The regime change in Sri Lanka a

Caesarian analogy

Rajapaksas political opposition threw almost identical charges against him,

ostensibly frustrated by their inability to make a dent in his popularity to
win an election by foul means or fair. The opposition accusations of
triumphalism and populism of Rajapaksa were followed by charges of
overt plans to become the eternal ruler, usurping the love of a largely
unsophisticated rural Sinhala-Buddhist populace. Sections of the urban
middle classes with a smattering of English became the group that seemed
to dislike Rajapaksa the most.

by Dr. Kamal Wickremasinghe

( November 25, 2015, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The memory of the key event
that led to the 2015 regime changethe defection of Maithripala Sirisena from the
SLFP a year ago last weekappears to have sunk without trace in the humdrum,
moral-free politics of Sri Lanka. The defection that marked the pinnacle of the project
to assassinate former president Mahinda Rajapaksa politically is yet to see its

completion. Notwithstanding that, the event that was made spicier by revelations that
Sirisena had shared a meal of hoppers with Rajapaksa the previous night, giving rise
to howls of traitor from Rajapaksa loyalists deserves a bit more attention.
The electoral defeat of Rajapaksa, who appeared invincible until the defection invoked
comparisons with the fall of the Roman Dictator Julius Caesar, with many writers
attempting to enliven the undertones of treachery by colourising comment with the
hackneyed, historically inaccurate Shakespearean quote, Et tu Brute? It was certainly
drama that incorporated many dramatic elements such as characters in conflict and
tragic or at least painful resolutions that appear to be still unfolding.
The purpose here is to compare and contrast the characters, events and the
aftermath of the political downfall of Rajapaksa with the physical assassination of
Julius Caesar as portrayed in William Shakespeares The Tragedy of Julius Caesar
( or Julius Caesar) that debuted in 1599, opening the newly-built Globe Theatre in
London (burnt to the ground on 29 June 1613).
The play portrays the hatching of the conspiracy by 60 Roman senators to assassinate
Julius Caesar, and the momentous events that followed the assassination. Although
the title is Julius Caesar, the central psychological drama of Shakespeares play
comprises the inner struggle of its tragic hero Marcus Junius Brutus prior to joining
the conspiracy against his friend Caesar, at the behest of the leader of the plot, his
brother in-law Gaius Cassius Longinus.
The leading characters of the play Caesar, Brutus and Cassius certainly had
parallels in the Sri Lankan situation, with Rajapaksa, Maithripala Sirisena and
Chandrika Bandaranaike comfortably fitting into the roles respectively, albeit with
obvious dissimilarities relating to their levels of power and social background, and
gender in one case. Such differences, however, are irrelevant to the character profiles.
It is first required, however, to draw a line between the actual events that surrounded
Caesars assassination and the fictionalised version of Shakespeare: Julius Caesar
was the first of three Roman tragedies written by Shakespeare based on actual
historical events in Rome: the other two were Coriolanus and Antony and Cleopatra,
which debuted in 1605 and 1607 respectively. There are, however, many factual
differences surrounding Caesars murder as portrayed in Shakespeares Julius Caesar
and the historical records of the two Roman historians Plutarch and Suetonius that
inspired Shakespeares work. Considering that Shakespeare was dramatising
Caesars death for excitement and gravity of the act, such differences could be
ignored.
There is, however, an exception to the rule: it is necessary to retract the poetic
licence Shakespeare has assumed in assigning Et tu, Brute Then fall Caesar!as
Caesars final words. According to Suetonius, Caesars actual final words were Kai su,
teknon? (Greek words meaning you too, child?). Plutarch has believed that Caesar
said nothing, just pulled his toga over his head upon seeing Brutus among the
conspirators. Plutarch may well be right: lying on the ground having been stabbed 23
times according to all accounts, Caesar would hardly have had the energy to speak

any words other than to make a painful cry of aaaaaagh!

The story of the life of Gaius Julius Caesar (100 44 BC), and his death in the hands
of some 60 conspirators, all Roman senators, bears some important similarities with
the life and political demise of the former Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa, at
least at the perimeter. Admittedly, Caesar was a hands-on military man, and without a
doubt the best Roman General of his time. He had conquered Gaul (modern France
and Belgium). By 49 BC, however, the relationship between Caesar and Pompey (coruler of the Republic and the best General next to Caesar) had deteriorated to such an
extent that Caesar marched his legions on Rome to fight Pompeys forces. Caesars
crossing of the Rubicon River into Italy proper, uttering the famous phrase alea iacta
est (the die is cast) plunged the Roman Republic into civil war. Caesar pursued a
fleeing Pompey to Greece and to Egypt (where Pompeys severed head was
presented to him by the Egyptians). On his way back to Rome, Caesar defeated his
remaining rivals in North Africa, firmly establishing his authority. It is at this point that
the play begins with Caesar marching towards Rome in triumph over Pompey and all
others who opposed him.
Though Rajapaksas military achievements were of a much lesser scale, with no
conquests of foreign territory involved, he appeared to have earned similar popular
legitimacy to Caesar by dealing the fatal blow to the LTTE in 2009. Although he had
not led the army in the battlefields, the people had granted him hero status on account
of his robust decision making in the face of foreign interventions that could easily have
scuttled his military campaign. A popular politician by any standards, he had become
an icon of the people, and of the state, and had ruled the country for nearly a decade
since 2005. The ruthless manner in which Rajapaksa dealt with his war-ally General
Fonsekas challenge to his authority smacks of Caesars destruction of Pompey in
many respects!
There are also parallels between Caesars efforts to consolidate power to the scorn of
the Roman Senate, and some of the measures Rajapaksa adopted following his
victory at the 2010 elections. In Caesars case, he had found defending the newly
conquered territories impossible with shared decision making with the Senate that was
slow and corrupt. This pragmatic need prompted his declaration of himself dictator
perpetuo (dictator for life) in 44 BC. His opponents in the Senate, however, charged
that for all his success on the battlefield, Caesar failed as a statesman because he
had no vision for Rome other than his dictatorship. They accused Caesar of being
contemptible ambitious, revelling in the homage from the people and his conception of
himself as a leader who would live on in citizens minds forever. Caesar is known to
have laughed at rumours of his wife Calpurnia controlling him at home.
Rajapaksas political opposition threw almost identical charges against him, ostensibly
frustrated by their inability to make a dent in his popularity to win an election by foul
means or fair. The opposition accusations of triumphalism and populism of
Rajapaksa were followed by charges of overt plans to become the eternal ruler,
usurping the love of a largely unsophisticated rural Sinhala-Buddhist populace.
Sections of the urban middle classes with a smattering of English became the group

that seemed to dislike Rajapaksa the most.

Like Caesar, however, Rajapaksa also had resorted to measures that gave the
appearance of attempts at consolidating power: the September 2010 amendment to
the constitution (18-A) to allow him to contest for a third term and the bringing of the
independent commissions under the president were portrayed as designed to transfer
all power to the president. It is against this background that opposition forces
converged to form a common front against Mahinda Rajapaksa.
Caesars opponents 60 members of the Roman Senate concluded that the only
resolution to the problem was to assassinate Caesar and they hatched a conspiracy to
stab him to death at a meeting of the Senate on the Ides of March (March 15), 44 BC.
The leader of the plot was Cassius, who alleged that Caesar had planned to overthrow
the Senate in favour of tyranny. Cassius believed that Caesars friend Brutus was
absolutely essential for the plot to succeed. Naturally, Brutus showed reluctance to join
the conspiracy: Caesar had professed his love of Brutus as a son, and had been
Brutus political sponsor; Brutus mother, Servilia Caepionis, was said to be Caesars
mistress and some speculate that Brutus may have been Caesars son. Ultimately,
however, Brutus gets recruited by Cassius, through subtle manipulation and devious
schemes, to join the conspiracy to assassinate Caesar.
While many operators claim to have been the original schemer of the plot against
Rajapaksa, the former president Chandrika Bandaranaike, who had been sidelined by
Rajapaksa appears to have been the instigator, later bringing into collusion others
such as the perennial opposition leader up to that point, Ranil Wickremesinghe, and
Rajapaksas bitter enemy Mangala Samaraweera. The number of participants in the
plot failed to reach 60 at least initially, unlike in the case of Caesar. The role the foreign
powers played from the next-door neighbour to the global empire was another
difference to the plot against Caesar.
The chief instigator of the plot against Caesar, Cassius, seems close to being a male
Roman version of the character of Chandrika Bandaranaike. Shakespeare portrays
Cassius as a ruthless schemer lacking all sense of personal honour. He has been
gravely jealous of Caesars rising power. Caesar has divulged his distrust of Cassius
to his friend Mark Antony, as arising from his lack of a private life and seeming refusal
to nurture his own spirit. With Brutus, Cassius paints Caesar as a mere fallible man
who has undeservedly gained divine status, blaming themselves for allowing Caesars
rise to power. One of Cassius devious schemes involved writing phony letters to
Brutus, pretending to be from citizens of Rome, pleading him to strike against Caesar.
He finally managed to persuade Brutus to take part in the conspiracy by dressing up
his personal vendetta against Caesar as sentiment in the best interests of the
Republic that need to be safeguarded from Caesar. All available information on the
role played by Chandrika on the Rajapaksa affair especially in persuading Sirisena
to take risks shows a distinct similarity to the character and actions of Cassius,
motivated primarily by her almost insane jealousy of Rajapaksas war success and
popularity.

This leaves us with the most important task of seeking parallels between the role of
Brutus in the assassination of Caesar, and that of Maithripala Sirisena against
President Rajapaksa. It must be noted at the beginning that the social backgrounds of
Brutus and Sirisena are literally worlds apart: The name Brutus is a cognomen the
third name of prominent families under Roman naming conventions. He was
descendent of Lucius Junius Brutus, who founded the Roman Republic in 6 BC;
Brutus wife is Portia was a daughter of Marcus Porcius Cato, the famous orator who
killed himself rather than yield to Caesar. His sister married Cassius. Brutus family
and social background contrast greatly with the humble background of the chief
protagonist of the plot against Rajapaksa.
Judging by his boasts about the hopper meal nor does Sirisena appear to have faced
much mental distress attributable to facing a choice between his friendship with
Rajapaksa and an assumed duty for the country, comparable to the agony of Brutus
that forms the central theme of Shakespeares play. Chandrika is unlikely to have
faced too much difficulty in persuading Sirisena, apart from exploiting his unhappiness
over not being appointed prime minister by Rajapaksa. Similar to Brutus taking full
control the conspiracy upon joining, much to Cassius distress, disagreements
between Sirisena and Chandrika also surfaced before and after the elections.
The preceding comparison shows that by serendipity or design, the Sri Lankan
political operators have played out an altered version of Julius Caesar. The events
show that the characters in 21st century Colombo share much with those in 44BC
Rome, with the aftermath of the political assassination of Rajapaksa still being played
out.
Just to complete the story of Julius Caesar, his conspirators killed him while he sat in
the Senate, with daggers they had brought to the chamber, hidden beneath their
togas. Right next to him went Tillius Cimber, under the pretext of a humble request for
a recall of his brother who had been exiled by Caesar, and grasped the mantle of his
toga. Servilius Casca struck Caesar with the point of the blade on the left shoulder,
Cassius made a slash at his face, and Decimus Brutus pierced him in the side. All
others struck his body as it lay there until he breathed his last.
According to Plutarch, after the assassination, Brutus and his companions marched
out, crying out: People of Rome, we are once again free! They were met with silence.
According to Suetonius, Caesar lay there lifeless for some time, and finally three
common slaves put him on a litter and carried him home, with one arm hanging down.
The Senate, calling themselves liberators immediately began sharing the spoils by
way of appointing themselves regional governors: Brutus got Crete and Cassius
Africa.
Caesars loyal friend Mark Antony however, turned the tables on the liberators with a
speech over Caesars corpse. Beginning with the much-quoted words Friends,
Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears, he deftly turned public opinion against the
assassins by reminding the people of the good Caesar had done for Rome. Through
his speech, Antony roused the mob to drive the conspirators from Rome. Caesars

heir, the 18-year-old grandson of his sister, Gaius Octavius became a leader.
Driven out of Rome, Brutus and Cassius gathered their armies together to fight against
Antony and Octavius but lost the battle. Brutus, seeing no way out and refusing to be
taken a prisoner, decided to kill himself. After 13 years of power struggle and civil war,
Octavius would establish a permanent autocratic rule that lasted for the next 500 years
under the name Caesar Augustus.
In the case of the anti-Rajapaksa plot, President Sirisena assumed a shaky leadership
of the UPFA and SLFP and is struggling to contain many Rajapaksa supporters. The
so-called national government he formed is trying to muddle its way with incoherent
economic and political plans. One hopes that Sri Lankas Brutus will have a better
ending than Marcus Junius Brutus.
Posted by Thavam