General Fonseka after being holed up in a hotel and surrounded by the military is back at home. His office has been searched, his security detail considerably depleted, a number arrested and the military hierarchy for good measure shaken up and considerably stirred.

He is accused of masterminding a coup and of divulging national security secrets but he has not been charged or arrested on either count. He believes that his life is under threat; the opposition, his supporters and others believe that the election was rigged at the count.

The latter fall into two categories - those who believe that the general won and those who believe that whilst the incumbent may have won his majority was grossly inflated by electoral malpractice. Neither category has yet to produce sufficient hard evidence to substantiate their claim. Some evidence has been reported and there is the promise of more to be produced in the courts and presented to the country at large.

Local monitors were not allowed to observe the count and never have been at previous elections. Some have evidence of the assault and chasing away of counting agents in certain areas and some have faced difficulty in acquiring further evidence on account of a current context of fear. Therefore whilst they acknowledge public doubts, without the sufficient hard evidence they cannot with responsibility dispute the official result on the grounds of widespread malpractice in the count.

The Election Commissioner has rejected charges of malpractice in the count and stands by the official result. He points out that those who contest the result can exercise the option of going to court.

In the meantime a newspaper was sealed, one journalist disappeared and a number of websites blocked. There is jubilation is some quarters – perhaps the majority - shock, dismay and anger in others. Faith and confidence in the integrity of the electoral process if not eroded has been badly dented.

In politics it is perceptions that matter and a significant percentage if not all of the 40 per cent of the electorate that voted for Sarath Fonseka believe that the count was rigged.

In summary this is the political profile of Sri Lanka in the aftermath of its first postwar national election. Disputation of the result of the presidential election notwithstanding, a general election awaits. As to whether the mandate recorded for the president will also be recorded for his party at a general election or as to whether the opposition will fare better, even much better, remains to be seen.

There is the possibility that turn out could be low – a silent protest by those who continue to wonder as to what happened to their vote. This is the real concern that arises from the presidential election – its impact on the faith and confidence of the people in the integrity of the electoral process, the basic process for choice and change in a functioning democracy.

This election, any election should not just be a victory of a single person or party. Above all else it should be an affirmation of the health and strength of democracy as exemplified by the functioning of its institutions and processes.

What happened in the immediate aftermath of the close of polls and the announcement of results has been highlighted above. Action taken ostensibly to stave off a coup and authoritarian government in defiance of the will of the people, turned out to be more offensive than defensive.

It allowed as much for the regime to be seen as vindictive and paranoid with an optimum voter base of over 6 million, as it did the general to be seen as humiliated and pathetic after having just received at least 4 million votes, if you number amongst those who believe the count was rigged.

We have never quite seen a sequence of post- election events like this one. Or an election in this country in which the electoral process was subjected to such stress and strain outside the context of armed conflict. Encapsulating the trauma was the Election Commissioner, way past the age of retirement and in the singular, unenviable position of not being able to do so, given the non-implementation of the Seventeenth Amendment and a Supreme Court order preventing him from doing so.

In his statement announcing the official results, a much harassed Commissioner, listed his woes – from the fiasco of the Competent Authority to the disregard of his authority by public officials to abuse from the general public. Referring to a statement by a key regime media official, that the Commissioner’s job was only to protect ballot boxes and count votes, the Commissioner lamented or perhaps warned that: Under the current situation it may be difficult to even protect the ballot boxes.

That remark in general or in the particular context intended by Mr Dissanayake, is deeply disturbing. As a Polaroid snapshot of our governance it illustrates breakdown and disfunction – a point made in this column when the Commissioner first felt it necessary to publicly vent his frustration and despair in the course of the presidential election campaign.

The regime has to rein in its attack dogs and seriously address the crisis of governance as an urgent priority in the restoration of trust and confidence in the electoral process, given the imminent general election. The hoorays and hosannas of victory must not drown out the undeniable concerns about the integrity of the electoral process.

Mahinda Rajapaksa on being declared the winner of this election proclaimed that he is the president of all of the people of the country, irrespective of whether they voted for him or not. Quite, so. However, what does he mean?

Whilst the courts sift through the evidence and the opposition keeps alive doubt, even consolidates belief to the extent that it can, will the president be moved to use his considerable power and authority to ensure a clean general election?

Is it not time to implement the Seventeenth Amendment in the interests of national unity, reconciliation, democratic governance and yes, national security the value that this regime believes trumps all others?

It would be very foolish, dangerously so, to disregard what this election and its aftermath have highlighted. To do so would compound the challenge of democratic governance as the framework for a post-conflict Sri Lanka and further divide its peoples along the lines of regret and revenge.