Presidential poll result - people’s victory

by Prof. Wiswa WARNAPALA,

The Coalition of parties, a motley group of political parties with divergent views, for which General Sarath Fonseka gave leadership, has been defeated at the presidential poll which gave special recognition to some of the fundamental realities of the Sri Lankan polity. As Aristotle once said, the study of politics signifies a method or a form of enquiry, concerned with the human behaviour in political societies.

Ernest Barker, a British political scientist too saw this fundamental difficulty in the study of highly volatile political societies. Sri Lanka, since 1931, developed into an effective political society based on a dynamic electoralism that helped in the construction of popularly elected Governments based on a fairly fluid competitive party system.

As we all know, electoral changes in a third world polity cannot be studied with an acute analysis and with an excessive claim to exactitude. In other words, psephology cannot be easily applied in the context of certain Third World states largely because of the fact that the fundamental realities of an electoral change cannot be easily dissected. Complexities associated with an electoral change are many and varied, and the variables cannot be easily identified. Yet the major trends associated with the process of change could be identified and this has been the experience of Sri Lanka. In my view, this kind of interpretation is applicable in the context of the electoral changes in the developing world where the style of the leader makes a big impact on the popular electorate.

The style of leadership and the charisma which one commands is of fundamental importance. In Sri Lanka, all our national elections or electoral contests, since 1947, have been studied and the unique feature, which came to be highlighted, has been the changing nature of the electoral dynamics in the country. It is in this particular context that a short analysis needs to be made of the Presidential poll of 2010 which, as we witnessed at all elections since 1956, activated the traditional rural base, from which Sri Lanka Freedom Party, since 1951, derives immense political inspiration. This base, though sometimes changes with grievances and aspirations of the rural voter, remains solid when it is tied with the electoral fortunes of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party. It was the SLFP, since its inception in 1951, built its electoral fortunes on the basis of the loyalties of the rural masses, whose leaders constituted the alternative political leadership which came on the scene in 1956. Since then, the SLFP remains the main political agent of the rural masses and it is on the basis of their active support that the party is sustained. This interpretation, though unpalatable to our opponents who still grudge the solid rural base of the party, speaks of the fundamental reality; it was the rural voter, whose political potentiality came to be mobilized by a plethora of pressure groups associated with the SLFP since 1951, who became the arbiter in the island’s electoral conflict.

The principle of representative government is based on consent, and this consent is achieved through periodical elections, and Sri Lanka, through a variety of elections, has shown its vibrancy as a democratic State. It was through this principle the Governments in the past carried out the wishes of the majority of the governed, and at all situations of electoral change it was the rural voter who determined the course of change. In the post-1956 Sri Lanka, people elected a majority of representatives to give effect to their wishes, and all public policies of the period were introduced with a view to addressing the issues of the rural Sri Lanka.

The Government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa introduced a series of such programmes to benefit the rural poor and the backward areas in the country and such programmes helped in the mobilisation of support from the rural areas where the SLFP was strong. This, however, did not mean that the interests of the urban areas were not addressed; the fundamental need was to focus on the needs and interests of the rural people as they represented the historical base of the SLFP - which always claimed that it was a political party based on the interests, grievances and the aspirations of the common man - the common man was in the rural peasantry who stood behind the party since its inception in 1951. The political activism of the rural peasantry is an integral element of the historical foundation of the SLFP which, though enters into alliances with the progressive political parties, continued to strengthen its historical base in the rural areas.

The fundamental issue of the Presidential election was whether President Mahinda Rajapaksa should remain in power for another term; he began with a massive fund of popular support as he was the architect of the victory over the LTTE which, in the eyes of the rural voter, was historically an outstanding achievement unparalleled in the history of modern Sri Lanka. Mahinda Rajapaksa, with this singular achievement, emerged as the most popular political leader of post-independent Sri Lanka, and it was through this posture of a leadership that he achieved an unique charisma which no other leader achieved in modern Sri Lanka. This achievement of his, along with the unique charisma of his own, was enough to enthuse the rural voter who, under the astute leadership of Mahinda Rajapaksa, saw a plethora of rural reconstruction programmes in the rural areas of the country. The public policy decisions began to focus on the development of the infrastructure in the rural areas, from which the SLFP traditionally derived political inspiration and political support. SLFP’s ideology, to a large extent, is based on the interests and aspirations of the rural peasantry. Mahinda Rajapaksa, as a person nurtured in the politics of the impoverished Hambantota, always thought in terms of the historical foundations of the SLFP and he never deviated from the SLFP’s main standpoints of policy. It was this commitment to the historical foundations of the SLFP which helped him, on two occasions, to obtain an astounding victory.

This historic victory at the Presidential poll 2010 - where the coalition of evil of the Opposition was defeated - was primarily a victory for the SLFP as it was its traditional base in rural Sri Lanka which gave the required majority. The results indicate beyond doubts that the rural voter, unlike its urban counterpart, gave near-total support with both commitment and gratitude; we know that gratitude is culturally an important trait of the rural voter who, in addition to his attachment to the historical foundations of the SLFP, saw the birth of a new era in the emergence of Mahinda Rajapaksa. It is a period of resurgence for the oppressed people in the rural areas. All traditional instruments of political mobilisation and all symbols of political legitimacy were effectively activated and the traditional rural voter extended absolute support to President Mahinda Rajapaksa to provide leadership to a new process of change, and it, though likely to be based on the requirements of the changing world in the 21st century, need to be based on the historical experience of the SLFP which still remains the dominant political party in the country. Its unique ability to derive inspiration from the Sinhala heartland cannot be underestimated. It has a strong political base which, as the Congress Party of India, gets itself activated during national elections and the people are mobilised politically to rally round the party and its candidates. Mahinda Rajapaksa, like both S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike and Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike continued to believe in the traditional mould of the SLFP and remains absolutely loyal to its traditional commitments. Its ideology is always articulated and this gave him enough dividends during the course of the campaign which made him the most formidable political personality in Sri Lanka.

This is no exaggeration; it, in my view, was the fundamental truth. Max Weber, referring to the charismatic qualities of leadership, says that ‘men do not obey him by virtue of tradition or statute, but because they believe in him’. Mahinda Rajapaksa’s charismatic qualities of leadership reached its Himalayan peak during the course of the campaign and the ordinary rural voter, including the down-trodden in the urban areas, saw him as the sole saviour of the nation, and it was his populist style of leadership with which he reached the rural voter whose attendance at public meetings was at its historic height. His gift of grace, as Max Weber described, was ‘the absolutely personal devotion and personal confidence in heroism or other qualities of individual leadership’. This is charismatic domination exercised by a great political leader who displays immense capacity in mobilising the masses, and no leader in the post-independent Sri Lanka has achieved this feat - the mobilisation of the masses with such political alacrity. It needs to be mentioned that the campaign, at its initial phase, suffered a setback primarily due to the lethargy of certain activists who were more interested in the ‘preferential vote’ but this trend, though registered a bit of a decline in support, was immediately arrested with the active intervention of the SLFP organisers in the respective electorates, and it was achieved through the activation of the network of the SLFP branches in the electorates.

In Sri Lanka, the grass roots level political organisations always play an active role, and the SLFP, in particular, activated its grass roots level base through which the entirety of the rural electorate was mobilised for the purpose. The party has a network of branch organisations and affiliated organisations which are traditionally activated during election time, and this has been the experience of the party since the time of the leadership of Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike. It was as a result of the activation of the traditional base of the party that the campaign reached its heights in the last three weeks of the campaign, and it was this stepping up operation of the campaign which influenced the final result. All the traditional supporters of the SLFP, including those supporters associated with the established pressure group network which is integrally linked to the party, were effectively mobilised for the purpose. We all know that the SLFP has a network of pressure groups, and they, as constituent elements of the 1956 emerged alternative political leadership, have successfully influenced the verdict at elections. Its base is in the phenomenon called the Pancha Maha Balavegaya which represented a collection of traditional pressure groups, whose one element, the Buddhist Sangha entered the fray through indirect methods. The majority of the Buddhist Sangha were mobilised and no village level propaganda meeting could be held without the active participation of the Sangha; these are fundamental realities in our political culture in the rural areas and the SLFP, whose presence has improved the capacity of the State for representative government, has been mobilising the traditional institutions and interest groups to inspire the voter.

It is this historical base of the SLFP which finally assisted Mahinda Rajapaksa to obtain a massive mandate at the Presidential poll. The urban vote, which traditionally UNP-oriented, along with the urban minority vote, went against the SLFP and this is nothing unusual, and this, though in terms of its impact was insignificant, is a matter which needs consideration. All the minority areas, primarily the voters in the North and East, though voted against Mahinda Rajapaksa, have begun to experience democratic politics. In addition, it sends a signal to focus attention on the interests and aspirations of the minorities who, after three decades, exercised their franchise.

Dennis Austin, a leading British political scientist, once stated that ‘Sri Lanka was a ballot-box-oriented democracy’, and this description amply fits into the situation which the country experienced at the 2010 Presidential poll. The electoral dynamism is ever present in the Sri Lankan national electorate, and this is largely due to the competitive nature of the party system. The electoral competition between the party in power and the opposition is the life blood of democracy. In other words, representative government, underwritten by electoral competition, requires a responsible opposition which has the ability to present an electoral threat to the party in power. An opposition, which is in total disarray, cannot present itself as an alternative. No opposition should specialise on political slander. Sri Lanka displayed its ability to derive inspiration from the deep seated values in the Sri Lankan society which the political parties are obliged to express if they are to mobilise support for a candidate.

It is my view that SLFP is the only established political party which can rightly mobilise people on the basis of the innate value of the Sri Lankan people and it successfully did it to bring about a historic victory to President Mahinda Rajapaksa. It, undoubtedly, is a victory for the SLFP which still remains the dominant political formation in Sri Lanka. The opposition, which projected itself as a major bundle of contradictions, has been decimated and no credible alternative is likely to merge in the near future. The debacle, which both the UNP and the JVP experienced at the Presidential poll, is certain to have an impact on their electoral fortunes in the future. It needs to be emphasised that the SLFP is not merely a political party; it is some kind of a social movement with deep roots in the rural masses of the country and it is this character of the party which gave Mahinda Rajapaksa an impressive mandate.

With the fresh mandate, the popular basis of which is very solid, the SLFP and its political leadership has inaugurated yet another important period of consolidation of political power and this remarkable victory is certain to influence the course of events for a couple of decades. Mahinda Rajapaksa had enlivened the SLFP for yet another vital era in Sri Lankan politics. Is this not enough to say Sri Lanka is still a flourishing democracy?

The writer is the Minister of Higher Education