Unique leadership based on popular aspirations

by Prof. Wiswa WARNAPALA - Minister of Higher Education

It is intended here in this essay to make a close examination of the role of the Mahinda Rajapaksa Presidency in the last three years, and this assessment needs to be undertaken in the context of global, regional and local considerations, the global changes in particular have made a tremendous impact on the political processes of the countries in Europe, South america and South Asia.

Democratic transformation

The political leadership in different parts of the world has undergone a change and a very special process of democratisation has taken place in South Asia, two countries in the region, Nepal, and Bhutan, after centuries of monarchical rule, underwent a process of democratic transformation and Maldives, which remained dominated by a single individual for more than thirty years, elected a new President who has pledged to bring about more and more democratic reforms with a view to converting the country into an effective and efficient democracy built on popular foundations.

It is in this wider context of democratic transformation that one has to assess and analyse the style of leadership of the Mahinda Rajapaksa Presidency which has now completed three years in power, and President Rajapaksa, making use of the political experience since his first entry into Parliament in 1970, has brought about a plethora of changes with which he has converted the all powerful Executive Presidency into an innovative Presidency. It is these innovative aspects, which came along with the impetus of changes in other parts of the world where each and every leader, irrespective of the background from which they emerged, was interested in transformations and innovations. They, apart from their avowed commitment to transformation and change, displayed their equally powerful commitment to break-away from the old styles of leadership, and attempted to embark on a new process of change by developing and adapting new profiles of leadership. Mahinda Rajapaksa is no exception, he has adopted and displayed a style of leadership that is acceptable to a nation in search of stability and economic prosperity.

Through the process of change taking place in the country, Mahinda Rajapaksa, as the innovator par excellence, has shown the country and the world that he is a unique kind of leadership committed to a process of change and development based on the popular aspirations of the masses of the country. This has been his historic role, the need to lead a nation on the basis of the aspirations of the people, including the common man in the village and the street who, in a variety of ways, provide the inspirational guidance to a leader who seeks to be influenced by their thoughts and actions. It is this popular foundation of his leadership which has given him both strength and vigour, and his belief, to which he gives vent on all occasions, in the people and their destiny is a fundamental aspect of his role as the elected leader who, at whatever the cost, is not prepared to betray the trust placed in him by the people.

It is on the basis of this effective ‘social contract’ with the people that he proposes to lead this country in the next decade of the 21st century. In the developing world, where new political leaderships have emerged in the last few years, the political leadership, though experienced or not in the management of political power, is faced with three major problems: arousing continuous and effective public interest in a great variety of complex social, economic and political issues, for which mobilization of public support is essential; the acquisition and maintenance of political power; and one has to display the required acumen to manage and retain power, Finding ways and means of solving the outstanding social, economic and political problems and it is on the success of this that the whole edifice of leadership would remain intact.

Therefore, the management of political power, as Mahinda Rajapaksa has shown on numerous occasions with his ‘down to earth’ approach to politics, has to be based on the attitude towards various concrete issues and policies. Issues affecting the wider political problems and interests of the masses are of equal importance, and the proper understanding of them, in the ultimate analysis, would help in the management of political power, which, needs tact and sagacity and readiness to move forward with the people. This means that the leaders, depending on the nature of the polity, has to adopt critical and realistic attitudes towards the political issues affecting both the stability of the State and the process of economic development.

Interest group orientation

In the modern democratic societies, the political organisation is carried on by political parties, and they usually are composed of three major elements - interest groups, social movements and intelligent public interest. Interest group orientation in Sri Lankan political parties is weak, though the relative strength of these elements vary in different parties, depending on the nature of the issues used for political mobilisation and the nature of the leadership and the type of support which it mobilises.

In the Sri Lankan case, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, which, from its inception, came to be based on a number of interest groups in the rural society, and it was this conglomeration of interest groups, based on certain aspects of the rural traditional society, which provided a formidable base for the party. Mahinda Rajapaksa, from the time he entered politics, derived inspiration and remained loyal to this formidable base, the salient feature of which was its unfailing commitment to Sinhala nationalism. A leader, who is usually loyal to the need to satisfy concrete and specific political and economic interests, which have a broader linkage to the main base of the political party, has to make use of the party machinery and the mandate he obtains at an election to actively promote this interest.

In Sri Lanka, as in other countries, there are diverse interests - political, economic, social, religious, ethnic and cultural - which have to be tackled by a political party without endangering its primary base - the historical foundation on which the party has been built. Mahinda Rajapaksa, deriving inspiration from the ideas of the founding fathers of the party - who always remained loyal to its historical foundation - made use of this formidable base of the party, despite the challenges and intrigues of a coterie of its leaders within the party, and was able to win the crucial Presidential election, which, within a period of three years, brought about a transformation in the country. The base of the party, which was in disarray due to a variety of wrong strategies, was activated in such a way as to see that a political trend similar to that of the historic political change of 1956 is created in order to give the country a new direction.

The country, in 1994 as well, yearned and anticipated for a similar direction both in terms of policy and strategies, and the vacillations, under which the 1994 regime functioned and operated, disappointed the traditional supporter of the SLFP which, throughout its history, remained the party of the rural elite and the rural poor. The second important element which gave the SLFP the features of a social movement was related to those nationalistic issues which surfaced along with the social revolution of 1956, and they, according to some historians who call themselves wizards, have been made dysfunctional.

A social movement, based on specific issues and interests close to the lives of the people, cannot be killed easily and its impact may be made less intensive. Such a movement, though experienced strains and stresses in course of time, came to be institutionalised within the base of the party, the impact of which was not understood by certain leaders of the party. Mahinda Rajapaksa, long before he aspired to become the President of the country, understood the utility of this particular base of the party, and he remained loyal to it. It was this loyalty to the historical foundations which paid him immense dividends and he, in the last three years, planned his political strategies on the basis of this loyalty.

The SLFP, under his democratic style of leadership, which was a total break-away from the feudal dynastic-oriented leadership of the past, despite its relevance at one stage, underwent a transformation, the main feature of which was the development of assent, dissent, argument and debate within the apparatus of the party which meets more often than in the past. The party has been integrated into a variety of specific interests and a set of policies expounded in the realistic package of policies called Mahinda Chintana. In formulating the Mahinda Chintana, the basic policies of the SLFP have been properly articulated, and it is here that we see the routinisation of issues that surfaced in 1956 as vital policy postures of a period. They may not be immediately relevant but inspiration could be derived from them.

Ongoing conflict

Because of the specific historical conditions of a newly emerged State, such special problems arise, and for instance, Sri Lanka has inherited a major ethnic problem, which, in the last two decades, debilitated the Sri Lankan State politically and economically. It had impeded the growth and development of Sri Lanka as an independent State, and most of its post-independent period’s energies have been invested on the need to find a solution to this ongoing ethnic conflict.

No attempt was made to bring about a distinction between the issues of ethnicity and terrorism, now a distinction has been made and all attempts have been made to put an end to terrorism which, in fact, remains the major de-stabilizing factor in Sri Lanka.

The nature of the problem demanded a strong political leadership that is capable of dealing with such a sophisticated terrorist organisation as the LTTE which, in simple terms, is an organisation that embodied all the characteristics of Fascism. Mahinda Rajapaksa, who still commands popular acceptance among the masses of this country, expressed his commitment to a negotiated political settlement, for which discussions were initiated but the intransigence and the LTTE’s belief in a separate State stifled the entire process of negotiations.

It was in this scenario that the need arose to defeat the terrorism of the LTTE, and it became necessary to move in the direction of a negotiated political settlement, for which the Government is still committed; Mahinda Rajapaksa regime, in the last three years, has expressed its continuous commitment to a negotiated political solution, and this has been reiterated on a number of occasions; all international fora, including the United Nations, have been used to inform the international community that the Government is committed to a negotiated political settlement, for which the LTTE should be prepared to lay down arms.

It was this policy of Mahinda Rajapaksa regime that gave birth to the All Party Conference and the All Party Representative Committee (APRC), and they are engaged in the formulation of a set of proposals to devolve power within the framework of a Unitary State, the 13th Amendment, which is incorporated in the 1978 Constitution, is to form the basis for the examination of the issues relating to meaningful devolution of power. Mahinda Rajapaksa regime established these institutions with a genuine commitment to the need to devolve power with a view to satisfying the genuine aspiration of the Tamil people who, as all Sri Lankans, have suffered immensely as a result of the LTTE atrocities.

Mahinda Rajapaksa regime, displaying its commitment to safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Sri Lankan State, has adopted a strategy to defeat terrorism and it has been organised in the form of a humanitarian mission. No country can barter its national sovereignty and territorial integrity for the wild aspirations of a terrorist organisation like that of the LTTE which is hell-bent on achieving a separate state. All leaders of States, irrespective of the ideology they profess, are expected to safeguard the national sovereignty of the States because, as Harold Laski stated, the ‘modern State is a sovereign State’, and Mahinda Rajapaksa’s commitment to safeguard it is admirable. No movement could be allowed to use arms and use violent methods of struggle to de-stabilise the State.

Need of the hour

The need of the hour is to protect and maintain the basic structure of the Sri Lankan polity which, despite the crises of 1962, 1971 and 1989 remained a democratic polity for more than sixty years. The nature of the democratic polity was such that Sri Lanka, in the post-independence period, experienced political formations with widely different ideological persuasions and they, despite their different approaches, provided comparative stability to a competitive political system where the leading political parties of the Opposition played the role of the democratic and responsible Opposition.

The present Opposition, including the parliamentary Opposition, is not cohesive in character and organisation. It is an irresponsible Opposition with a destructive and confrontational agenda, and coalition theories of politics have worsened the role of the present Opposition, which, while over-estimating their strength, under-estimate the democratic and parliamentary traditions of the country. Mahinda Rajapaksa, displaying the astuteness of a politician who understand the ground rules of the parliamentary game, has used all the tactics to confuse an Opposition which is already totally confused as to its main strategy; they are so distanced from the masses that they are compelled to look for new instruments of political mobilisation.

The struggle for power - the greed for power, in the context of a major national crisis, needs to be secondary, and it, therefore, cannot be used as an effective instrument of political mobilisation for an Opposition, which has experienced, electoral defeats one after the other. The very crisis within the Opposition is a crisis in legitimacy. The Opposition, which fears and mistrusts the Government in power, helps to strengthen the view of the Government that the Opposition is all out to destroy all, in its efforts to achieve power.

It was in this scenario that Mahinda Rajapaksa regime had to function and tackle the major political and development issues of the day.

The style of leadership of Mahinda Rajapaksa and the manner in which he has provided leadership to the resolution of certain burning issues show that the regime has guaranteed political wilderness for the opposition, which, apart from its internal squabbles and intrigues, is now engaged in both destruction and disruption. Parliamentary politics cannot be promoted in this country by this kind of stance.

Foreign policy

In the sphere of foreign policy, Sri Lanka, though a small nation, has played a dynamic role, and it was Sri Lanka which showed the international community that small nations too could become important players in international affairs.

The war on terror became a major aspect of foreign policy of all nations subsequent to the September 11, 2001 events in the United States, and it was a turning point in foreign policy postures of all the countries. Sri Lanka, which experienced this phenomenon of terror in its worst form, planned its foreign policy strategies with the primary motive of defeating terrorism, and President Rajapaksa, through a form of summit diplomacy, has made an attempt to convince the world that Sri Lanka is faced with a major terrorist problem, and this diplomatic offensive paid dividends, and the LTTE was on the defensive internationally; this could be attributed to the way in which President Rajapaksa made use of the international fora in the last three years.

In the last few weeks, there were interested parties in Sri Lanka which launched a massive campaign to destroy the foundations of our good bi-lateral relations with India by using the Tamil Nadu factor, which is an important factor from the point of view of the geo-political considerations. The geo-political considerations and compulsions demand that Sri Lanka maintains good neighbourly relations with India, and the Tamil Nadu factor is of vital importance as its ethnic and cultural affinities are a significant input in the making of foreign policy.

It is no exaggeration that Sri Lanka’s past history has been profoundly influenced by the geo-political factors which have arisen because of her proximity to India. Sri Lanka, since independence, conducted her foreign relations on an understanding of the importance of the geo-political factors, because of which the relations between the two countries came to be developed on the basis of mutual trust and understanding, and the mutual respect for the national interest of the two countries.

Mahinda Rajapaksa regime, knowing well that the Indian foreign policy was based on the concept of Panchaseela, which, in 1955, laid the foundation for the acceptance of the Bandung declaration. The idea for the Bandung Conference germinated at the Asian Relations Conference held in Delhi in 1949, and it became the precursor to the ‘Spirit of Bandung.’ The principles enunciated at the Bandung Conference came to be adopted by both India and Sri Lanka, and the relations between the two countries were founded on a firm basis, and the national interest of both countries stimulated a number of changes in their foreign policy positions.

The principles of Panchaseela included such things as peaceful co-existence, mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity, non-aggression and non-interference in the internal affairs of a country, and these principles came to be embodied in the final declaration of the Bandung Conference. They were later incorporated into the program of the Non-aligned movement; three important principles guided the foreign policies of many a country and they are respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations, abstention from intervention or interference in the internal affairs of a country and the respect for each nation to defend itself singly or collectively.

The foreign policy of Sri Lanka, in the last sixty years, came to be based on these principles, and the Rajapaksa regime made use of these foundations to project its own foreign policy and built the bi-lateral relations with India on the concept of Panchaseela which, in fact, is the cornerstone of Indian foreign policy, which all political parties in India have accepted as the foundation of the country’s foreign policy. India may not deviate from these historical foundations to interfere in the internal affairs of another country, specially in conducting her relations with the neighbouring states.

The foundations of Sri Lankan foreign policy are similar to those of India, and the bi-lateral relations between the two countries have been built on these foundations related to the national interest. Sri Lanka is now engaged in a struggle to defeat terrorism, and this struggle is basically inter-twined with her commitment to safeguard her national sovereignty and her national interest. Mahinda Rajapaksa regime, in the last three years, formulated its foreign policy strategies on the basis of these fundamentals associated with the national interest. No country can allow a terrorist organisation to destroy the foundations of national sovereignty of a country, and the Sri Lankan State is now engaged in a struggle to safeguard her national sovereignty and territorial integrity, and this is based on the need to project a foreign policy founded on the national interest. Therefore the friendship with India and the maintenance of good neighbourly relations with India constitute a major element of Sri Lanka’s foreign policy and the present regime is committed to uphold this ideal.

Mahinda Rajapaksa regime, in the last three years, always recognised this fact in conducting the foreign policy of the Government, and Senior Presidential Adviser Parliamentarian Basil Rajapaksa’s visit to India amply demonstrated the importance Sri Lanka attaches to the need to maintain good bi-lateral relations with India, and the agreement reached at the discussions further cemented the relations between India and Sri Lanka. Mahinda Chintanaya is a realistic set of economic and social policies which addressed a wide variety of issues in the rural sector, which, as I mentioned elsewhere, constituted the main electoral base of the SLFP and Mahinda Rajapaksa, unlike some of his SLFP predecessors, strongly believed in the need to rejuvenate the economic and political potentiality of the rural people through several programs of development. For the first time in history, the Colombo-centred development strategy underwent a change, and it was transformed into a development strategy based on the development of the village. Numerous development programs were initiated to pursue the kind of development drive, the basic aim of which was to develop the infrastructure in the village, and it was through this that a qualitative change could be brought about in order to accelerate the process of economic and social development.

The development strategy of the Government is based on these programs which have been extended to cover the Eastern Province as well, and the Province, where a foundation has been laid for the emergence of a democratic political order, is an area with enough resources and economic potential, and the Government, with the village centred development program, is at present engaged in exploiting the potentiality of the area.

The road network is going through a major transformation; the agricultural development program, under which all arable land is to be cultivated with food crops, has been launched with a view to overcoming a food crisis. In the sphere of Education, Higher Education, Technical Education and Vocational Education, fundamental changes have been planned with a view to making the system a global player in a knowledge society.

In all spheres of governmental activity, fundamental changes are being planned with a view to achieving Millennium Development Goals, and this has been planned on the basis of the Mahinda Chintana. This, in fact, means that Mahinda Rajapaksa Presidency has been an innovative and transformational regime which has taken into consideration both local and global perspectives of policy, and the priorities, which guided the innovative orientations of the regime, derived inspiration from the experiences in other countries, and they were guided by the fundamental need to establish peace, stability and prosperity in the country.

Mahinda Rajapaksa, in the, last three years, has shown political will and determination to implement a set of policies based on the Sri Lankan national interest, which represented a break-away with the dull and timid approaches of the past which, in fact, created a crisis of confidence in the mind of the Nation. Mahinda Rajapaksa, through his realistic analysis of the issues currently affecting the image of the country, has given the country a new sense of hope, and the integrity of the Sri Lankan State has been restored.