Reassessing the President

By Dr. Laksiri Fernando

Asiantribune.com: President Mahinda Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka celebrated his 66th birthday yesterday, 18 November 2011. He was born in 1945.

The generation from 1945 to 1964 internationally is called the ‘vibrant generation’ whereas the previous generation from 1925 to 1944 was called the ‘silent generation’. A generation is generally identified with a period of 20 years.

The silent generation was born more or less during the Great Depression and World War II and was passive and not so effective in nature with some exceptions. They hardly excelled in politics, leaving a gap between the previous and the latter generation.

The ‘vibrant generation’ was not like that. They were born in a period of change, optimism and relative prosperity after the war and by and large lead the world today in various capacities. They were also called the ‘baby boomers,’ as they were born and survived during a demographic explosion.

Among key political figures, past and present, born in 1945 apart from President Rajapaksa are Aung San Suu Kyi (Burma), Daniel Ortega (Nicaragua), Lula da Silva (Brazil) and former Sri Lankan President Chandrika Kumaratunga. They belonged to the first layer of the ‘vibrant generation’. Two of the last siblings of this generation are Barack Obama (USA) and Julia Gillard (Australia) both born in 1961.

There is no mystic value or secret in generational analysis of politics except that when you are born in a particular period you have the advantage or disadvantage of assimilating the main trends and vicissitudes of that period. Mahinda Rajapaksa had this advantage like the others, or more than some of the others.

He was born after four months of the end of World War II. Before he reached three years, Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) achieved independence through peaceful means without rancour or violence. His uncle, D.M. Rajapaksa, was an Independence Leader and a State Councillor. His father, D. A. Rajapaksa, took the same path quite soon. He came from a political family and that family, right or wrong, continues to be a political family.

Mahinda Rajapaksa was brought up in a period of peaceful Sri Lanka. Until the first youth or the JVP Insurrection in 1971 or late 1960s, Sri Lanka was exceptionally a peaceful country. This is something that latter generations are not aware of or do not have much appreciation being brought up in periods of violence, instability and chaos.

It is not by accident that President Rajapaksa managed to bring peace again to the country in May 2009 and it would be his objective during the second term of the presidency to maintain this peace and tranquillity hopefully of course with social justice to all communities, people and individuals.

Early politics

Mahinda Rajapaksa was one of those who entered active national politics very early at the age of 22 when he was appointed as the SLFP organiser of the Beliatta electorate after his father’s early demise in 1967. Even before, he was reported to be active in the student movement and youth activities of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP).

He entered Parliament from that electorate at the general election of 1970 and was the youngest MP who earned the favour of the then Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike and many other seniors in the party and the government.

He was a lawyer by profession and continued his practice in Tangalle increasingly becoming closer and closer to the day to day issues of the people. He was working at the Vidyodaya University before and in fact influenced many of the student activists to enter parliamentary politics later. He was affectionately addressed as ‘Aiya’ – elder brother.

He lost his parliamentary seat in 1977 when the ‘right-wing’ United National Party (UNP) gained a sweeping victory and that was the period that transformed this ‘enthusiastic novice’ in politics into a ‘mature politician’ tempered in agitation, activism and political ‘struggles.’

It was a long period of repression (1977-1994), conflict and human rights violations. His views became moulded into well-formed ‘centre-left ideology’ with solidarity for national liberation movements overseas. But he was never a radical leftist. His views and dispositions were milder and moderate than late Vijaya Kumaratunga or even Chandrika Kumaratunga.

It was on the merit of his populist activism that he managed to enter Parliament again in 1989 with many odds. By that time he was a well formed human rights activist who initiated several of democratic movements like Jana Gosha (People’s Shout) and Mother’s Front to improve the human rights conditions. I personally remember how he came to Geneva with Vasudeva Nanayakkara and fought for human rights but without going against the country or its image.

He was basically a patriot. Apart from his predisposition for socialist views, he had high regard for culture, religion, social cohesion, human responsibilities and family institution. In this sense he was basically a South Asian leader.

When there was a major change of government in 1994, for which he was largely responsible with Chandrika Kumaratunga, he was appointed the Minister of Labour and then Fisheries. This was a new phase of his political maturity acquiring the nitty-gritties of public administration. He was one of the results-oriented ministers of this era. He was thereafter appointed the Prime Minister, but he had more opportunity to serve the country as the Minister of Highways than the Prime Minister. There was apparent discrimination against him under the Kumaratunga administration.

Challenges as the President

He was fortunate to win the presidential election in November 2005 at the age of 60 years although with a slender majority of 190,000 votes or a majority of 0.3 per cent above the required mark. Otherwise, the fate of the country by now could have been entirely different.

The LTTE was a major challenge. But more challenging immediately was the minority government that he inherited from the previous Parliamentary election in 2004. The United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) had only 105 seats in Parliament – eight seats short of an absolute majority. This was not a good situation to face the LTTE or the other challenges. Even the government had a difficulty in having its own speaker in Parliament although it might not be essential in a healthy democracy.

The support of the (Tamil) Eelam People’s Democratic Party (EPDP) and its leader Douglas Devananda was crucially helpful at this initial stage. But eventually the numbers increased to 129 with continuous defections from the opposition, some genuine and some opportunistic. A major downside of the situation was what is described as the ‘Jumbo Cabinet.’ The defectors wanted cabinet portfolios even depriving the seniors and the faithfuls in the original UPFA or the SLFP.

A major political skill that Rajapaksa has developed throughout his political career has been the ability to win over political opponents. It was like following Arend Lijphart’s ‘grand coalition’ theory or ‘consociational’ democracy. We see this potential ability until today. The crucial question, however, is that how far this ability could be extended beyond the ethnic divide for power sharing.

The economy also was a major challenge. The economy contracted in 2001 with a negative growth of -1.4 per cent. It did not recover until 2005. Even after the opening of the economy in 1977, all the possibilities of growth and development were held back by the war and the conflict. Sri Lanka was virtually bankrupt in 2001. The debt rate rose to 101 per cent of the GDP and virtually there were no foreign reserves.

The other challenge was the harmful international influence on Sri Lanka amounting to political interference or intervention. International influence per se is not detrimental, if it is mutual, positive and constructive. But what was apparent in Sri Lanka was different. Therefore, Rajapaksa had to make a change in the foreign policy to rectify the situation. His first priority in foreign policy was India and South Asia and then Asia. China obviously looms large in Asia. Then came the West and rest of the world. This is very logical without any particular bias.

What must have appeared as ‘anti-Western’ in the foreign policy in the short term was not necessarily the case. It was a question of balancing relations between the East and the West, and be realistic. If there had been any slight deviation, those could have been rectified. President Mahinda Rajapaksa is a moderate leader. The Middle Path of Lord Buddha is a strong guiding principle in his life philosophy and politics.

Defeat of the LTTE

The main challenge of course was the LTTE. The victory over the LTTE was basically a moral victory. Without any offense to the previous leaders, it can be said that Rajapaksa was in a better position to expose and face the LTTE than others. He didn’t blink before the challenge. This was the first premise of the victory.

First he gave a chance to the LTTE to talk and negotiate. This was arrogantly refused and sabotaged. There were two attempts, one in Oslo and then in Geneva in early 2006.

Then in July 2006, the LTTE gave the best possible military opportunity to the Rajapaksa administration to go against them without hesitation. It was a humanitarian cause to release water to over 30,000 farmers of all communities. It was a major mistake by the LTTE to cut water to the farmers by closing the sluice gates. The defection of the former LTTE eastern leaders like Karuna and Pillayan in 2004-2006 also was a nail in the coffin.

After September 11, the world was not in a position to pamper people like Prabhakaran. Whatever the West and the UN say now, aftermath of the demise of the LTTE in Sri Lanka, they were the most happy and relieved people when the LTTE was defeated. It was with the tacit support of the West that the LTTE was defeated.  Of course India was different and was a faithful ally of Sri Lanka in defeating the LTTE. So was Pakistan. They don’t have a grumble even after, other than concerns for the ordinary Tamils and the Muslims. The close understanding built between President Rajapaksa and Indian leaders were crucial in defeating the LTTE. India could not forgive the LTTE for killing one of its charismatic leaders, Rajiv Gandhi.

The credit of the military defeat of course largely goes to the commanders of the armed forces, their soldiers and the Defence Secretary with the political leadership of President Rajapaksa. It was a strategic victory. The military strategy, tactics and weaponry of the LTTE had by this time become outdated. The morale of the LTTE cadres or soldiers was low due to internal ruthlessness of the organisation. The Sri Lankan military was completely different by this time with high morale and professional leadership.

Other achievements

Mahinda Rajapaksa has by and large developed the economy during the last six years. This is visible in physical terms whether you travel in the countryside or cities like Colombo. This is also evident in the north and the east of the country although slowly. The growth rate in these two provinces last year has exceeded 20 per cent, although on a low base of economic activity.

Sri Lanka achieved an overall growth rate of eight per cent in 2010, the highest within the last three decades. This figure is closer to double of the average annual growth rate of 4.9 per cent after the economy was opened up and liberalised in 1977. The industrial sector is now almost 30 per cent of the economy and its growth was higher than the overall growth rate in 2010. This is a significant development while agriculture and fisheries also performing better than the previous years. The apparel sector developed despite the withdrawal of the GSP+.

In 2010 Sri Lanka moved to a ‘middle-income economy’ by IMF standards under Rajapaksa leadership. The size of the economy roughly between 2005 and 2010 doubled, making Sri Lanka over a US$ 55 billion economy. This also meant the doubling of the per capita GDP of the people although significant gaps still remain between the urban and the rural. This is a challenge for the future.

Apart from defeating the LTTE, the Government has resettled over 270,000 displaced persons and the remaining number to be resettled is reported to be around 7,000. Compared to countries like Cambodia, Columbia, Afghanistan or some of the African countries with large IDP populations, this is a significant achievement within two years. The Government also has rehabilitated 11,664 former LTTE cadres some of whom were hiding among the IDPs at the last stages. Around 200 among them have taken up university studies and the Government has spent over Rs. 2.5 billion for their rehabilitation.

The resurrection of the main democratic structures is what he has accomplished in addition to establishing peace and stability. The rule of law of course needs to be further strengthened and human rights improved. Previously, Sri Lanka was a virtual anarchy. It is under those circumstances that deviations or violations of human rights mainly took place. There were so many perpetrators operating under the circumstances of instability, terrorism and violence.

All three layers of democratic institutions – the national, provincial and local – are now formed except the northern provincial council and three local government bodies in the Mullaitivu district. Elections to the Provincial Councils in 2008/2009, Parliamentary and Presidential elections in 2010 and three rounds of elections to local government bodies in 2011 are testimony to the resurrection of democracy although some of the internecine killings and violence that emerged during the last local government elections are clearly warning signs.

If not for the commitment of Mahinda Rajapaksa for civilian democracy, there was a possibility in 2010 at the presidential election, the country degenerating into at least a quasi-military rule. The electoral coup was on the pretext of saving the country from what termed as ‘Rajapaksa dynasty,’ unfortunately supported by the democratic opposition and parties, including the UNP.

Criticisms and charges

There are several criticisms and charges against the Rajapaksa administration internally and internationally. These have to be assessed objectively and dispassionately. Most of the criticisms and accusations are related to the last stages of the war and related processes. There are some against the nature of the administration.

President Rajapaksa was duty bound by the Sri Lankan Constitution to defeat the LTTE and rescue the innocent Tamil population who were taken as ‘human shields.’ When a President takes oath of allegiance to the Constitution, it means upholding the sovereignty, territorial integrity and the unified character of the state. He or she also should ensure peace and rule of law in the country to which he himself is bound, although with certain immunities. A President cannot allow a de facto state, let alone a terrorist one, within the State of Sri Lanka and it is against the basic tenets of the Constitution.

The President is the Head of State and Commander in Chief. He is not a soldier or even a commander. He is of course responsible if he has ordered or allowed any breach of law, national or international, but at two levels. President Rajapaksa called the military operation a ‘humanitarian operation’. This meant an operation which should be guided by the humanitarian law and broader humanitarian principles. This direction was very clear.  

No one could discount, however, the possibility of certain excesses in combat like that took place at the last stages of the war. Those however cannot be characterised as war crimes. Those will initially be reviewed by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) and then action could be taken thereafter on Attorney General’s instructions. In Sri Lanka, the judicial processes are in place and strong. The possibility of some violations is there as the soldiers were under immense pressure and provocation or some are naturally disposed to indiscipline and excesses.

In addition, there have been serious human rights violations in Sri Lanka until recently. Some may even occur at present and might continue. One has to be realistic about the situation. However, many of the root causes are now eliminated. First and foremost was terrorism. Second was instability and anarchy that warranted emergency regulations but curtailed freedom. Emergency is now lifted.

A political leader might be best judged for human rights within a pace of time and within a historical context. The crucial questions are: have human rights improved or deteriorated during his tenure? Has he done anything to improve human rights or not? What are the prospects for the future judging by the past?

Any balance sheet of human rights in Sri Lanka since 2005 would speak to the relative improvements and human rights improvements cannot be assessed in abstract or in isolation. Mahinda Rajapaksa, as a former human rights activist, has differed from many others even by facing accusations to change the human rights conditions in the country in all aspects of rights to mean civil, cultural, economic, political and social.

Assessment as a leader

Among the leaders of post-independence Sri Lanka, Mahinda Rajapaksa is similar to S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike in terms of political vision. Before him, only Bandaranaike tried to clarify or enunciate his vision to the people. In terms of policy implementation and development work, he is similar to President Ranasinghe Premadasa. He is in a way a combination of Bandaranaike-Premadasa but extremely bigger and more effective than both of them.

In the process of Asian Resurgence or in terms of economic development and social revival, he is similar to Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore or Mahathir Mohamed of Malaysia. He is committed to develop the country, economy and the society. This commitment was paramount in other two Southeast Asian leaders. He is a modernist like the other two in the sense not to emulate the West but to modernise the Asian or national ethos, values, knowledge and economic functions. However, he is in his heart and soul a South Asian Leader. What does this mean?

It means primarily three things. First is the tradition of Vedas, Upanishad, Dhammapada and Jathaka. Second is the tradition of builders like Akbar, Jahangir and Parakramabahu. Third is the influence of modern democracy from the West in line with the ancient traditions of republican mode of governance i.e. Lichchevi. This is the heritage of South Asia.

History will rank him alongside the other great South Asian leaders like Gandhi, Nehru, Ali Bhutto, Manmohan Singh and Mujibur Rahman.

If Rajiv Gandhi was allowed to live by the LTTE assassins, the most revered two leaders in India and Sri Lanka by now would have been Rajiv Gandhi and Mahinda Rajapaksa. There was only one year difference in age between them. Both came from two leading political families in two countries and went through similar experiences of political upheavals nationally and internationally. They were similar in physical image, temperament and the way they spoke to the people.

In the larger international scene, Mahinda Rajapaksa will be ranked along with other NAM leaders like Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Josip Broz Tito, Gamel Abdel Nasser and Kwame Nkrumah, not to mention again Jawaharlal Nehru.

The actual test of his leadership however will evolve during his second tenure. The most pressing challenges might emerge through the international scene and developments. The emerging international political trends are primarily not about the East or the West or ‘clash of civilisations,’ but about universal values of democracy and human rights including the right to development.

The emerging competition will be between ‘democracy’ and ‘authoritarianism’ in a world scale. The fate of Sri Lanka will depend on the way that the leadership of President Rajapaksa charters his course, or the course of the country, in the coming troubled waters, juggling the choices between development and democracy, and power and justice.