The granting of
universal franchise to Ceylon in 1931, was an epoch-making moment as the
island-nation, possessing a long and illustrious history, which included
periods of colonialism, was gradually seeing a return to self-governance.
Allowing the populace to determine its leadership, albeit not at the highest
level, was of significance. It was a step closer to independence. It was more
importantly another step towards democratization, in a country that had
hitherto been governed by kings and emperors, both local and foreign, and their
representatives. While democracy is founded on the principle of governance
emanating from the people themselves, the concept remained utopian in most
quarters of the world at the beginning of the 20th century.
This was especially so in Asia. With kingdoms and monarchical systems remaining
the norm, the sweep of colonialism that had started centuries earlier saw
suppression, control and plundering.The action taken with regard to Ceylon against such a backdrop was thus progressive, considering that Britain was not ready to divest of the empire that had been painstakingly built up, and from which there was much to benefit. However, this measure was also experimental as attempts were being made to understand the functionality of such an act. States aim continuously to remain democratic and embody these values and principles into its governance structure and framework. Herein the intention would remain resolute of acting in national interest. Understanding the concept of democracy and its basic components of ‘source of authority and legitimacy, electoral processes, federal or secular dimensions of polity, freedom of the press, role of civil society, rule of law, and the social and economic roots of political order’[1] are central to the discourse.
The democratic framework, which has been created over time and operationalized in Sri Lanka, is one which has witnessed much vibrancy and vitality. Similarly, the alleged necessity of the hour has often seen openly hostile, virulently opposed and ideologically different practitioners of politics, consolidating their positions through an often limiting hybrid of power sharing, simply to gain and retain power. This is unique to each country, and involves an indigenous process by which democracy is understood and abided by. Thus, it is paramount to examine the conceptualization and implementation of democracy from varied lenses.
Muni’s assertion is that the three categories of democracy, procedural, liberal and socialist, can identify the ‘preference for [a] given economic system and policies, or for the operating social dynamics.’[2] Therefore his contention is that whether the process be based on free competition and wider participation under a procedural system, the protection of rights as within a liberal democracy, or even economic rights under a socialist or people’s democracy, the policies at play, which would merit or demerit support, are at the centre of a democracy.
The ‘Democratic Peace’ theory, widely pioneered by Immanuel Kant through his treatise ‘Perpetual Peace,’ can be attributed to Woodrow Wilson’s justification of declaring war on Germany in an effort to make the world ‘safe for democracy.’ His statement that ‘Peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political theory… . A steadfast concern for peace can never be maintained except by a partnership of democratic nations,’[3] raised the call for the centralization of democracy and democratic standards within the policy making framework.
Given that Sri Lanka has
remained a democracy from independence to date, the fulfillment of democratic
standards, difficult as they may be, has not been inevitable. Leaders have made
conscientious decisions to ensure the preservation and protection of democratic
values within systems of governance. The oft quoted Churchillian remark that
democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that
have been tried from time to time, underscores the complexity of democracies,
yet highlights its relevance.
Examination of the concept of democracy, whereby recognition is accorded to the individual by preserving dignity; respecting the equality of all persons; believing in and abiding by majority rule with the inclusion of minority rights; accepting the need to compromise; and ensuring the greatest possible degree of individual freedom, all enables us to comprehend and analyse the existence of a democracy.
Sri Lanka, facing challenges of youth uprisings and terrorism in her decade’s long post-independence history, has had to contend with and provide for all that is enshrined in the concept of democracy. While the worth of the individual has been projected as a primary concept of democracy, it contends with the challenges presented through operation in collective and individualistic societies. A constant struggle persists whereby individuals are compelled to carry out functions they might not necessarily want to do.
In relation to equality, Sri Lanka has prided itself in the inclusion of Universal Franchise in 1931, whereby all people, men and women, received the right to vote, as opposed to other countries which only permitted men to exercise their franchise well into the 20th century and that too, only men of a particular pigmentation. Equality also refers to other categories such as race, creed, sexual orientation, as well as equality before the law in relation to treatment and justice meted out. Disparities though, have and continue to exist, muddying the notion of equality.
An inevitable controversy arises over majority rule and minority rights, wherein the definition of majority and minority remain fluid. A majority race would not be the same as a majority demand. A religion followed by a minority would defer from a minority group protesting justice. Chapter three of the 1978 Constitution enshrines fundamental rights giving credence to the need for providing, within the legal framework, justice to all, irrespective of race, religion, gender or creed. Yet concerns remain over equality in relation to gender and sexual preference with Victorian regulations continuing to dominate and thereby denying equality to all. From a nationalistic perspective it was vital to rid the country of colonialism but ironically it is incumbent to preserve regulations introduced in a by-gone era.
Compromise, as controversial and unpopular as it may seem, remains at the very heart of democratic governance, especially in Sri Lanka, whereby leaders have had to compromise with each other, with the citizenry and with the international community. Given the largely bipartisan approach to politics, with two parties mainly involved in forming governments alone or in coalitions, the call for compromise was perhaps most vehemently made during the period of cohabitation during the Kumaratunga presidency and thereafter during the Sirisena presidency. The necessity to compromise with the citizenry is stressed during times of protest, strikes and work-to-rule campaigns whereby the state is forced to reach compromise on policies deemed extreme and eagerly championed. Compromise with the international community remains a non-starter as the lack of sufficient bargaining power on the world stage often results in complete acceptance rather than any possibility of compromise.
Individual freedom remains fundamental in a pluralistic society, yet is highly contentious. While freedom of expression is said to be a basic form of freedom, concerns arise over where such freedom ends and hate speech begins. It is an absolute freedom but one that demands self-regulation. Within the context of the multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-religious milieu of Sri Lankan society, individual freedom while guaranteed constitutionally, is at the crux of preserving harmony. Situations in which sufficient attention has not been paid to the notion of co-existence have seen unfortunate and avoidable repercussions.
In totality, these concepts remain critical for the effective functioning of a democracy through a process, which Boutros-Ghali claimed would lead to ‘a more open, more participatory, less authoritarian society.’[4] His observation is that democratization and democracy have given way to difficult questions arising whereby ‘the acceleration of democratization and the renaissance of the idea of democracy have met with some resistance.’ [5]
Boutros-Ghali’s trilogy completing publication, The Agenda for Democratization built on The Agenda for Peace and The Agenda for Development, which brought to the fore the need for intertwining peace, development and democratization. Having undergone massive change, waves of decolonization championed by the Non-Aligned world and ably supported by the United Nations gathered momentum in the post-second World War period. Simultaneously the emergence of the Cold War saw the ideological division heightened. Its end spurred the rebirth of democracy in many countries which had yielded to communism owing to pressure since the end of the Second World War.
The phenomenon grew as states emerged from colonialism and undertook their own systems of governance but the essence of democracy permeating through these systems questioned the very nature of its implementation and what it meant to each state. Naseer claims that ‘the euphoria of independence, coupled with a sense of nationalism, led the political leadership in these countries to embrace wide-ranging agenda in a bid to meet the expectations and aspirations of the people.’[6] He cogently argues that ‘nation-building functions were usurped by state-building activities,’ [7] as states were scrambling to primarily address issues of stability and governance, over more idealistic goals of ensuring the widespread prevalence of the very process that may have brought them into power – democratization.
Highlighting the role of the United Nations the then Secretary General attempted to enhance, rather than compromise the manner in which states were governed, their policies formulated and support extended to them. Articulating examples of merging peace, development and democratization, he describes El Salvador, Cambodia and Mozambique as states where the ‘United Nations efforts in support of democratization served as a link between conflict resolution, on the one hand, and reconstruction and development on the other.’ [8]
In considering democratization within states, Sri Lanka sought to forge ahead with development and democratization. At times this was carried out despite the absence of peace owing to the conflict raging in the country. Countering and thwarting terrorism had a price. Development though continued, was stymied owing to lackluster investor confidence given the volatile environment prevalent at different periods. Boutros-Ghali recognizes that democracy is necessary for sustainable development but as in the case in Sri Lanka and other war-ravaged states, peace becomes mandatory for sustainable development to be realized.
Irrespective of developments within the country, it is evident that the pièce de resistance in Sri Lanka has been the commitment of the citizenry. Whether at successive elections, through civil society or through litigation, much effort has been exerted to ensure the preservation of democracy and democratic standards. Whilst attempts to undermine the very foundation of democracy have occurred, it is evident that nine decades of universal franchise have seen systems of democracy well entrenched in society.
At the 90th anniversary of universal franchise the question that arises is of the future. How effectively will democracy be nurtured and exercised in the decades ahead? Given that the country and its citizenry have experienced democracy and enjoyed its fruits, it is not conducive to reverse that which has been gained. Any attempt to reverse such gains will not succeed, and technically should not succeed, which bodes for democracy in the years ahead.
Yet the persistent concern remains the depth and degree of maturing of the citizenry. While communalism was a critical factor in the 1930s and had been a cause for concern even prior, its continuation remains worrying. Divisions of Sri Lankan society along communal lines has stained the social fabric and restricted the achievement of the potential of the island-nation.
Milestones are fresh opportunities to re-examine what has been achieved and where a country is heading. In the 21st century, fragmented societies that sustain division will reap the results of it in the decades ahead. Differences are a natural phenomenon, and heterogenous societies are the norm. Celebration of diversity is also important. However, finding commonalities remain paramount for collective progress and overall achievement of the national interests of a country.
In Sri Lanka, the primary objective has got to be the promotion of a Sri Lankan identity whereby all citizens of the country, irrespective of their community, race, caste, religion, gender or sexual orientation, remain united by a common denominator – being Sri Lankan. This would be the guarantor and generator of a harmonious society. Then, and only then, will universal franchise, democracy and democratic norms be truly meaningful, as society as a whole, would be able to engage in this worthwhile exercise.
Democracy has stood the test of time, and is undoubtedly the
potent path ahead for Sri Lanka.
This article appeared in a publication titled, ‘DEMOCRACY: Theory and Practice, Sri
Lankan Experiences’ by PAFFREL and the March 12 Movement
[1]Muni, S. D. (2009). India’s foreign policy: the democratic dimension, New Delhi: Cambridge University. p2
