It was also Mahinda Rajapakse, as a MP sitting in opposition against the Premadasa regime, who internationalised the issue of human rights violations for national political advantage.

In 1989, Mahinda Rajapakse and Vasudeva Nanayakkara — both members of parliament then, were stopped at the Katunayake airport on their way to the UN Working Group on Human Rights in Geneva, and their documents on HR violations were confiscated. Amnesty International was in contact with Mahinda Rajapakse for information on involuntary disappearances, arbitrary arrests and torture. A three-member team from the UN Working Group on HR which was on a visit to Sri Lanka, travelled to Tangalle to meet Mahinda Rajapakse. Such was his stature as a HR and Democratic campaigner by 1990.

Mahinda Rajapakse then headed the Parliamentary HR Committee as its secretary and once again created a precedent in taking protests to parliament itself. For the first time in recent times Mahinda Rajapakse led a satyagraha in 1991, with most opposition members participating in a sit-in protest at the parliamentary complex itself.

He headed the famous Paada Yathra and Jana Gosha campaigns as a pioneering democract cum HR campaigner in the south. Slogans therefore always focused on a democratic society and asked for ‘privatisation to be stopped, compensation for loss of life and disappearances, a negotiated settlement for the north-east conflict’ and then asked the Premadasa government to compensate the people for the increasing prices of commodities.

Mahinda Rajapakse’s popularity was not restricted to within the party. He was more popular in the ‘south’ among people as a ‘democratic leader.’ With the Premadasa regime coloured as a revengeful, repressive regime, Mahinda Rajapakse grew as the leading figure in campaigns for democracy.

By now, President Rajapakse is on a blind run knocking down one after another of the independent commissions established under the very constitutional amendment his government introduced in 2001 and was unanimously passed by parliament as the 17th Amendment.

He appointed a National Police Commission but he has no constitutional right to do so. He appointed as its chairman, a person who was for over five years the secretary of the ministries he held and has been found guilty of violating the Fundamental Rights of a public servant by the Supreme Court (SC FR 275/94). As President he usurped the powers of the 17th Amendment to appoint other independent commissions too.

Apart from the Police Commission, the Public Services Commission and the Human Rights Commission were also appointed with hordes of stooges who would never have got through a screening, if the Constitutional Council was in place and functioning — all this, despite protests from the opposition parties and other democratic organisations. He does know quite well the immunity a president enjoys under the JRJ constitution and feels safe violating the constitution at his whim.

Moreover, Rajapakse’s regime took off with a heavy toll against the media too, although he is often projected as a friend of the media, talking to editors and journalists on one-to-one terms quite often. Yet, Tamil media especially was a casualty, with the Uthayan newspaper in Jaffna being attacked quite brutally in early May. In between, there were other newspapers both in Jaffna and in Colombo that were harassed, selected editors and journalists who were called in for questioning by the police for no apparent reason or on cooked up allegations, some merely kept in custody and even assaulted.

The question is, ‘is this the same Mahinda Rajapakse who once stood and fought for democracy?’ My impromptu answer would be ‘no, not that Mahinda I knew so closely.’ But with hindsight, I would say ‘yes.’ For he was very flexible and had the ability to adapt to situations over long periods. And on his own calculations when necessary, he is adept at playing politics the ‘hard and ruthless’ way too and then pretend he is not in the know. That perhaps is what Pirapaharan noted as Mahinda Rajapakse’s practicality, when he said so in his last ‘Martyrs’ Day’ speech.

But then, why should Mahinda Rajapakse move against what he fought for? Against democracy? This in fact is the difference between Ranasinghe Premadasa and Mahinda Rajapakse.

Let’s not forget, both these leaders though from two different political parties, made a serious effort to dissociate themselves from conservative family politics. They did not want to project themselves as hereditary leaders in their own political parties. And they both wanted themselves to be looked upon as ‘people’s presidents,’ so as to say they don’t represent the elite and the capitalist class. Apart from those commonalities they have another thing that makes them political ‘look alikes.’

Premadasa was able to edge out Mrs. B at the 1988 December presidential election, mainly due to the JVP brutality. He used the state machinery for his advantage where necessary, as JVP terrorism allowed the whole of the southern society to be militarised. The JVP meanwhile had also whipped up a frenzy against the IPKF that had its sentiments etched within the SLFP vote bank. Premadasa’s position, though from the UNP was also against the IPKF presence.

He was quite open and conspicuous about his stand too. Therefore from 1987 July when Premadasa took up the anti-Indo Sri Lanka Agreement position, till 1988 December presidential election, he was also in touch with the JVP trying to forge a workable pact.

Although no official front was forged between Premadasa and the JVP for the presidential election, there was no fraternity between the SLFP and the JVP too. In the absence of a fraternal relationship between the SLFP and the JVP, Premadasa became the voice of the anti-IPKF Sinhala voter. Therefore politically, Premadasa was able to project himself as the effective leader of the pro-JVP sentiments in the village.

Mahinda Rajapakse was also propped up by the JVP 17 years later. On his own, Mahinda did not stand in line with the JVP when they opposed the P-TOMS etc. the way Premadasa did. Nevertheless, he too moved towards an alliance with the JVP to carve out his bid to be the presidential candidate from the SLFP.

And then, just like Premadasa who contradicted the JRJ leadership and stood with the JVP on the IPKF issue, which was then the most pressing national issue, Mahinda Rajapakse also deviated from Chandrika’s position to negotiate an election alliance with the JVP for a unitary state and all that the CFA had brought as a prelude for peace. And thereafter, Mahinda Rajapakse used the Sinhala psyche quite effectively for the elections.

That way the two, R. Premadasa and Mahinda Rajapakse, more or less travelled the same path to power, though under different political contexts. Where the difference lies is where President Mahinda Rajapakse contradicts his own previous democratic self.

Premadasa stood hard and fast on his politics and pushed his will to the extent that most thought he was politically nutty when he declared the British High Commissioner persona non grata and ordered his immediate departure. But then, he never went back on his promise and concluded his task by sending the IPKF back home. He then crushed the JVP to halt its terrorist activities to continue with his own development programme. He came with his own programme that even the World Bank opposed, but he alone was convinced he could implement. That was Premadasa the President, whether one agreed with him or not.

This is where President Rajapakse veers away from the Premadasa model. Immediately after the election, President Rajapakse went back on his promises. He compromised with most political forces and is unable to push his election slogans to reality. None could be certain, whether he stands for a unitary or a united Sri Lanka,whether he wants peace or war.

The reason being the difficulty in surviving on borrowed programmes. Without a singularly owned vision like President Premadasa’s, President Rajapakse would have to go on a different path to what he was perceived to be, by the people. His survival without delivering what was promised, would provoke disenchantment and dissent against him. For a President who runs on borrowed programmes and without a vision of his own to accomplish like President Premadasa, democracy is a chimera.

That is the reason why President Rajapakse is folding back one after another, all democratic structures that the constitution allows. The contrast is, President Premadasa after his ruthless repression against JVP brutality, lived with a growing plurality in the media that was extensively critical of his rule and yet tolerated it. But that democracy would not be afforded under the Rajapakse regime.

For President Rajapakse, democracy is the space allowed for people to talk about his right to survive and his right to usurp power, over and above that in the constitution.

The trend now is that every head of state who comes in to replace the previous, is first taken as better and then left as far worse than the predecessor. Mahinda Rajapakse would not be different, from all he is proving to be.

In that sense, President Premadasa who was crucified as an undemocratic, inhuman leader by Mahinda Rajapakse, would eventually turn out to be more democratic than President Rajapakse himself.

To the top