The group, which came up with the idea of the third candidate, has been appearing in the media for the past few months and had repeatedly stated that their candidate is a person who is devoid of all such disqualifications. It was especially pointed out that they will field as their candidate someone with expert knowledge in economic management. They boasted that their potential candidate will be a true symbol of democracy fostered by nonviolence, and who will not have any militarism link or militaristic ideology. In light of all these facts, the past few days have revealed that it is not a patriot of democracy but a former army officer who is going to be fielded as the third candidate. The information circulating regarding the candidate hints that he too is a person only with a conventional military background, in contrast to the suggestions made by people like Dr. Pallewatta, who for many months have been stating that their candidate will have experience in entrepreneurship or management. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong in thinking that Gotabaya Rajapaksa being nominated as the SLPP candidate is the root cause for the creation of this huge contradiction between their talks and deeds, just like the contradiction between the US and Ethiopia. It is perhaps this context which pressurised them to put aside the lessons of democracy and economic management in order to suppress, to some extent, the emerging Sinhala-Buddhist forces against the UNP candidate. Some diplomatic strategies that are directly related to the politics of our country indicate that the possibility of the majority Sinhalese population voting for one particular candidate is huge in this presidential election. Within such a context, there is a possibility of the country being led towards a total rejection of the rhetorical politics of January 2015. In my opinion, it is such international information sources which have pushed this movement to go for a military choice, leaving out their arguments on intellectualism and experience. It is my opinion that some of these third forces, which have been diversified as national people’s movements, have the power and expertise to push them into a militarised candidacy. If the candidate of the third force is still a crutch for the first or the second force, expert knowledge is not necessary to understand that there is no alternative basis in it. It is important to recall that the tactic of the 1989 presidential election was a similar type of alternative candidate. I think it would help to clarify this fact when we recall that the third candidate of the 1989 presidential election, Ossie Abeygunasekera, ended his political carrier as a UNP Colombo District MP. Hence, it is important to understand the real motive behind fielding a third candidate as a so-called “alternative” candidate. (The writer is a senior lecturer at the Department of Philosophy at the University of Peradeniya)