Sri Lanka crisis

How family rule fails

| THE INDEPENDENT | The Rajapaksas; one of Sri Lanka’s most powerful political families, were once revered as liberators. They initiated many urban development projects that pushed their country into the upper middle income status with per capita income of US$3,852 in 2019.

Despite that, after clinging to power for about 20 years and entrenching a ruthless, corrupt, autocratic, family-based regime, angry mobs finally kicked them out on July 09. Although the situation was still fluid as we went to press, to say this appears to be the end an era, is not a cliché.

As we went to press, Nandasena Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the latest member of the family to be President of Sri Lanka had on July 13 resigned the presidency and named Ranil Wickremesinghe, his prime minister, to head the government in a move that led to more protests.

It was a humiliating end for 73-year old Gotabaya who in 2005 returned to Sri Lanka from early retirement in the USA, assisted his elder brother – Mahinda Rajapaksa – win presidential elections and was appointed Defence Secretary in his brother’s administration.

Earlier, as a military commander, Gotabaya fought in the early stages of the war with an elite regiment, He fought in several major battles and counter-insurgency operations between 1987 and 1989. He took early retirement from the army and moved into the field of information technology, before immigrating to the United States in 1998.

With Gotabaya as Defence Secretary and his brother Mahinda as President, the Rajapaksa’s were hailed as liberators because the duo oversaw the end of the 27-year long Sri Lankan Civil War by defeating the Tamil Tigers and killing its leader Velupillai Prabhakaran in 2009.

Mahinda was the most popular Sinhala Buddhist leader in post-independence Sri Lanka. He was compared to Sinhala Buddhist kings at victory parades and mass public events.

“Some even hailed him as Emperor Mahinda,” said veteran political analyst Kusal Perera, according to the BBC. Their father, Don Alwin Rajapaksa, had been a parliamentarian and Minister of Agriculture who died in 1967. Their grandfather, Don David Rajapaksa, was an influential official under the colonial government.

But the family lost popularity when, first under Mahinda as President and later Gotabaya, Sri Lanka witnessed misrule, family-based appointments, and corruption.

In 2014 President Mahinda lost to Maithripala Sirisena, a former Minister of Health in his government and general secretary of his party. It was a major upset and the Rajapaksa family was accused of attempting to stage a military coup to recapture power.

The family bounced back in 2019, when Gotabaya defeated Maithripala Sirisena in that year’s presidential election. After the win, Gotabaya appears to have entrenched the excesses of autocratic family-rule with far more abandon than his elder brother ever did.

As a former military officer who had built a reputation for ruthlessness, Gotabaya also increased the power of the executive and nepotism rose as Rajapaksa family members took positions of power.

President Gotabaya appointed his brother, the 76-year old former President Mahinda Rajapaska, as the Prime Minister, leading to the interesting dynamic of two members of the same family – not for the first time in Sri Lanka – heading the executive and legislative branches of government. The appointment did not violate any law.

Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaska also held the portfolios of Finance, Buddhasasana, Religious & Cultural Affairs, Urban Development, Water Supply and Housing Facilities.

Gotabaya also later appointed his other brother, 71-year old Basil Rohana Rajapaksa as Minister of Finance.

His son Namal Rajapaksa was the Minster of Youth & Sports, and his brother Chamal Rajapakse was the position of Minister of Irrigation.  Their niece, Nirupama Deepika Rajapaksa, was powerful parliamentarian and deputy minister who was mentioned in the Pandora Papers of 2021 for setting up shell companies to buy luxury apartments in London and Sydney and make other investments.

At one point it was reported that out of every rupee spent by the Sri Lankan government, 56 cents are directly controlled by members of the Rajapaksa family. In other words, the Rajapaksa’s controlled 56% of the national budget.

Markers of state capture

State capture is defined as “A situation where powerful individuals, institutions, companies or groups within or outside a country use corruption to shape a nation’s policies, legal environment and economy to benefit their own private interests”.

In Sri Lanka’s case, the parliamentary election of August 05, 2020, which enabled President Gotabaya to form a government after his victory in November 2019, was a critical turning point.

The President’s party, the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), secured 145 out of 225 total seats in Parliament, leaving it in a strong position to form alliances that would result in two-thirds support in Parliament.

This meant Gotabaya could now repeal the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which re-introduced the two-term limit for the Presidency. He would also control the Constitutional Council that recommends and approves appointments to independent commissions, the higher courts and other key posts.

Removal of the 19th amendment would also remove the right of access to information as a fundamental right, a key accountability tool that citizens enshrined in it.

These plans for constitutional amendments combined with the neutralisation of dissenting voices boded ill for Sri Lanka, foreshadowing the future as a captured state, according to commentary by the Centre for the Study of Corruption of the University of Sussex, UK.

The commentary published online in 2020, two years before recent events in Sri Lanka, said a combination of a parliamentary majority, removal of checks and balances, the threat to the separation of powers caused by two Rajapaksa brothers heading the executive and the legislature combined with close family members in key positions of power, “makes a dangerous cocktail that raises red flags for state capture”.

When Sri Lankans protested against shortages of essential goods, fuel and food, the Rajapaksa administration attempted to suppress them through authoritarian means. They declared a state of emergency which allowed the military to arrest civilians, impose curfews, restrict social media, assault protesters and journalists, and arrest online activists.

Sharply rising prices set off mass protests in April. The Gotabaya government responded by deploying the military in armoured vehicles with shoot-on-sight orders.  And when Rajapaksa supporters attacked the anti-government protesters, they triggered deadly clashes across the country. Dozens of houses of politicians were torched.

When the protests became violent with more threatening anger, Gotabaya offered concessions. He forced his brother, Mahinda, to resign from the Prime Minister position in May.

Gotabaya also transferred some his executive powers to parliament, and appointed a veteran political ally, Ranil Wickremesinghe, as the new prime minister heading a proposed cross-party government. Wickremesinghe had served five times as PM but never completed a full term. News of his appointment led to more protests but Gotabaya refused to step down until he was forced to flee Sri Lanka on July 13.

Years of silent anger

According to many reports, economic mismanagement drove the economy to bankruptcy, causing Sri Lanka to declare default for the first time since gaining independence in 1948.

At the time of Gotabaya’s departure, a BBC report documented how the country was out of cash, daily power cuts were routine, and supplies of fuel, food and other essentials like medicines were close to running out.

The BBC said the Rajapaksas were hugely popular among the Sinhala community for years, despite allegations of serious human rights abuses and discrimination against minorities. They were also blamed for murderous attacks on the media. But few Sinhalese spoke out against the influential family.

It’s a different story now as the economic crisis has united many Sri Lankan communities, with Sinhalese protesters even voicing support for minority rights.

“The economic hardship really hit the majority community and suddenly they turned. I think the Rajapaksas who were able to get away with so much for decades were surprised to see this level of anger,” says Bhavani Fonseka, a human rights lawyer.

July 09 was a momentous day in the history of Sri Lankan politics as the protestors broke into President Gotabaya’s office and residence and forced him to announce his resignation.

An analyst, Asanga Abeyagoonasekera, says part of Gotabaya’s problem was that despite the worsening economic crisis over months, he chose to secure his position as President by using the military to keep the protestors at bay instead of addressing the root issues of the crisis.

He also hoped to satisfy the protesters by recruiting a liberal democrat, Wickremasinghe, as prime minister.

But the nation had come to a screeching halt as it faced fuel and food shortages, and a two-week shutdown was announced for government offices and schools.

The economic crisis triggered multiple social concerns, violence erupted, soldiers guarding fuel stations were attacked and injured, and more than 40 houses of parliamentarians were burnt by protestors in June.

Asanga Abeyagoonasekera says President Gotabaya had chosen the prime minister as the housekeeper to clean up the autocratic house and decorate it with democracy.

So despite the rising protests, newly appointed Prime Minister Wickremasinghe was more focused on rebuilding houses for parliamentarians instead of addressing the food crisis and deteriorating economic conditions.

The Rajapaksa political strategist Basil Rajapaksa, the former Finance Minister, resigned from political office, paving way for casino owner, Dammika Perera to take his parliamentary seat.  Political favouritism was continuing despite the protests.

The Rajapaksa’s were warned. Wimal Weerawansa, a minister in the Gotabaya government, told them: “If protest demands are not taken seriously, the next attack will target the country’s affluent class”.

“They will attack everyone using luxury vehicles and those living in luxury homes. That is the inevitable future if the government keeps playing games with the crises.”

Five dimensions of authoritarianism

Asanga Abeyagoonasekera says Rajapaksa’s modern authoritarian rule fits well with the five dimensions of authoritarian rule outlined by Steven Kotkin, a Political Science Professor at Yale.

First, there is the use of a coercive mechanism with heavy militarisation in most sectors of the nation and the stealth operation of force and brutality using laws such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) in Sri Lanka—the anti-terror act—for multiple arrests.

Second, revenue streams that sustain the social contract between the government and the public are breached but the regime does not admit policy blunders.

Third, the state attempts to control different facets of life; forcibly taking over land, interfering with social events such as burials, making extra-jurisdictional arrests, and interfering with law and order.

“The State cast a dark shadow in the lives of the public; any opposition or criticism of the regime was not well-received and adversely affected those individuals who chose to display their dissent,” says Asanga Abeyagoonasekera .

Fourth, stories and narratives are spun to weaponise nationalism to achieve the regime’s political objectives, accusing internal/external interventions and portraying it as a national security threat. These stories are amplified using private media outlets connected to the state.

Fifth, the regime shifts alliances; in this case to China from the West which questions its human rights violations.

It is not clear how the situation in Colombo will be resolved. As the BBC said, the continuing political stalemate is likely to worsen the country’s economic troubles. Without a stable government, it will be difficult to negotiate a loan with the International Monetary Fund or restructure debt.

****