Exit Rajapaksa: History catches up with every dictator

The ousted former Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa thought he had everything going for him when he announced snap elections last November, two years ahead of schedule. Instead Thursday’s presidential polls proved why democracy is a great leveller, perhaps second only to death. In the years leading up to his emphatic victory in 2009 over the Tamil Tigers in the Sri Lankan civil war, and subsequently, Rajapaksa had turned Sri Lanka into an authoritarian State, virtually decimating all opposition to his rule. He concentrated more powers around his family, clamped down on civil liberties, belied promises of justice to Tamils, demanded loyalty from the media and judiciary, and increasingly indulged hardline Sinhala Buddhist groups that launched violent attacks on Muslims. Close at hand through all this was his then loyalist, party general secretary and health minister Maithripala Sirisena who proved a far better judge of the popular mood than Rajapaksa. Within hours of Rajapaksa declaring elections, Sirisena crossed over, secured the support of two key Sri Lankan politicians—former president Chandrika Kumaratunge and former Prime Minister Ranil Wickramasinghe—and was named the common opposition candidate. Sirisena went to town over the corruption, nepotism and excesses of the Rajapaksa regime but while a close result was forecast, the outcome is nothing short of an emphatic victory for the Opposition.

However, beyond Rajapaksa’s defeat there is no cause for unqualified optimism. Sirisena has only denounced Rajapaksa on the corruption front but has cleverly allowed those opposed to Rajapaksa to cast his own self as a less aggressive and moderate ruler. Conceding this, even Rajapaksa referred to himself as the “known devil.” Nevertheless, Sirisena owes this mandate to his supporters, who united despite a fractious Opposition. He must not renege on his promise to dismantle the executive presidency, which allowed Rajapaksa to grow into an extra-constitutional presence. The Tamils, who have cursed their fates for boycotting the 2005 polls that ushered Rajapaksa to power on a slim majority against Wickramasinghe, and the Muslims appear to have voted on an overwhelming anti-Rajapaksa sentiment rather than any expectations of a political change of course. Sirisena has been conspicuously silent on ultra-nationalist Buddhist groups or on war-time human rights violations while rejecting calls for demilitarisation of Tamil majority areas. However, he is more likely to pay attention to the economic aspect of his mandate. Riding a construction and foreign investment boom, mainly aided by China, Sri Lanka has been on a high growth trajectory. Where Rajapaksa tripped was in his failure to spread the benefits of growth evenly. It was left to Sirisena to drive home the message that this wealth was cornered by the Rajapaksa family and a chosen few. 

While Sirisena campaigned against what he called “recolonisation” of Sri Lanka, it is doubtful whether such economic policies can be reversed. Delhi, worried over the growing proximity between China and Sri Lanka under Rajapaksa’s watch, has reason to feel relieved. Sirisena has questioned some Chinese investments during the campaign and promised to establish “equal relations” with India, China and Japan. However, getting Sirisena, who is no less a hardliner, to act on the Thirteenth Amendment provisions which devolve more functional autonomy to the Northern Provincial Council, implementing the 2011 Lessons Learnt and Rehabilitation Commission report, and allowing UNHRC investigators probing human rights excesses into the country will be an acid test for the international community. At the end of the day, a South Asian country, which was veering dangerously towards becoming a dictatorship has been steadied on the rails by its people, exercising their precious right to vote. That is cause for celebration, and relief.