Other side of 'strong' leaders

RISE AND FALL OF RAJAPAKSA:

The desire for a strong leader... is a self-defeating wish in a democracy which implies rule of the majority but is rule by consensus.

The surprise defeat of Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa, as it turned out, was not as much a surprise, or rather shock, as his reported attempt to stage a coup when he realised that the counting of ballots was going against him. A commission of enquiry will eventually go into the accusations, but given the legacy of Rajapaksa, it shouldn’t come as a surprise if there is any truth to the charge.

Rajapaksa is the latest in a long line of leaders around the world who came to power through a democratic process but ended up trying to belittle, if not subvert, that very system. The former president, to begin with, fitted in with the Lankan middle-class dream of having a strong leader to run the country. Such an aspiration, incidentally, echoes the Indian middle-class which voted the BJP and paved the way for ‘strong man’ Narendra Modi as prime minister, but obviously in a different context.

The desire for a strong leader reflects a historical perspective. It is a self-defeating wish in a democracy which implies rule of the majority but in reality is rule by consensus. Most major decisions need to be taken in consultation with politicians and political formations of all hues. For some leaders, meandering democratic procedures can more often than not seem like a drag to quick decision-making.

Rajapaksa returned to power for a second term in 2010 riding a Sinhalese euphoria after the Lankan military’s victory over the Tamil separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) a year earlier. During the two terms of Rajapaksa, Lankans experienced what life was like under the thumb of a “strong” leader. The media was muzzled, journalists were hounded, jailed and even killed. He had no permanent friends. Anyone who stood against Rajapaksa had to pay a price like military chief Sarath Fonseka who was hounded
for taking him on in the 2010 elections.

It did not matter that it was Fonseka who led the military to victory over the LTTE. So too, the chief justice of the country’s Supreme Court Shirani Bandaranayake who the Rajapaksa government attempted to discredit by slapping corruption charges against her, got her impeached and eventually sacked by the president. The real reason was that the judge was perceived as handing out judgements that did not favour Rajapaksa or his government.

Reports, quoting the staid Sunday Times, said the development was “frightening”. The president’s once close friend Lasantha Wickrematunge, who fell out of favour, in a sensational write-up (published posthumously) predicted his own death in early 2009 and in it said, “When finally I am killed, it will be the government that kills me.” A few days after he wrote the piece, he was shot dead.  

The worst sufferers were the Tamils who, trapped in the cross-fire of the separatist conflict, were persecuted in their thousands, more often than not, on a whim. Coming in the aftermath of the LTTE’s defeat, the persecution was backed by the Sinhala hardline leadership. 

Rajapaksa peremptorily dismissed reports that Lankan soldiers had indulged in war crimes against Tamils at the end of the war in 2009. No surprise that the Tamils came out and voted in large numbers against Rajapaksa in the latest elections, a key reason for the balance tilting against him.

Where institutions in a democracy are solid, the chances of any individual subverting them are remote. European democracies like the United Kingdom, France and Germany and in the United States, since the Second World War have relied heavily on their institutions to hold their leaders in check. And, to a large extent, succeeded. In developing nations like Sri Lanka and India, institutions like parliament are seen as obstacles to quick decision-making rather than as bodies that act as checkpoints against
diluting democratic structures.

Mockery of democratic rule

Another country where a popularly elected president is perceived as subverting the democratic system is Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In his latest term in office, Erdogan has all but launched a witch-hunt against political opponents and sections of the media which have criticised his rule and exposed corruption in his government. 

Other similar instances include Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe who, days prior to being elected president in 1980, swore to uphold democracy in the fledgling country, which had just then fought off apartheid. Mugabe, since then, has made a mockery of democratic rule and his government is nothing short of authoritarian.

India too has had its own example in former prime minister Indira Gandhi who, riding high in elections with a massive victory in 1971, subverted democracy and imposed dictatorship in the guise of an internal emergency to save her position and prolong her rule in 1975. Described as a strong leader, she was hailed as the architect of India’s win in the 1971 war against Pakistan leading to the formation of Bangladesh.

Prior to this, the Congress government under her nationalised banks and abolished privileges for the erstwhile princely families which won her admirers across the country. Interestingly, she miscalculated her popularity among the voters and announced elections which led to her defeat – in some ways resembling Rajapaksa’s decision to hold elections two years ahead of schedule. 

Of course, the extreme example of one who was voted to power in a free election only to abuse the democratic process was German Chancellor Adolf Hitler who showed what can happen when democratic institutions are supplanted by a strong leader.

In Sri Lanka, the newly-elected President Sirisena has made it clear that his government’s first priority is to restore democratic institutions, institute a parliamentary form of government and dismantle the infrastructure of the executive presidency. Sirisena should know what he is saying as he was in the ring seat as Rajapaksa’s senior ministerial colleague.