Gota’s Viyathmaga To The Future
H. L. D. Mahindapala
Any critical assessment of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa must take into consideration the salient characteristics that make him stand out from the run-of-the-mill politicians who had occupied the peaks of power.
The first notable characteristic is that he is the first head of state to come from the Sri Lankan diaspora. Initially it was a disadvantage tangled in legalities of citizenship. Later it smoothened out and has been an invaluable asset to him. His existential experiences as an expat in America had widened his horizons and opened up new vistas in his thinking and strategizing. He has acted so far as a leader who had seen the future and is bent on taking the nation in that direction. It has all the signs of being influenced by the American efficiency in delivering goods and services. The new breed of intellectuals he had recruited to run his state indicates clearly that he is in a hurry to modernise the sluggish nation and usher it into the 21st century. His first hand knowledge of an advanced nation would hasten him to mix tradition with modernity without deracinating the nation – a critical issue in modernising Afro-Asian countries.
Second: In no other election before – not even in “1956” which is considered the Great Revolution of the Sinhala-Buddhists — had the minorities ganged up against the majority with such determined force to defeat a candidate of the majority. In 1956 Badiuddeen Mahamood and C. A. S. Marrikkar were staunch lieutenants of S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike. In that landmark year the contest was essentially between the North and the South with the rural Muslims siding with Bandaranaike. It was mainly the rich, business-oriented Colombian Muslims that voted for Sir. John Kotelawela. As opposed to this the Muslim phalanx ganged up with the Tamils to vote against Gota in 2019. Only a fragmented section of the Indian Tamils joined him. The Muslims in particular threw their lot with Ranil-Sajith combo making the opposition of the minorities a formidable front. The Muslim intellectual, Ali Sabry, was the only outstanding Muslim maverick. An exception to the rule. The “Sinhala Marikkar” of our time. And when the final result exploded the post-electoral map defined this division of minority vs. majority without leaving any grey areas of doubt.
Third: Gota’s expatriate background enables him to talk the talk of the new generation attuned to technology and meritocracy. Mark you, he was in IT industry in America and this gives him the ability to speak the language of IT visionaries shaping the new future. He appears to be a man of the Fourth Revolution who is attempting to break away from the outdated past and make the great leap forward.
For instance, he is not promising farmers any computers like the way Ranil Wickremesinghe did in his election campaigns in the past. Instead Gota is talking of centralising data bases to consolidate information into one coordinated and convenient point to eliminate bureaucratic blocks that lead to corruption and frustrate the public. He is cutting into a dysfunctional system to make state institutions a viable source for the people to use it without time-consuming bureaucratic red tape. Making the bureaucracy a servant of the people is a prime necessity in Afro-Asian countries stuck in the old colonial mode of centralising power in the hands of public servants who assume the role of demi-gods in deciding the fate of helpless citizens. When President Ranasinghe Premadasa launched the “Gam Udawa” he used it as a force to make the panjandrums in the bureaucracy to leave their air-conditioned offices and go down to the village level. Gota is making a bid to implement that principle in his own way through modern technology. It is a quiet revolution without much fanfare.
Fourth: Gota is less of a politician and more of a hands-on administrator seeking pragmatic solutions to the grinding, day-to-day problems faced by the people. This comes not only from his American experience but also from his time in the Army where he had to deliver goods and services to the soldiers fighting to save the nation. Soldiers march on their bellies, as the old saying goes. So do the politicians in power. Both are doomed if the prime necessities are not delivered in time to the places where help is needed most.
Besides, making the state work for the people takes the burden and the blame away from the political masters. Politicians have been paying heavily for the stupidity, lethargy, inefficiency and corruption of the bureaucracy. Example: Easter Sunday attack by the Muslim terrorists. Ranil Wickremesinghe paid dearly for the failure of his hand-picked IGP.
Fifth: His style of governance. It’s a pragmatic approach where he gets down to brass tacks not only to keep the bureaucrats on their toes but also to get to the root of the problems to find out solutions. His approach is not that of cheap populism to win votes. Or of appointing committees to avoid responsibilities and take the easy way out. His is committed to make the system work. Most leaders have failed because they could not make the system work for the people.
Sixth: His sound grasp of the ground realities rooted in history. The current system of political bargaining at the highest level before elections is to sell the family silver to the minorities to get their votes in return at the polls. For instance, promises will be extracted by the minorities to get (roughly) (a) five ambassadorships (b) four heads of departments (c) at least two governorships (d) government land in selected areas to strengthen their vote bank (e) funding for the money-making minority projects (f) protection and pardons to their criminals engaged in illegal and criminal activities etc., etc. Gota didn’t have to cut such deals because he was, going it alone. He was banking primarily on the downgraded historical forces to rise and save the nation. It was the forces of hidden history that rushed to crown him with the victory he scored on November 16, 2019. No doubt, the victory was pre-planned with precision long before he launched his final lap in the electoral campaign. But his strategy was based on tapping into the dynamic forces of Sinhala-Buddhist history that was awaiting a new leader. And Gota played that role strategically and delicately without over-stepping the decent boundaries of electoral politics.
Seventh: The Presidential crown was his second great victory. The first was on the banks of Nandikadal in May 2009. The second victory consolidates the political gains of the first. It points to the fact that arrogant and dictatorial minoritarianism must adjust its unrealistic political agenda aimed at dictating terms to the majority. Gota’s victory has delivered an unmistakeable lesson to all political theorists who concluded that the minorities have the upper hand in determining politics within a divided majority community. Gota’s victory has blasted this political myth. In fact Gota’s victory has stunned the theoretical dodos that were consoling each other with their warped and convoluted psephological mathematics.
After Gota’s victory it is now clear that minoritarianism cannot avoid the realistic politics of numbers that would help them to co-exist without treading on the toes of the majority. This election is ringing loud bells declaring that there are limits to which the minorities can push the majority. In this election only a limited combination of the majority beat the minority. What would be the fate of the minorities if one fine day the two major parties gang up to corner the minorities? Or what would happen if a popular majority should adopt Modi’s legislation of excluding one particular community? Minorities might react claiming that it would lead to violent extremism. As things stand now it is only a remote possibility. But before they go down that path they must also consider what benefits had they derived from the extremism of Prabhakaranism and Zaharanism. In the case of the Tamils it is the leaders who fomented extremist minoritarianism that were eliminated by the political children they bred. In the case of the Muslims it is their businesses, mosques and leaders who had to face the brunt of Muslim violence. Ultimately it is people at the ground level who were misled by the minority leaders that had to suffer most.
