Presidential Election

Master Politician vs. Anti-Politician

The presidential election is turning out to be something quite novel for a country that has an unbroken history of almost 80 years from 1931 in choosing its political leadership through the ballot box. Usually the choice for the top political office is between two experienced politicians. This time it is between the master politician Mahinda Rajapaksa and an anti-politician General Sarath Fonseka.

Anti-politicians have been elected to high office in democracies when people lose faith in politicians. For example, Obama who had very little national level political experience campaigned for the US presidency as a kind of anti-politician. His opponents then Senator Hilary Clinton in the Democratic primaries and the veteran Republican Senator John McCain in the general election argued that Obama had no political experience to be the president but both lost.

In popular chatter very many Sri Lankans condemn politicians of all parties as thieves, crooks, liars and worse. However, that does not mean that the average voter would necessarily choose the anti-politician.

In this election politician Rajapakse is a known quantity. Fonseka acquired fame as the General who won the war. But that was a recent event. Before that he was an obscure military officer. In politics people often prefer the candidate that they know. In the case of Rajapaksa the public likes his easy going friendly style and avuncular personality. In contrast Fonseka comes across, especially on TV, as the rather tough no-nonsense soldier that he probably is. Conventional wisdom would suggest that Rajapaksa has a strong edge especially in an era where TV imagery plays a major role in the choice that voters make. Be that as it may, the voter has a clear choice between two quite contrasting personalities.

Challenge for Rajapaksa

Rajapaksa won the 2005 presidential election by a small margin of 181,000 votes, less than 2 percentage points over the vote that Ranil Wickremasinghe polled. However, in the past four years the political ground has mightily shifted in favour of Rajapaksa for several reasons. One of course is the war victory. The other is the incredibly weak opposition. Ranil Wickremasinghe was a virtual bystander enjoying the perks of the Leader of the Opposition while his UNP lost ground to the clever political maneuvering of Rajapaksa and the UPFA.

People did not have an easy life in the last four years. The cost living and taxes went up. The war cost the exchequer a large amount of money. But the government has been successful in persuading, quire credibly, the vast majority that it was a sacrifice that they had to make to save the country from terrorism. To Rajapaksa’s credit the economy remained fairly stable and grew at a steady clip and unemployment rate did not go up even during the global financial crisis. However, on the downside, wage earners find it difficult to bear the sharply increased cost of living.

Rajapaksa’s campaign is pivoted on the theme of patriotism aimed primarily at the Sinhalese voter. The patriotism theme was a real winner in 2005 as well as during the war and its immediate aftermath. However, its power is on the wane now because there is no longer an LTTE threat. Moreover, Fonseka can easily claim that he is as patriotic as Rajapaksa.
Rajapaksa has to reinvent himself in many ways, especially on economic management, in this election cycle. He has very good relations with the Chinese who lend money generously for large infrastructure projects. That has improved the economic image of the Rajapaksa administration. However, voters who give him very high marks for his patriotism and for rescuing the country from the scourge of terrorism are not as confident about his skill to manage the economy. He is now trying to convince the voters that in his second term he would turn his attention to the economy and do well in that also.

The public knows that our main exports markets are in the west and that the Rajapaksa regime has antagonized western countries. The recent suspension of GSP+ tariff concession for Sri Lanka by the EU is the best example. This is not an issue that has equal weight around the country but in areas where garment jobs are important voters are concerned. The younger voters in general may also be more sensitive to economic issues.

Rajapaksa also has an image problem to overcome in respect to good governance. Rightly or wrongly his administration has earned a bad reputation for corruption. It is hard for anybody to deny that the president has favored his relatives in giving key appointments. However, it is not at all clear that this would necessarily go against him in our culture where helping the family is considered quite legitimate.

Challenge for Fonseka

The anti-politician candidate Fonseka has a very different and much more difficult set of challenges than Rajapaksa. First he has to introduce himself to the voter. This is not as easy as it looks for several reasons. If he introduces himself as a politician he loses the argument to Rajapaksa who can rightly claim that he has more experience to govern the country. Fonseka‘s best bet is to stress his leadership skills and achievements and convince a majority that it is a good idea to give a chance to a non-politician to lead the country.

In the last few weeks Fonseka has spoken a great deal about the corruption of the Rajapaksa administration. But corruption per se is not a winning issue for Fonseka for several reasons. First, the government is accusing Fonseka also of corruption although so far the mud has not quite stuck. Second, people quite cynically and also accurately believe that in every political party, UPFA, UNP and even in the JVP that proclaims that it is clean, there are corrupt people. Third, high level corruption involving tens of millions of rupees, let alone tens of millions of dollars, is beyond the realm of reality of the average voter. Fourth, people do not directly feel the pinch of corruption, in the way that, say, they feel the pinch of rising prices. In general corruption has never been a decisive issue in Sri Lankan electoral politics. It is hard to imagine it being any different in this election.

In daily conversation people often blame politicians for the ills of the country. But such talk does not necessarily translate into votes. If that were the case Independent candidates would be the big winners in elections. But almost all such candidates have become regular donors to the treasury that collets their lost deposits.

Fonseka of course is not an Independent candidate. He represents a coalition of parties. He is backed by, among others, the UNP and JVP. This has its pluses and minuses. The big plus is that the UNP base can be mobilized to support him. But thanks to the lethargy of the party leadership that base has shrunk in recent years as the recent provincial council elections clearly demonstrated. The JVP base is small but the party has considerable capacity to organize and campaign at the grassroots level in the Sinhalese areas.

In this situation, ironically, Ranil Wickremasinghe is both a plus and a minus for Fonseka. He is a plus for several reasons. First, his connection with India and the international community will serve Fonseka well. Second, despite his recent ambiguity on devolution, his long-term track record on ethnic relations should have an appeal to the Tamil voters. Third, and perhaps most important, a large number of voters will concede that he is a very good economic manager although not a very good politician. If the people decide that it was time to vote for an anti-politician and install Fonseka in power they will in effect also create an opportunity for Wickremasinghe to come back to power.

One of the most critical challenges that Fonseka faces is how to explain what he would do if he is elected president. There is some confusion at presents in the minds of the public. He says that he would abolish the presidency. To begin with past candidates including Rajapaksa who promised to abolish the presidency did not keep their word. Nobody can be certain that Fonseka would. Even if he is sincere in abolishing the presidency, it requires a constitutional amendment that only parliament can do. It is also not clear whether abolishing the presidency is a priority for many Sinhalese voters. The minorities generally like the office because in a closely contested election their vote becomes decisive.

The presidency aside Fonseka has to explain how he would govern with such a politically disparate bunch of parties that support him. He could claim that his intention is to remain above the fray and form a government of national unity.

Campaign

Elections are usually not won by harping on the past but candidates are doing that. Voters the world over and Sri Lankans are no exception, vote mainly for their future self-benefit and self-advancement. Voters want their politicians to address the present and future. Rajapaksa’s patriotism theme had more traction while the war was on and LTTE was a real threat to the integrity of the country. But that no longer is true. Now he has to wrap his patriotism theme around some kind of “I will have a reformed administration” message. Fonseka has to counter that with a message that wraps his anti-corruption message around a compelling economic message that convinces the people that they and their families would have a better future under a Fonseka administration.

The close presidential election in 2005 is not a reliable indicator of what would happen on January 26th. In the last four years the political ground has shifted strongly in favour of Rajapaksa and UPFA in the Sinhalese areas. The Tamil vote is divided. Thondaman’s backing is a big plus for Rajapaksa. Tamils in the north and east are unlikely to be too fond of Rajapaksa. However, there is no compelling reason for them to be fond of Fonseka either. The recent visit of Wickremasinghe to Jaffna and his talk of being Executive Prime Minister suggest that the opposition is trying a dual-candidacy strategy with Wickremasinghe as the de facto candidate for the north and east.

This is an election for Rajapaksa to lose. It is Fonseka who has to campaign to win. That is the more uphill task and time is not on Fonseka’s side. This is all the more challenging when the electorate is as splintered as in Sri Lanka. The ethnic, religious and regional divisions are obvious and both candidates have to craft messages to appeal to those constituencies. But it is also possible to look at constituencies segmented along socio-economic and demographic lines. For example, there are 1.3 million state sector employees. They and their households probably account for around 3.0 to 3.5 million votes (about 20% of the electorate). In recent elections the postal vote of state workers has gone significantly in favour of the UPFA. State employees may have job security but they have modest salaries and get kicked around by politicians. Fonseka probably has an opening here to exploit as a former government servant and the first ever government servant to seek the highest political office in the country.

The younger people have their own concerns. They want good jobs and a good life style. They are not that concerned about preserving the “pristine” local culture, whatever that may mean. They are more aware than their parents’ generation of the importance of an English education, of acquiring IT and other technical skills and of the critical influence of the global economy on Sri Lanka. Crafting a message that appeals to them is a challenge.

Small businesses and their employees are another such category that have their own concerns. A common complaint that one hears around the country is that small businesses are difficult to sustain for various reasons from high taxes and levies to rising input costs and high interest rates on bank loans. The candidate who understands such complexities of the Sri Lankan electorate and runs a sophisticated and efficient campaign to make the voter believe that he understands their problems and would do something to solve them will win the election.

As has become the pattern in most recent elections the misuse of state resources by the governing party has become an issue. The Elections Commissioner is making regular statements urging the media to do balanced reporting, asking Rajapaksa not to have lavish parties at Temple Trees at state expense to lure voters to his side, that no fresh appointments and transfers should be made in government service and so on. The Commissioner, however, is a toothless tiger whose edicts are ignored by almost everybody concerned. He has no effective power and resources to enforce any of them. He appears to be living in a world of his own divorced from Sri Lanka’s political realities.

Foreign Role

Elections are also globalised today as much as everything else. The upcoming presidential election is no different. The recent report that the Foreign Relations Committee of the US Senate issued urged the Obama administration to be more engaged with Sri Lanka. India and China will have even a greater interest in what happens in Sri Lanka. The next decade will belong to these two Asian giants. Competition between the two is inevitable. The Hambantota Harbour is one of the “pearls” on the so called “String of Pearls” – the harbors that China is helping to build in Burma, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. China has ambitions of building a blue water navy and it is likely to build its first aircraft career soon. The two countries are competing with each other to lend money - not grants but loans with interest – to Sri Lanka for infrastructure projects that also create business opportunities for companies in the lending country. A couple of weeks ago India extended a $425 million loan to rehabilitate the railway in the north. Not to outdone a few days later China signed an agreement to give $410 million in “concessional loans” for infrastructure projects. It also promised to give a very small amount - $7 million per year – grant aid. India is keenly watching Colombo-China relations. In this regard it is useful to note that US and India have greatly strengthened their ties with each other in the last several years for mutual benefit. This election has stakes that extend beyond our shores.

While there definitely will be foreign “involvement” in this election that the voters will not see, nobody should take foreign election observers too seriously. The Elections Commissioner has got in to the habit of inviting these election tourists probably as cover for the deficiencies in the system that he is responsible for. Foreign elections observers generally have little or no understanding of the ground situation. In any event a large proportion of unfair practices- misuse of state resources, intimidation of rival groups etc - in elections in Sri Lanka occur before the day of the poll. The malpractices that occur on the day of the poll cannot be prevented by a few foreigners running round in SUVs. There press release can be drafted now. No matter who wins it will read something like “While there were some shortcomings that we observed overall the election result can be taken as a reasonable reflection of the will of the people.” Whoever, who spends money on thus useless activity should donate the money to the Department of Elections to buy transparent fiberglass ballot boxes. The current wooden boxes can be stuffed even before the poll opens and during the polls. The fiberglass boxes may discourage that practice.