Sunday Times 2
The deconstruction of a supremacist
Notwithstanding his rise to ultimate power, Mahinda Rajapaksa, despite being one of the shrewdest political manipulators in the history of this country, opts to place his faith in necromancy, rather than in the intelligence of his political sense.
Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa
Apart from a pathetic belief in the occult and an abject reliance on heavenly interventions, there was also the hubris, nurtured through a decade of successful subjugation of opposition and dissidence. The incarceration of challengers, the assassination and disappearance of journalists and the purchase of political loyalty were standard strategies in his governance. Rajapaksa believed in continued aggression even in peacetime and when no more enemies were left, he invented them because the apprehension of enemy action permitted him to carry out repressive strategies in peacetime, which would be barely permissible in war.
Whilst strong in withstanding foreign interference in the affairs of the country, he misled the international community and made promises that he had no intention of honouring. Despite a minimal comprehension of international diplomacy, he believed that he had the statesmanship skills to play one regional power against the other. He permitted his servitors to steal from the nation with total impunity guaranteed, in return for unquestioning loyalty to him, personally.
When thwarted in a third term presidential bid, he assayed to return to power through a different route. Weerawansa, Gammanpila , Nanayakkara and Dinesh Gunawardana, together created the myth of Rajapaksa’s undiminished allure to the voter, assisted by the pair of discredited Chief Justices, Silva and Pieris, and the erudite but unprincipled Prof. Pieris, indefatigable apologist to successive national leaders. This unscrupulous cabal was supported by Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka, who appears to have discarded all concern for personal credibility.
“Mahinda Rajapaksa has much more to give the country,” confidently mouthed Dayan Jayatilleka, in one of the numerous TV interviews he participated in, in support of a Rajapaksa third term. Despite Rajapaksa’s defeat in January, DJ continued to promote a Rajapaksa revival, describing in ecstatic terms, the “Nugegoda Rising” and other theatrically choreographed public assemblies, as incontrovertible proof of Rajapaksa’s continuing marketability.
In the January 2015 Presidential Election, Rajapaksa polled 5.7 million votes. In the just concluded General Elections, the UPFA under the MR pennant, polled a total of 4.7 m votes. That deficit, surely from the Sinhala/Buddhist vote bank, reflects the disenchantment of the voter with divisive rhetoric. The fatal flaw in the UPFA campaign was that it concentrated on reviving the declining fortunes of Rajapaksa and sidelining the major socio-economic issues faced by the ordinary voter.
Rajapaksa lamented that the youth of this country had forgotten the bloodshed that this country had suffered for three decades. This is absolute fact; the youth of this country, the first time voters, are not interested in past tragedies. Their focus lies in possible improvements to the educational system and advances in higher education, improved job opportunities and the potential for a better quality of life as adults, thereafter.
The pointlessness of massive infrastructure development in rural areas was reflected in the Hambantota election result, where Namal Rajapaksa polled 15% less than he did in 2010, despite a 13% increase in voter turnout as compared with 2010. Notwithstanding Rajapaksa’s massive presence in Kurunegala, the UPFA majority in the district over the UNP, declined from 210,000 to 32,849 between 2010 and 2015. In Gampaha, a bastion of the SLFP, possibly for the first time, the UNP secured a close-run victory.
Whilst the latest win for the UNP over the UPFA is quite narrow, the reality is that between 2010 and 2015, the UNP has increased the number of seats from 64 to 106 and the total vote from 29% to 46% of the total polled, whilst the UPFA has been reduced to 95 seats from 144, and the total vote from 60% to 42%.
Mahinda Rajapaksa’s defeat is due to his reliance on personal charisma, faith-based politics, factionalist rhetoric and the inexplicable failure to read the mounting evidence of unfavourable numbers in successive elections. The reality is that the cold, hard, arithmetic of voting patterns was not etched in the ola leaves of Rajapaksa’s well thumbed horoscope.
Essentially, as things are at present, Rajapaksa is dead, politically. A two-term presidency, a failed third term attempt, immediately followed by a thwarted tilt at premiership, culminating in relegation to a parliamentary backbench with his son, is not a story of upward political mobility for a man of seventy one. Pathetically, Rajapaksa is still roaming his fantasy world, attributing his loss to the Norwegians, the Americans, unnamed NGOs and international conspiracies and possibly to unfavourable planetary configurations, whilst refusing to concede that the spectre of renewed ethnic strife, a re-awakened LTTE and the possible division of the country, all of which he declaimed from platform to platform, have failed to excite the majority.
This refreshing rejection of extremist rhetoric was demonstrated in the abject failure of the Bodu Jana Peramuna and the minimal response to the Tamil National Peoples’ Front – which obtained less votes in Jaffna than the UPFA. These are welcome manifestations of a more mature outlook in the voting community and suggests the nascent emergence of a pluralistic mindset, from the ethno – religious morass created by Rajapaksa and allied factions as well as the LTTE and its fellow travelers. That said, the scoundrel, the corrupt, the criminalised and the morally discredited seem to still hold a fascination for the Sri Lankan voter.
In Colombo, Wimal Weerawansa polled over 300,000 whilst Mohan Lal Grero barely scraped through and Sunil Handunetti in Matara did not even qualify. Gutter oratory and alleged involvement in illegal practices triumphs over a decent man with a genuine vision for the improvement of higher education. Bombastic, divisive rhetoric supersedes reasoned, courteously and intelligently articulated political truths. Alleged criminal associations notwithstanding, Nimal Lanza is elected with 94,000 votes. Premalal Jayasekera, despite languishing in remand custody on a charge of murder for the entirety of the campaign, receives the highest preferential votes in the Ratnapura district. Lohan Ratwatte, implicated in murder, first in 1997 and again in 2001, the latter the politically motivated assassination of ten Muslim Congress supporters, is elected to the Kandy seat with over 120,000 votes. Rosy Senanayake, despite representing principled politics and promoting serious social issues islandwide, fails to win a seat. In these distressing anomalies lie a serious “moral disequilibrium”, which needs to be remedied.
If the UPFA/SLFP is to become a party worthy of re-election, it must disentangle itself from the stranglehold of the maroon noose and totally reconstruct its political platform, which includes establishing confidence amongst the minorities by creating a space for sincerely addressing minority grievances. The latter objective will never be achieved in the shadow of Rajapaksa’s menacing presence, which means that the UPFA/SLFP will have to discount a million votes at every election carrying the Rajapaksa baggage. Until that fault-line is cemented the party will always be faced with a no-win situation in any close run contest.
Recently, in a gesture that was both symbolic and meaningful, President Sirisena handed back to its rightful owners in Sampur and Valikamam, over 1200 acres of land expropriated by the Rajapaksa regime immediately on conclusion of the war. It is unlikely that such would have taken place under a Rajapaksa regime. For minorities in the North and the East, with genuine grievances, Rajapaksa’s departure from the political landscape offers real hope for reconciliation and restitution.
Personally, for me as a concerned citizen, Mahinda Rajapaksa’s second defeat within a year means that I will, apart from seeing other welcome changes in governance, at least for the next five years, also be spared the unappetising sight of a plethora of massive cutouts of Rajapaksa striding confidently in to the future, fatuous smile wreathed in the “kurakkan satakaya”. I am absolutely certain that this is a sentiment shared by a few million fellow citizens of this country.