Is “Strong Man” Politics Bucking The Trend In Sri Lanka?

• The voice of the people – however it manifests itself – will eventually be heard

By Faraz Shauketaly

Harold MacMillan was perhaps the first world leader to give prominence to the global political change way back in 1960 when he signalled the British governments’ determination to grant independence to its colonies and permit free men to be masters of their own destinies.
Growing events all over the world have indicated that ‘strong arm’ and dynastic politics never last. Its downfall usually brings about in its wake, national disasters which all too frequently invite international involvement.
In Kenya, Jomo Kenyatta’s rule saw his majority Kikuyu tribe being made rich virtually overnight when white farmers were asked to take up Kenyan citizenship or sell on their lands to Kenyatta, members of his extended family and other senior party officials. Jomo Kenyatta was followed into office by Daniel Torotich arap Moi, who is named in one report as having illegally accumulated over USD 1.5 Billion in assets – using a variety of proxies which included members of his family. In Kenyan politics the Moi family’s involvement in large transactions is legendary. His sons Gideon and Philip were named in a leaked Kroll Report of having amassed vast fortunes – separately estimated at over USD 1 billion – with assets and commercial interests ranging from Africa to North America and Australia. In spite of the Kroll report having been commissioned by President Kibaki after he succeeded President Moi, the Kenyan government has all but decided to leave Moi to his retirement – without the matter coming up to court.

Moi’s rule in Kenya became increasingly autocratic and antagonistic with the Kenyan economy continuing to take a battering. Their strong arm methods – with scant regard for democracy, accountability and good governance – along with the involvement of a clique of close associates who included businessmen of Asian and Caucasian origins, fermented over a while ultimately bringing about the fall of Moi from political power. One of the highlights of Kenya’s 2007 election was the loss of three Moi sons in a seat that has been the Moi family stronghold for over 50 years. All three – Gideon, Raymond and Jonathan failed to enter parliament. Another son Philip did not contest. In Kenya many cases of blatant fraud committed under Moi’s stewardship, have never been fully resolved to date – allowing the Moi family and associates to retain their financial gains. Kenya’s return to mainstream democracy under President Kibaki has been “slow but stable”, according to a long time Kenya observer adding that the world and specifically Kenyans, are “unlikely to ever forget some of the more blatant scandals that afflicted Kenya under Moi – like Goldenberg and Turkwel Gorge scams.”
In Egypt, the involvement of Hosni Mubarak’s sons and family has again led to allegations of the family having amassed a fortune which would leave the Mois of Kenya having to play ‘catch up’ with the big boys. Politically the appointment of Gamal Mubarak one of the sons, has led to charges that “Gamal was an unknown zero – until his appointment to the National Council. He suddenly became very important but lacked the credentials”. The Mubaraks’ wealth has been variously reported to have been anything between USD 40 and 70 Billion – much of it having been made with very little financial investment on their part. With properties and other commercial interests largely held by various proxies, the Mubarak family is expected to be able to retain vast chunks of their fortune in spite of the political downfall of Hosni Mubarak. Power and Money it would appear goes hand in hand but the loss of Power does not automatically lead to a loss of Money says an Egyptian businessman, adding that “in the end, it is the people, the common man who suffers”.
Most recently the political downfall of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the golden boy of Arab politics has seen the virtual destruction of the Colonel’s immediate family. Having ruled Libya with an iron fist for 42 years Gaddafi’s downfall appears to have been his inability to recognize what Harold MacMillan’s government envisaged for the free world: to be in charge of their own political destinies.
Closer home, the Bhutto’s of Pakistan have had a long, turbulent and mostly violent involvement in the politics of that country. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto an American educated scholar and Pakistan’s one time Prime Minister was overthrown by General Zia-ul-Haq and unceremoniously hanged at Rawalpindi Prison. His two sons died under unexplained and suspicious circumstances which are still being contested today. His daughter – twice Prime Minister of Pakistan – Oxford educated and almost a beacon of inspiration to women in Islamic society, was assassinated in a terrorist attack. Her husband, Pakistan’s current President, Asif Ali Zardari is a businessman who spent years in prison under the opposition. The Bhuttos found to their great personal cost that no matter the large political power they accumulated it was impossible to trade on their name alone to retain the imagination of the people who would propel them to the upper echelons of power – namely other politicians representing the mass of the Pakistani voters. The Bhuttos, like the Kennedys, the Gandhis and even the Bandaranaikes, found that ultimately their name alone simply did not spin enough magic to retain power.
In the secretive Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the ‘winds of change’ started in the aftermath of the Gulf wars. A slow and painful but necessary adjustment to Saudi intolerance has been noted. Admitting to the need for change the Saudi royal family has started simple electoral processes at the lowest levels but in a society where there was, for many years, no clear distinction between the wealth of the country and the wealth of the King, these are major changes. “Full elective democracy is a very long way off in the Kingdom but a start has been made and it is to be seen if the Ibn Saud family can sustain their influence over an increasingly educated and sophisticated population”, says Khalid a Jeddah based Saudi entrepreneur.
In Sri Lanka, the country’s democracy has been vibrant but buoyant. Circumstances at times have led to legislators being voted into office largely on sympathetic grounds. Mrs. Sirima Bandaranaike went straight from her kitchen to becoming the world’s first woman Prime Minister following her husband’s assassination carried out ironically by the same people who had helped him into power and had later grown unhappy with his political programme. Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga secured over 63 percent of the popular mandate at her first Presidential election but never enjoyed enough parliamentary support to make amendments to the constitution which may have perpetuated the Bandaranaike dynasty in local politics.
Lesser players from the Sri Lankan opposition have suffered similar fates – that your name alone even if coupled with money and power is simply insufficient to make the voters place their cross for you time after time after time. The Senanayake dynasty is all but displaced with the UNP even leaving out Rukman Senanayake from its Working Committee. Ranil Wickremasinghe on the other hand is clinging on despite and in spite of losing election after election.
Despite a long, colourful and intense involvement in the political lifetime of the country, the Bandaranaikes found that it was impossible to perpetuate their dynastic influence. The Bandaranaike son is said to have squandered his chances of the Presidency because he was far too complacent – saying that if his party needed him they would come to him rather than he campaign for his own bid. It was ironic they said that one of Anura Bandaranaike’s principal supporters and enthusiastically so, was none other than Mahinda Rajapaksa who was eventually anointed as their party’s candidate for the Presidency. What has never been disputed is that “Sir” campaigned long and hard for “Lokka” to be that candidate, but the Bandaranaike allure was simply not enough to convince the other political players to carry on with that particular dynasty.
Mahinda Rajapaksa and Chamal Rajapaksa have had a long play in Sri Lanka’s politics. Their father was a co-founder of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party. The election of Mahinda Rajapaksa saw the entry into politics of Basil Rajapaksa initially appointed an advisor and subsequently elected from Gampaha with a suitably large majority. Other family members elected after the Presidency were Mahinda’s son Namal Rajapaksa and nephew Shasheendra Rajapaksa, both entering politics with huge mandates. Indeed the older Rajapaksas have for long been part of the Bandaranaike-led governments and have played their own roles in SLFP governments and Oppositions too.
The popularity of President Rajapaksa and the rare occurrence of having increased his majority in his second term, unlike President Kumaratunga before him, was evidently caused by the huge public vote of thanks in the aftermath of having won the war against the LTTE.
However there is privately held unease amongst senior party members of the high cost of living and the high cost of maintaining this government. The Rajapaksas whilst having delivered the popularity of their party throughout the country save in the former conflict areas and Colombo; have caused much consternation in the concentration of funds available within Ministries that come under their purview. Privately many senior Ministers are dismayed but have not spoken out perhaps principally because their own positions are secure. The Rajapaksas are no different from any other Minister in office: most employ relatives – however many times removed they may be – and close associates to positions. A source in government said, “Whatever may be said of President Rajapaksa, there has been no dispute that it was he who led their party to victory, converting his own popularity for the benefit of his party. That shows how politically savvy the President is.”
President Rajapaksa of course had the benefit of the military victory behind him. It will be left to history to judge how well President Mahinda Rajapaksa understands the voices of his voters and parliamentary colleagues, in his strategy to lead Sri Lanka in the years ahead.
A political analyst in Sri Lanka remarked that “the longer one holds on to power, the harder it is to recognize the need to keep up with the people’s aspirations” adding that in Sri Lanka’s case one has to “recognize that political position is an elective process, a democratically backed process”.
World events have shown that no matter how imaginative the planning or ploys or a combination of both are, nothing will be able to stop the people from eventually exercising their say. It may manifest itself with a simple vote for the opposing candidate at an election or it may manifest itself in the form of peaceful protests – even JR style ‘satyagrahas’ – but what has been clear from time immemorial is that the voice of the people – however it manifests itself – will eventually be heard.
A British economist said, “The art of a true political animal is to be able to balance power, money and strategy with an uncanny ability to be able to read the people and to be in touch with ground reality – with or without the 18th Amendment. The bottom line is that disregard for democratic norms and good governance will most certainly result in the loss of office. The loss of power is swift – the loss of money becomes almost secondary by then.”
(faraz@thesundayleader.lk)

The Wind Of Change Speech
The famous speech was made by Britain’s conservative party Prime Minister, Harold MacMillan on February 3, 1960 to a packed South African parliament. Even though excerpts of the speech including the famous line on ‘The Winds of Change’ had been previously given in Accra, Ghana it was the speech in South Africa that triggered off the prominence perhaps brought about by the frosty silence that greeted its delivery in the South African legislative chamber.
“The wind of change is blowing through this continent. Whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact….
As a fellow member of the Commonwealth it is our earnest desire to give South Africa our support and encouragement, but I hope you won’t mind my saying frankly that there are some aspects of your policies which make it impossible for us to do this without being false to our own deep convictions about the political destinies of free men to which in our own territories we are trying to give effect.”