Mahinda - a visionary leader Prof Laksiri Fernando, former Senior Professor in Political Science and Public Policy at the University of Colombo is currently, a Visiting Scholar at the University of Sydney in the Department of Government and International Relations. He was the Secretary for Asia/Pacific of the World University Service (WUS) in Geneva and Officer-in-Charge of Human Rights during 1984 and 1991. The Daily News spoke to Dr. Fernando on his reminiscences and assessment of President Mahinda Rajapaksa. Ishara JAYAWARDANE Q: How would you assess Mahinda - the man as a private person? What is he like? A: As Aristotle said, humans are ‘political animals.’ Some are more so than others. It is difficult to distinguish Mahinda as a private man and Mahinda as a political man. The two aspects are intertwined harmoniously. I came to know him first in a ‘private capacity’ in 1969 when I joined the Vidyodaya University (now the University of Sri Jayawardenapura) as an assistant lecturer. He was working in the Library. I even didn’t know that time that he was a son of a prominent politician, late D. A. Rajapaksa. He never mentioned. He was friendly, soft spoken and joyful. The natural smile on his face since then has never disappeared. In the early 1960s, I have met him as a school debater from Thurstan College in Colombo district school debating competitions. Two other debaters of our generation were Indika Gunewardena (Royal College) and Gamini Abeysekera (Ananda College). Mahinda always was well-prepared for a debate with extensive notes. I also remember him at a student demonstration in Colombo, probably in early 1963, against the increase of HSC fees. When the demonstration was stopped by the police near Lake House which was going towards Parliament, the student leaders gathered to discuss the next cause of action. I remember him there. So, Mahinda the private man cannot be distinguished easily from the political man. Prof Laksiri Fernando He is in his heart and soul a South Asian Leader. What does this mean? It means primarily three things. First is the tradition of Vedas, Upanishad, Dhammapada and Jathaka. Second is the tradition of builders like Akbar, Jahangir and Parakramabahu. Third is the influence of modern democracy from the West in line with the ancient traditions of republican mode of governance, i.e., Lichchevi. This is the heritage of South Asia. I lost contact when he became the youngest Member of Parliament in 1970 from Beliatta but was aware of what he was doing or stood for. Mahinda came to Geneva in the late 1980s on human rights issues, when I was working there, first with Vasudeva Nanayakkara and several times thereafter. Many others and I had occasion to associate with him as a ‘private person,’ if you wish to say so. He associated with the Sri Lankans working there of different professions, different shades of opinion and persuasions. There is a common deviation of Sri Lankans, particularly of men, when they meet for social occasions. They tend to argue always on tiny political issues, sometimes of no significance. This is rather endemic among expatriates. What I have noticed of Mahinda is that he does not get involved in those redundant political debates. In this sense he was extremely a private person on social occasions. As a good politician, he always knew how to distinguish occasions - social, political, religious and other. He would talk to the host family, children and often-neglected womenfolk on social or drinking occasions. I considered this as a good quality. That is how he was like. Q: As the President what were the initial challenges that he had to overcome when he came to power in 2005? A: There were four main challenges. The LTTE of course was the main challenge. It was like an Octopus, in a sense, with so many tentacles. When one arm was cut, like proscription in one country, it used the other arms. The main body of course was in the Vanni. It had several defence strategies again like an Octopus. Camouflaged like a liberation organization was one among them. But its main essence was terrorism. This is something that many people, particularly in the international human rights fraternity, found it difficult to understand. They are still lost in this endeavour. The LTTE had its ability to hide quickly. It used all peace initiatives especially the ceasefire agreement (CFA) in February 2002 to ‘reorganize and rearm’ the organization. This is very clear from all the facts, some revealed by the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM). The most venomous was its propaganda through various websites, forums and front organizations. This was, and still is, like Octopus’ expulsion of a blackish ink. Rajapaksa understood the ‘creature’ of the LTTE in its full essence and to distinguish it from the ordinary Tamil people. That is why he tried himself to learn the Tamil language so that he could communicate with them directly. This distinction between the LTTE and the Tamil People should be fully realised further. The second major immediate challenge was the minority government in Parliament. The United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) had only 105 seats in Parliament in 2005 - 8 seats short of an absolute majority. This was not a good situation to face the LTTE or the other challenges. Even the government had a difficulty in having its own Speaker in Parliament although it is not essential in a healthy democracy. The support of the Tamil EPDP was crucially helpful at this initial stage. But eventually the number increased to 129 with continuous defections from the opposition, some genuine and some opportunistic. A major downside of the situation was what is described as the ‘Jumbo Cabinet.’ The defectors wanted Cabinet portfolios even depriving the seniors and the faithfuls in the original UPFA and the SLFP. A major political skill that Rajapaksa has developed throughout his political career was the ability to win over political opponents. It was like following Arend Lijphart’s ‘Grand Coalition’ theory or ‘consociational’ democracy. We see this ability until today. Even he wanted to speak to Prabhakaran directly to see whether the conflict could be resolved through negotiations. This is stated in the Mahinda Chinthana 2005 manifesto in page 18. Perhaps this was an overestimation. It didn’t work. But the intention was genuine. Q: What were the other challenges? A: The economy was a major challenge. The economy contracted in 2001 with a negative growth of - 1.4 percent. It did not recover until 2005. Even after the opening of the economy in 1977, all the possibilities of growth and development were held back by the war and the conflict. Sri Lanka was virtually bankrupt in 2001. The debt rate rose to 101 percent of the GDP. Virtually there were no foreign reserves. Rajapaksa outlook was not merely to measure development in terms of growth rates or other overall indices. Those are only understood properly by the economists. He measured development in terms of people’s livelihood, in terms of employment, take home salary, pension or social security, possibility to save, housing, electricity, water, sanitation, roads, schools and hospitals and their facilities and quality. That is what is called Mahinda Chinthana. Manifestos of 2005 and 2010 are full of down to earth projects and schemes, some are short-term and others are long-term, to uplift the economic conditions of the general masses. The challenge here was to undertake and implement these development projects. He was geared to lead these developmental activities and projects as an activist leader. He had shown this ability as a Minister previously. In taking the challenge of development, he was like Mahathir Mohamed of Malaysia or Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore. The fourth challenge was the harmful international influence on Sri Lanka amounting to political intervention. International influence per se is not detrimental, if it is mutual, positive and constructive. But what was apparent in Sri Lanka was different. Any Tom, Dick and Harry could come and dictate terms to the highest authority in the country. In my opinion, it was not primarily their fault but our fault. I have extremely humorous experiences on this count. Some of our spineless people or advisors were perhaps responsible for the predicament. Therefore, Rajapaksa had to make a change in the Foreign Policy to rectify the situation. His first priority in Foreign Policy was India and South Asia and then Asia. China obviously looms large in Asia. Then came the West and rest of the world. This is very logical without any particular bias. Anyone who knows about geopolitics of international relations or ‘winds of change’ should recognize it. It must have appeared as ‘anti-Western’ in the short-term. But it is not in my opinion. It was a question of balancing relations between the East and the West, and be realistic. If there had been any slight deviation, those could be rectified. Mahinda is a moderate person. The Middle Path of Lord Buddha is a strong guiding principle in his life philosophy and politics, I believe. Q: Mahinda Rajapaksa had to face one of the world’s most brutal leaders in armed conflict - Prabhakaran. How did he succeed when the others had failed? A: I think it was basically a moral victory. Without any offense to the previous leaders, I may say that Rajapaksa was in a better position to expose the LTTE as merely a ruthless terrorist organization. He didn’t blink before the challenge. He called terrorism - terrorism. This was the first premise of the victory. First he gave a chance to the LTTE to talk and negotiate. This was arrogantly refused and sabotaged. There were two attempts, one in Oslo and then in Geneva in early 2006. Then in July 2006, the LTTE gave the best possible military opportunity to the Rajapaksa administration to go against them without hesitation. It was a humanitarian cause to release water to over 30,000 farmers of all communities. It was a major mistake by the LTTE to cut water to the farmers. The LTTE closed the sluice gates of water. The defection of the former LTTE eastern leaders like Karuna and Pillayan to the government also was a nail in the coffin. After September 11, the world was not in a position to pamper people like Prabhakaran. Whatever the West and the UN say now, aftermath of the demise of the LTTE in Sri Lanka, they were the most happy and relieved people when the LTTE was crushed. It was with the tacit support of the West that the LTTE was defeated. I wish to emphasize this. When the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon came to Sri Lanka in late May 2009 he was happy and relieved. He was happily smiling. Of course India was different and was a faithful ally of Sri Lanka in defeating the LTTE. So was Pakistan. They don’t have a grumble even after, other than concerns for the ordinary Tamils and the Muslims. The close understanding built between President Rajapaksa and Indian leaders were crucial in defeating the LTTE. India could not forgive the LTTE for killing one of its charismatic leaders, Rajiv Gandhi. The credit of the military defeat of course goes to the commanders of the armed forces, their soldiers and the Defence Secretary. It was a strategic victory. The military strategy, tactics and weaponry of the LTTE had by this time become outdated. The morale of the LTTE cadres or soldiers was low due to internal ruthlessness of the organization. The Sri Lankan military was completely different with high morale and professional leadership. Politically speaking, Prabhakaran could not match Rajapaksa as a charismatic leader. Rajapaksa had people behind; Prabhakaran had only some cadres behind with some supporters overseas. The defeating of the LTTE or Prabhakaran proves a simple truth. That is Newton’s third law in politics. Every action has a reaction. The country, the people and the leaders had to tolerate terrorism for nearly thirty years because of various reasons. But it was not possible any longer. The defeat was imperative. It was natural. The international community should realize this. A: Apart from defeating terrorism, what are the other great tasks performed by him? A: Well, he has developed the economy. This is visible in physical terms whether you travel in the countryside or cities like Colombo. This is also evident in the North and the East of the country although slowly. Sri Lanka achieved a growth rate of 8.0 percent in 2010, the highest within the last three decades. This figure is closer to double of the average annual growth rate of 4.9 percent after the economy was opened up and liberalized in 1977. The industrial sector is now almost 30 percent of the economy and its growth was higher than the overall growth rate in 2010. This is a significant development while agriculture and fisheries also performing better than the previous years. The apparel sector developed despite the withdrawal of the GSP+. In 2010 Sri Lanka moved to a ‘middle-income economy’ by IMF standards under Rajapaksa leadership. The size of the economy roughly between 2005 and 2010 doubled, making Sri Lanka over a US$ 55 billion economy. This also meant the doubling of the per capita GDP of the people although significant gaps still remains between the urban and the rural. This is a challenge for the future. Rajapaksa proved the theory of ‘failed state’ wrong in respect of Sri Lanka. Those who advocated this theory argued that Sri Lanka is ‘too weak’ to manage its own affairs or conflict. It is the same people who now grumble that the Sri Lankan state is ‘too strong.’ Apart from defeating the LTTE, the government has resettled over 270,000 displaced persons and the remaining number to be resettled is reported to be around 7,000. Compared to countries like Cambodia, Columbia, Afghanistan or some of the African countries, this is a significant achievement within two years. The government also has rehabilitated 11,664 former LTTE cadres some of whom were hiding among the IDPs at the last stages. Around 200 among them have taken up university studies. The government has spent over 2.5 billion rupees for their rehabilitation. The resurrection of democracy is what he has accomplished in addition to establishing peace and stability. The rule of law of course needs to be further improved. Previously Sri Lanka was a virtual anarchy. It is under those circumstances that deviations or violations of human rights took place. There were so many perpetrators operating under the circumstances of instability, terrorism and violence. Now the situation is 90 percent rectified. All three layers of democratic institutions are now formed except the Northern Provincial Council and three local government bodies in the Mullativu district. Elections to the Provincial Councils in 2008/2009, Parliamentary and Presidential elections in 2010 and three rounds of elections to Local Government bodies in 2011 are testimony to the resurrection of democracy. If not for the commitment of Mahinda Rajapaksa for civilian democracy, there was a possibility in 2010 at the Presidential election, the country degenerating into at least a quasi-military rule. The electoral coup was on the pretext of saving the country from what termed as ‘Rajapaksa dynasty,’ unfortunately supported by the democratic opposition of the UNP. Q: How will he be remembered by Sri Lankans? A: Let me give ten key pointers as the answer to the question. He will be remembered: * As the leader who brought peace and stability to the country by defeating the menace of terrorism. * As the leader who united the country and re-established democracy in all parts and provinces of the country, particularly in the North and the East. * As the leader who averted an eminent quasi-military coup with the popular support. * As the leader who upheld the dignity of the Tamil people by speaking at the UN in Tamil. * As the leader who elevated Sri Lanka as a middle-income country. * As the leader who developed the economy to be a leader in Asia. * As the leader who held the highest approval rates in elections. * As the leader who built grand coalitions of political parties and shades of opinion. * As a firm leader, but a modest and a moderate person behind. *As a leader who promoted human rights in practical terms. There can be so many other ways of remembering him. For example, he can be remembered as the builder of the Hambantota Port. He can be remembered for the roads and highways. He can be remembered for his vision of Mahinda Chinthana. He can be remembered as a friend of the working people and trade unions. He can be remembered simply as Mahinda who was genuinely closer to the people at heart. Q: Amongst whom will history rank him alongside? A: Among the leaders of post-independence Sri Lanka, he is similar to S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike in terms of political vision. Before him, only Bandaranaike tried to clarify or enunciate his vision to the people. In terms of policy implementation and development work, he is similar to President Ranasinghe Premadasa. He is in a way a combination of Bandaranaike-Premadasa but extremely bigger and effective than both of them. In the process of Asian Resurgence, in terms of economic development and social revival, he is similar to Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore or Mahathir Mohamed of Malaysia. He is committed to develop the country, economy and the society. This commitment was paramount in other two Southeast Asian leaders. He is a modernist like the other two in the sense not to emulate the West but to modernise the Asian or national ethos, values, knowledge and economic functions. He is in his heart and soul a South Asian Leader. What does this mean? It means primarily three things. First is the tradition of Vedas, Upanishad, Dhammapada and Jathaka. Second is the tradition of builders like Akbar, Jahangir and Parakramabahu. Third is the influence of modern democracy from the West in line with the ancient traditions of republican mode of governance, i.e., Lichchevi. This is the heritage of South Asia. History will rank him alongside the other great South Asian leaders like Gandhi, Nehru, Ali Bhutto, Manmohan Singh and Mujibur Rahman. If Rajiv Gandhi was allowed to live by the LTTE assassins, the most revered two leaders in India and Sri Lanka by now would have been Rajiv Gandhi and Mahinda Rajapaksa. There was only one year difference in age between them. Both came from two leading political families in two countries and went through similar experiences of political upheavals nationally and internationally. They were similar in physical image, temperament and the way they spoke to the people. In the larger international scene, Mahinda Rajapaksa will be ranked along with other NAM leaders like Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Josip Broz Tito, Gamel Abdel Nasser and Kwame Nkrumah, not to mention again Jawaharlal Nehru. Q: Sri Lanka is under pressure with false war crimes allegations. How should he face this problem? A: It is preposterous to accuse him of war crime charges. Is defeating or conquering terrorism a war crime? It is the other way around. It is unfortunate that some international quarters, highest among the hierarchy at times, take some of the international laws, rules and norms superficially and upside down. President Rajapaksa was duty bound by the Sri Lankan Constitution to defeat the LTTE and rescue the innocent Tamil population who were taken as ‘human shield.’ This is something many people have forgotten - the Constitution. When a President takes oath of allegiance to the Constitution, it means upholding the sovereignty, territorial integrity and the unified character of the State. He or she also should ensure peace and rule of law in the country to which he himself is bound, although with certain immunities. A President cannot allow a de facto State, let alone a terrorist one, within the State of Sri Lanka. It is against the Constitution. President is the Head of State and Commander-in-Chief. He is not a soldier or even a commander. He is of course responsible if he has ordered or allowed any breach of law, national or international, but at two levels. Q: Mahinda Rajapaksa called the military operation a ‘humanitarian operation.’ What does it mean? A: It means an operation which should be guided by the humanitarian law and broader humanitarian principles. This direction was very clear. He did not order even the killing of Prabhakaran. Prabhakaran was killed not like the killing of Osama Bin Laden or Muammar Gaddafi. He was killed in combat and his body was found later. Why did he have any intention to kill innocent civilians or even LTTE leaders who wanted to surrender with a white flag or not? Any surrender would have been to his political credit. No one could discount the possibility of certain excesses in combat like that took place at the last stages of the war. Those are not war crimes. Those will initially be reviewed by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) and then action could be taken thereafter on Attorney General’s instructions. In Sri Lanka the judicial processes are in place and strong. The possibility of some violations is there. The soldiers were under immense pressure and provocation. Some provocation even came from the international quarters. Q: How to face the pressure? A: I think he has done extremely well so far. Be firm, frank and open. In my view, there is no purpose in denying that anything happened. There is no need to over-react either. It is basically a matter for Sri Lanka to investigate with an open window for the international community. The process is initiated with the LLRC and it should continue. Q: During the 1980s he was one of the staunchest defenders of human rights. Comment. A: Yes, he was a very committed human rights defender. I personally remember how he came before the ‘international community’ in highlighting human rights violations in Sri Lanka in the late 1980s. He was a firm believer in human rights but his approach even at that time was different to many others. He didn’t want to exaggerate violations and his approach was to bring redress to the victims and deter perpetrators. He never had any hesitation of taking legal action against the violators. But it was not a campaign with an intention of vengeance. He was basically seeking technical assistance from the UN and other communities to trace the disappeared, to keep proper records and to bring assistance to the families of the victims and particularly their mothers. Often he came with Dr (Mrs) Manoranee Saravanamuttu, mother of Richard de Zoysa, a popular journalist and human rights activist who was killed in February 1990. She was a leading figure in the Mothers Front that Rajapaksa created. Of course he was exposing the policies of the then government. But it was different to bringing sanctions or other barriers against Sri Lanka ultimately to punish the poor and the ordinary people in the country. In his opinion, punishing the poor is the ultimate result of sanctions. It is of course correct that there were serious human rights violations in Sri Lanka until recently. Some may even occur at present and might continue. One has to be realistic about the situation. However, many of the root causes are now eliminated. First and foremost was terrorism. Second was instability and anarchy that warranted emergency regulations but curtailed freedom. Emergency is now lifted. There is a need to strengthen the rule of law and judicial process to curtail violations and bring the violators to justice. There is no better person than Mahinda Rajapaksa to accomplish these human rights tasks. Of course there are accusations against him. Most of them are for political reasons or for personal vengeance. As a moderate and a human rights leader, he could be sensitive about those accusations. But if someone argues that the former human rights defender, Mahinda, has now become the human rights violator, President Rajapaksa, then who could be trusted in this world as consistent human rights promoters? This is an absurdity of argument without substance. One should be judged for human rights promotion, particularly a political leader, within the pace of time. Q: Have human rights improved or deteriorated during his tenure? Has he done anything to improve human rights or not? What are the prospects for the future judging by the past? A: Any balance sheet of human rights in Sri Lanka since 2005 would speak to the positive. Those who talk about human rights in abstract and in isolation are not human rights practitioners but only armchair preachers. Mahinda Rajapaksa has differed even by facing accusation to change the human rights situation in the country in all aspects of human rights to mean civil, cultural, economic, political and social.