Democracy Or Dynasty?

| by Laksiri Fernando
( December 29, 2014, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) Sri Lanka at the cross roads. People
may see different dimensions depending on different vantage points from which they
look at the cross roads. However, at the presidential elections, it is a key choice
between democracy and dynastic-authoritarianism.

Mi
nister Pavithra Devi Wanniarachchi worshiping the PresidentThe emergence of
authoritarianism subordinating traditional parliamentary democratic institutions was
linked to the executive presidential system. It also had an ethnic as well as a class
dimension. Those were different to the ethnic or class dimensions that we could see
prior to the advent of the presidential system in 1978 or under the parliamentary
system. The protracted civil war, based on the ethnic conflict, was a result of the new
situation beginning 1983. The effective subjugation of the organized working class or
trade union movement or any other popular movements also was a result of the same
process. Or otherwise, what was the purpose of authoritarian presidential system, one
may ask? The usual answer given is development or the open economy. However, the
hidden or related objectives were different.
The presidential-authoritarianism is repressive both on the ethnic and class

dimensions. However, so far the system depended on free and fair electoral processes
whatever the inbuilt constraints within and added to the constitution. It is still the
case, but has become weaker and weaker.
Nature of the Regime
The specific nature of the present regime is not mere presidential-authoritarianism. It
is presidential-authoritarianism + dynasty. A close family and a surrounding clique
have become pivotal in the wielding of power, at the center and in many provinces. It
may be called dynastic-authoritarianism for convenience.
One may ask at this stage, whether I refer to the constitutional system or the regime?
The State is different, of course shaped or constrained by the constitution. The answer:
I refer particularly to the regime form, based on the constitutional system. Keep it in
mind that regimes create constitutional systems and then the constitutional systems
shape the regimes. The relationship is dialectical.
How do the regimes created? The regimes are created normally through social and/or
class forces. But it is apparent that leaders (Heroes?) and even families also create or
determine the regimes. This is exactly the case at present. Do people have a say in
creating regimes? Yes, they do have both through democratic and extra-democratic
means. However, in the case of parliamentary processes, what is created is not exactly
a regime.
A regime is a cohesive ruling group and if the parliamentary processes are strong what
is created is not exactly a regime. It is a government and a representative body. The
term regime does not comfortably fits with a proper parliamentary process.
Could we see a JR or a Premadasa regime? Not exactly. Less so in the case of CBK.
Could we see a Rajapaksa regime? Most certainly.
Emergence of Dynasty
Dynasty is normally referred to the succession. However, it is more than succession.
For example, Mahinda Rajapaksa has not handed over power to Namal Rajapaksa. Not
yet. However, he has accorded immense power to Namal even without a ministry. The
present dynasty, so far is mainly on the horizontal axis. As we know, his brother is the
strong man in the defense and security establishment. His elder brother controls the
Parliament. Another one, the economy. It goes beyond the immediate family. A
nephew is controlling a province. There are hordes of relatives in the Foreign Service
and in the state bureaucracy.

What is wrong in a family, one may ask? Why anyone envious? The Buddha
emphasized the importance in his Singalovada Sutta. Even the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (UDHR) emphasizes it. However, not to wield political power or
usurp the country or resources of the country. In politics, it is natural for family
members to get attracted. However, there should be ethics and constraints. It is not
merely a matter of scale. Here what we have is a total control. Nearly a 60 percent of
the national budget expenditure is controlled by the Rajapaksa family.
How has this happened? Well, these Rajapaksas are a strong family. They have been in
politics for generations. These nepotistic tendencies are within our (feudal) social
traditions. They are all over the world. That is why democratic constraints are
necessary. I was once asked to write Mahinda Rajapaksas biography. First I was
tempted and then dropped it, having seen the ugly side.
How has this dynasty come about at this juncture? It is partly coincidental. The size of
the family for example. It is partly a product of the intense war. Even Prabhakaran was
or would have been the same on the other side of the fence.
But this Rajapaksa dynasty is mainly a construction or a creation. This is where the
danger lies. They are only at the midstream of this project. This conspiracy of
premature election is a very significant stage of this project. A major past step was the
18th Amendment. Now this election (strictly speaking illegal) requests a new
mandate. For how long?
If MR is elected at this election, he will rule for 8 more years. If MS elected, his term
will be 6 years. This is a difference, many have overlooked. Is it democratic?
Even Maithripala has stated that the term of the Head of State should be 4 years. If
elected, he would become an elected Head of State (with necessary powers) within 100
days and not a continuing Executive President. He would not be a broomstick in
anyones imagination however!
If Rajapaksa is elected, he would rule the country for 8 years and bring a new
constitution to entrench the dynastic presidential authoritarianism. It would be like
the 1974 Ne Win constitution in Burma. Ne Win however didnt have dynastic
ambitions, only military-nationalist or socialist ambitions. On the authoritarian front
it would be the same, couched in populist jargon, even a misguided Marxist might get
attracted to.
However the whole project is 40 years late.
Ideological Influences

My initial research for Mahinda Rajapaksa biography revealed that he was strongly
attracted to Kim Il-sung thinking in the early 1970s when he was a young
parliamentarian. Il-sungs selected works were translated into Sinhalese and even
serialized in the Lake House newspapers. Particularly the concept of Juche attracted
him and also Il-sungs personality cult. Juche roughly means self-reliance and in the
present context home grown solutions. Rajapaksa must have closely followed the Kim
dynasty: Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un.
Of course there were other influences. He was in close association and solidarity with
Col. Gaddafi. MR visited him both immediately before and after Nandikadal, whatever
the reason.
Winning the war was a major prompt to create the Mahinda Rajapaksa personality
cult, with huge cutouts, portraits, songs, worshipers etc. Even the Ministers began to
worship the President. The following picture is a good example.
Modern dynasties are created first constructing personality cults. Arnold Ludwig in
his, King of the Mountain: The Nature of Political Leadership, said the following on
the purposes of creating personality cults.
The main purpose of a government-sponsored personality cult is to get the people to
believe that their ruler has extraordinary, even divine-like qualities so that they will
follow his lead or be too scared to rebel. (p. 75).
It is not only the leader or hero who creates the unbelievable image, but his cronies.
Ludwig further said, Rulers want the people to think well of them. So when they get a
chance to influence the attitudes of their people towards them, they naturally want
them to believe that they are wonderful as they imagine themselves to be. After the
people begin to repeat what they were programmed to say, the leaders often forget that
they were the ones who programmed them to say it in the first place.
Breaking the Trap
I do hope that people are not too scared to rebel, like Maithripala Sirisena or before
him, Sarath Fonseka has done. And hope they have shaken off the deceptive image or
impression sufficiently that the propaganda machinery has created about the Hero.
What is necessary, for the moment, is just a rebellion at the polling booth by casting
their vote against MR for usurping the country. Last time in 2010, it was too early and
complicated. Today, it is the right time. Otherwise, not only the present, but also the
future generations would suffer.

There is some hope.

Posted by Thavam