Sri lankan President Rajapaksa’s litmus test
When Sri lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa called for snap polls late last year, his re-election to office was almost a given. Now, just three days before the vote, it seems like he may have a bit of a challenge on his hands after all, as quite a few of his former associates have jumped ship. This is not to say that Mr Rajapaksa's presidency is under threat — he will, in all probability, return to office victorious — but only that his mandate may not be as grand as before. In the months since Mr Rajapaksa announced the election, more than two dozen of his colleagues in Government and from his party have defected. At the top of the list is Mr Maithripala Sirisena, his former Health Minister, who is now his chief opponent.
Interestingly, Mr Sirisena had fully supported Mr Rajapaksa's third run for President, but a day after the latter called for election, he came out as the main Opposition's ‘common candidate' for presidentship. Other high-profile leaders to have switched allegiance include Mr Faizer Mustapha, the President's Counsel who had served as Deputy Minister for Investment, and most recently, Mr Nandimithra Ekanayake, who was the Deputy Minister for Higher Education. For Mr Rajapaksa, the defections are troublesome, no doubt. But they can be viewed as political irritants capable of inflicting perhaps limited electoral damage.
There are two major reasons for this: First, President Rajapaksa remains Sri lanka's tallest and most popular leader — and for good reason. In the 14 years that he has been at the helm, he has conclusively defeated the liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, ended a three-decade long bloody insurgency, and steered Sri lanka on the path of economic growth and progress. Second, the Opposition, in spite of its growing strength, is still no match for the electoral prowess of Mr Rajapaksa, whose persona towers over the Sri lankan political scenario. Mr Sirisena, in particular, has limited popular appeal. It is highly unlikely that the average Sri lankan will vote for an untested candidate when he or she the option of electing a leader who has delivered on the goods promised. In this context, Mr Rajapaksa's critics may point out that the President’s credentials are not quite as strong as they were four years ago — and they will be correct in their assessment.
After ending the war in 2009, when Mr Rajapaksa sought re-election in 2010, he was feted as a war hero. Four years later, that sentiment has somewhat ebbed (and it is possible that Mr Rajapaksa called for the election two years before his term ended because he wanted to ride the post-war victory wave one last time), and expectedly, a sense of anti-incumbency is setting in. Then there are charges of corruption and nepotism, and the Opposition is capitalising on the perception that Mr Rajapaksa has centralised power and is running the country like a family fiefdom. However, it is difficult to see how just these can cause a major damage to the Rajapaksa campaign.