The Oxford dictionary defines democracy as a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
American political scientist Larry Diamond says democracy consists of four elements – a political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections, the active participation of the citizens in politics and civic life, protection of human rights of all and a rule of law which applies equally to all.
It would be apparent that any one of these four elements taken singly will not guarantee democracy. For example, it is often said that periodic elections guarantee democracy. In fact, it was said that Sri Lanka is a five-star democracy since there were periodic elections and governments were changed peacefully. However, we experienced substantial violations of human rights during the period of rule of such governments. Further, elections itself would not guarantee suitable representation if the citizens are ignorant of politics and their civic consciousness is poor. A look at TV news casts these days proves it.
Even if the elections were free and fair the elected could subvert democracy. The YahapalanaGovernment which came to power on a massive mandate of 6.2 million voters subverted democracy by appointing a Cabinet comprising of individuals who openly stood against that mandate and even alleged that it was a result of a conspiracy. We are reaping its worst results now.
Even if all the above four elements were present it would be not easy to comprehend democracy. Lenin said there is democracy and democracy. The meaning of democracy varies. It was necessary to ask the question “for whom is democracy?” since different classes (or large groups of people related in different relations to system of production and distribution of material wealth) view and feel it differently.
For example, though there is freedom of assembly it is denied to many due to the high costs of hiring assembly halls and meeting places. It is obvious that local artistes are denied the use of Nelum Pokunafor their performances due to its high hiring charges. Only large commercial enterprises or politicians could afford such high costs.
Very often marginalized communities or minority groups find themselves being dominated by hegemonic majorities leading to violation of their human rights. Even in the United States taken as a model democracy by many, the Blacks and Hispanics are treated as second class citizens. In our own country we find claims by majority groups for special privileges which would reduce others to a subordinate position. These claims violate human rights and denies equality of all citizens as well as equity and social justice. Though democracy demands equality of all before the law practice shows that it is biased in favor of the moneyed and the strong. For example, a man who picks up a fallen coconut from a neighbor’s garden may end up in jail, a politician or a high official accused of large-scale misappropriation of public funds or robbing the Exchequer could obtain even a Court order preventing his arrest and even roam the globe in the meantime.
Democracy also has a variety of forms and facets. However, we will not dwell on them for the present. It is necessary only to consider it as something not yet consummate. It has developed through the millennia with the development of material production, with each successive mode of production improving it further. Modern democracy is far richer in content and form than that of Ancient Greece or even feudal times. Hence, claims to return to model democracies that existed in the past are regressive though some features of past democracies could be upgraded and accepted to suit the present level of culture and civilization. For example, while the practice of living in harmony with nature could be replicated at present the structures that enforced such harmony do not suit the modern civilization which is on a higher plane.
What is to be emphasized is that modern or bourgeois democracy needs to be improved both qualitatively and quantitatively. As far as improving and developing Sri Lankan democracy it must correspond to the underlying economic relations and the historical and cultural setting.
Sri Lanka inherited the British Westminster system of parliamentary democracy with its three arms -the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary and checks and balances to counter excesses by any one of them. Though universal suffrage was granted in 1931 the electorate remained basically ignorant of its efficacy and its mode of exercise. Pre-capitalist relations perpetuated and absorbed by the colonial masters and their policy of divide and rule laid a basis for a power struggle between the Sri Lankan elite for political power. Political independence was not accompanied or followed by economic independence and the majority of the population remained poor and under-privileged. This situation was used by the politicians to interpret the cause of poverty and deprivation of the poor as due to privileges enjoyed by the other communities. They found communalism a profitable media to attract voters and subsequent reforms in the electoral system and type of governance basically catered to the aspirations of the majority to the disadvantage of minorities. The Indian and Pakistani Citizenship Act, the Sinhala Only Act, repeal of Section 29 of the first Constitution, the special status afforded to Buddhism are examples.
Political parties were considered the medium through which representative democracy would be established. Experience has proved that it has been a failure due to several factors. Communal policies pursued by them is one such factor. It prevents national unity and promotes discord. This factor was further strengthened by the appearance of parties based solely on race and religion.
A fundamental weakness among almost all political parties is the lack of inner party democracy. In fact, party constitutions were also altered to bestow on the leadership authoritarian power. In fact, it had become a sine qua nonunder the Executive Presidency. The relative absence or under-representation of women and youth in party leadership is another weakness common to many parties. This has given Parliament a look similar to a Senior Old Boys/Pupils Club.
The system of first-past-the post voting often resulted in the elected MPs getting less votes than the total received by his or her opponents taken together. Proportional representation was later introduced to offset this anomaly. However, the mandatory bonus seats for the party that received the highest poll in each electoral district a well as the high cut-off point of 12.5 percent for eligibility for representation negated the positive benefits of the new system. This led to a situation of a two - party system getting entrenched in power. Lowering of the cut-off point to 5 percent subsequently led to a far greater representation of the popular verdict by accommodating smaller parties. Instead it has given rise to a phenomenon in which rival coalitions vie for power, enhancing the king-making role of smaller parties.
An ugly consequence of this situation was the practice of bribery and corruption on a large scale to entice the small parties to join ruling coalitions and individual MPS. Even legislation was passed to encourage or facilitate defections and cross-overs from one side to the other. The ultimate degeneration caused by it is seen these days during the present Constitutional impasse.
Today political parties have become less representatives of their sympathizers and have developed into a Mafiosidefending and promoting the personal interests of the leader or leaders. Thus, even during a democratically convened election they campaign not on policies and principle but on the need to maintain a particular leader at the helm of State.
Comentários