TAKE COURAGE SRI LANKA, WE ARE A DEMOCRACY!

- George I. H. Cooke

When the going gets tough, we Sri Lankans have been known to rise to the occasion, deal with the situation to the best of our ability, endure the problem, overcome the challenge, and move forward. Unfortunately, we forget. The most important thing we forget is that we have those qualities - of resilience, of tenacity, and that we definitely possess the spirit to survive. Instead, we fear, and what we fear most is change.

A trek back in time, shows that we feared many things but we were always courageous, dealt with the eventuality, and moved on. In 1931, when the British held sway in the island nation, and decided to test universal franchise, there was general fear. Many leaders of that era were against it. The British did not have the most cordial of relations from the time of their arrival, with the natives of the land, yet that change that was feared then is our biggest strength today. We became a democracy and have stayed one, truly embracing all aspects of the democratic system.

Every person who has come to power from independence onwards has faced opposition, owing to the fear of what he or she would do with the country. Yet they won through democratic means, governed to the best of their ability, had strengths and weaknesses, and then had to leave. Yes, they had an effect on this country's journey, which was both positive and negative, and yes, we had to endure hardships at times, yet we survived.

It is we, the voters, who had choices at those elections, we voted, and democracy prevailed. We might have liked those in power or not liked them, but what is crucial is that democracy prevailed. The will of the people, above all else - that's true democracy.

We are the oldest democracy in this part of the world, and undoubtedly a country with people who are bold to expect change, work for change, and bold enough to sustain the ethos of change. We thankfully have such people, and it appears that the number is growing.

In September 2024, the need once again is courage, as it has been on numerous occasions in the past. We have voted in leaders, we have defeated leaders, and we have joined together to oust leaders too. This is the richness of the democratic tapestry that has been woven on this beautiful island for more than seven decades. We now need courage to vote again, and not abstain or spoil our votes. It is our right as citizens to decide on the destiny of our country, and also because there are millions around the world who do have the opportunity to vote, we must cherish this right we possess. 

When there is a glimmer of hope to end corruption, to ensure justice and fair play, to stop nepotism, and bring about equality, why are we afraid? Is it because corruption is good? Are injustices and the unfairness in society, fine? Is nepotism wonderful? Is equality bad? Why then, do some fear?  

Interestingly for some this fear stems from select memories of parts of the past, specific moments in a very subjective manner. Yet we do not want to remember everything or everyone who contributed to all that we have endured from independence onwards, on every side of every divide. If we are keen to open the chest of history, let us do so collectively and genuinely look at all aspects of history and not be subjective in our choice of moments and persons. 

In 2024, our biggest problems revolve around the economy, but how did we get here? Poor decisions led to wrong policies and very importantly, corruption at every level contributed to our crisis. The lack of action against those responsible has been the icing on the cake. We are living in a bubble at present, wherein we owe outside entities so much yet we live as though all is fine. Let us realise the reality and be bold, once again. 

A quarter of the 21st century is almost over. We can either harp on the past, complain about the misgivings of some of those moments and selectively remember only parts of history, OR we can look forward, understand the reality of the country, realise the need for justice, fair play and vision, comprehend the vicious role that corruption has played throughout history, and vote wisely. 

Going forward, if we find corruption rampant, misdemeanours of various forms, and mistakes being made, we can and will change leaders. It has been done in the past, it can be done again. Yet fearing change should not be part of our national psyche, especially in the 21st century, because that is not who we really are. 

We Sri Lankans are made of tougher stuff and possess the resilience and strength to face the future. We need to march ahead with confidence and trust. We need to be bold, we need to take courage, we need to embrace change and not forget that we are a democracy!

Let’s exercise our democratic right, and ensure that above all else, democracy prevails in Sri Lanka. 

ARGENTINA’S POLITICAL ODYSSEY: Navigating the Rise of Milei

Guest Commentary by Banura Nandathilake

In the wake of Argentina’s 40^th anniversary of uninterrupted democracy, a disconcerting shift in the political landscape has unfolded with the ascent of Javier Milei. Once a right-wing populist, provocative television personality and rock singer with a mop of disheveled hair, Milei's meteoric rise has catapulted him from the realm of unrestrained outbursts against the perceived political elite to assuming the presidency. Garnering comparisons to Trump and embracing a libertarian ethos, Milei, with vows to extricate Argentina from what he deems decades of “decadence and decline,” now holds the reins of power. However, his ascendance is marked by an air of ambiguity towards democratic norms, as evidenced by his questioning of democratic efficacy citing Arrow's theorem, and unrestrained outbursts against a “political caste” he blamed for Argentina’s perennial economic woes. Argentina finds itself at a crossroads, navigating both a prolonged economic crisis and the potential implications of a leader whose rhetoric reflects an authoritarian strain.

The Unconventional Agenda

As Argentina stands at the precipice of a political transition, the election promises articulated by President Javier Milei, have ignited both intrigue and skepticism. Often labeled ‘El Loco’ by critics, Milei’s ambitious agenda encompasses radical economic, social, and institutional transformations. Foremost among his pledges is the abandonment of the national currency, the peso, in favor of the US dollar, a move he asserts will curb inflation by dismantling the central bank’s capacity to print more money. The flamboyant economist, known for his unorthodox campaign tactics, symbolically brandished a chainsaw to underscore his commitment to slashing expenditures, a visual metaphor for his intent to ‘dynamite’ the central bank and embrace dollarization.

Milei’s promise to privatize state-owned enterprises, including the energy giant YPF and public broadcasters, echoes the neoliberal playbook. This commitment, however, comes with a caveat, as he emphasizes the need to first ‘rebuild’ YPF before its privatization - an aspect that raises questions about the timeline and feasibility of such an endeavour. Concurrently, his vow to disband ministries deemed redundant has stirred controversy, with a categorical dismissal of the Culture Ministry, Environment Ministry, Ministry of Women and Gender Diversity, among others. In a stark departure from conventional governance, Milei has advocated for substantial cuts in welfare payments, a move that raises concerns in a nation where millions depend on government assistance and subsidies.

Socially, Milei's agenda takes a conservative turn, advocating for the relaxation of gun laws, a stance juxtaposed against his intention to reverse the legalization of abortion in Argentina. His call to permit the sale and purchase of human organs further underscores the ideological departure from prevailing norms. Milei’s critique of what he terms a “system of state indoctrination” extends to his promise to abolish sex education in schools, indicative of a broader challenge to established societal norms. Additionally, he has suggested a transformative shift in Argentina’s education system, proposing the replacement of free public education with a “voucher” system, while hinting at the potential termination of obligatory primary schooling.

At the core of Milei's promises lies an overarching commitment to austerity, embodied by a proposed five percent reduction in government spending as a percentage of gross domestic product. This pledge, in a nation grappling with a severe economic crisis marked by staggering inflation and widespread poverty, raises questions about its social impact and the potential for exacerbating existing hardships. As he navigates the complex terrain of translating campaign rhetoric into policy action, Argentina watches with a mixture of anticipation and trepidation, acutely aware that the promises made during this critical juncture may shape the nation's trajectory for years to come.

A Political Upheaval

As Argentina underwent a seismic political shift, Javier Milei’s resounding victory in the presidential election marked an unexpected turn of events. Pre-election polls, though indicating Milei's slight lead over Sergio Massa, failed to anticipate the substantial margin of his win—more than 11%, according to provisional results. Milei's inaugural speech echoed the populist fervor reminiscent of Donald Trump’s 2017 inauguration, with a commitment to ending what he termed an era of “Argentina has become a bloodbath.” With strong rhetoric, he vowed to combat drug traffickers and swiftly address the nation's pressing challenges. The victory, dedicated in his customary fashion to his deceased dog, Conan and three surviving dogs, positioned Milei as the outsider who successfully navigated the political spectrum between Peronism and the followers of former President Mauricio Macri.

The election on November 19, 2023 saw Milei securing 55.9% of the votes in a runoff against Sergio Massa, the finance minister, who garnered 44%. He wasted no time in outlining his vision for Argentina, promising deep spending cuts to reverse what he described as “decades of decadence” by the political elite. His radical reforms, including dollarization and austerity measures, gained national attention and positioned Argentina on a path potentially unfamiliar to a country of its size. Notably, Milei has already engaged with top U.S. officials in Washington and collaborated with IMF officers, signaling an intent to reshape Argentina's foreign policy and tackle its economic challenges head-on. The inauguration ceremony, attended by far-right associates such as Brazil’s former president Jair Bolsonaro and Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orbán, marked the official transfer of power. Milei, in his first speech as president, pledged sweeping changes and acknowledged the overwhelming public desire for irreversible change. The symbolic swearing-in, held before the nation's congress in Buenos Aires, showcased the president's distinctive style, complete with a personalized presidential sash and baton featuring engravings of his five dogs.

As Milei assumes the highest office, his presidency raises concerns about the potential impact on Argentina's democratic institutions. The blend of authoritarian ideas and unconventional styles, epitomized by the chainsaw-wielding campaign rallies, adds complexity to the nation's political discourse, urging democratic forces to navigate and redefine the social contract in the face of a president with a distinctive and unorthodox approach. While Milei assured that the proposed adjustments would primarily impact the state rather than the private sector, he acknowledged the short-term challenges, emphasizing the long-term vision of solid and sustainable growth. His commitment to ending “decades of decadence” left by overspending predecessors marked a central theme, emphasizing the urgency of addressing Argentina's economic woes.

Man of Eccentric Counter-Intuitiveness 

Javier Milei, a 53-year-old economist, has emerged as a central figure in Argentine politics, captivating the nation with his unorthodox ascent from television provocateur to the highest office. Described as the “anarcho-capitalist” and the “king of the jungle,” Milei's rise has defied conventional expectations, signaling a departure from established political norms.

The self-proclaimed ‘tantric sex instructor’ and former rock singer has championed an anti-establishment narrative, rallying against what he terms the “political caste.” His unapologetic tirades and flamboyant campaign appearances, where he has been seen wielding a chainsaw and donning outlandish outfits, have left an indelible mark on Argentina's political landscape. Milei’s eccentricities extend to his personal beliefs, where he has declared himself anti-abortion and dismissed global heating as a “socialist lie.” His triumph in the presidential primary elections, underscores his successful navigation between the Peronist and Macrista political spheres. Milei’s electoral win not only signals a shift in leadership but also reflects the widespread discontent with the political status quo.

The president’s counterintuitive vision is characterized by radical proposals that challenge traditional economic and social norms. Milei plans to adopt the U.S. dollar as Argentina's national currency, a move unprecedented for a country of its size. Additionally, he advocates for the abolition of Argentina's central bank, a drastic measure aimed at addressing the nation's economic challenges, including 116% inflation and a cost-of-living crisis that has left a significant portion of the population in poverty. Milei’s ideological blend of libertarian conservatism and economic radicalism extends to his alliances with far-right figures such as Jair Bolsonaro and Viktor Orbán. His inauguration, attended by a cadre of international leaders, signifies a potential reorientation of Argentina's foreign policy, positioning the country as a key ally to Ukraine and distancing itself from authoritarian leaders like Nicolás Maduro and Daniel Ortega.

As Milei assumes the presidency, the contradictions within his persona and political platform raise questions about the future trajectory of Argentina. His authoritarian style, unconventional beliefs, and promises of sweeping changes challenge the democratic foundations of the nation. From dedicating his victory to his dogs, cloned from the cells of a beloved mastiff, to vowing to end “decades of decadence,” Milei’s presidency introduces a complex chapter in Argentina's political narrative. The challenges ahead, coupled with his unorthodox approach, will undoubtedly shape the nation's political discourse, prompting a critical examination of the delicate balance between populism and democratic governance.

The Electoral Paradox 

The electoral dynamics underscore a demand for change, with Milei positioned as the figure capable of channeling the frustrations of a populace eager to break free from the perceived failures of the past. His aggressive style and promises to dismantle the entrenched political establishment resonated with voters fed up with the country's economic decline under the center-left Peronist government. The overwhelming support for Milei signals a profound discontent with the status quo, as Argentina grapples with staggering inflation, soaring poverty rates, and a pervasive disillusionment with its political class.

Milei's victory speech, wherein he declared the end of a “model of decadence,” encapsulates the sentiment that propelled him to power - tapping into the frustration of Argentines who have witnessed their nation fall from prosperity to a ranking of 130^th in global economic standings. His promise of a Libertarian model and a return to global power struck a chord with those disillusioned by decades of economic mismanagement and a perceived stagnation in national progress.

The core of Milei's appeal lies in his ability to channel the collective anger against the ruling class, particularly among the younger demographic experiencing the brunt of the economic downturn. A significant portion of the population no longer identifies with the narratives presented by both Kirchnerism and Macrism, having witnessed little positive change under either government. Milei's capacity to tap into this discontent, especially among the youth, positions him as a figure capable of expressing the frustrations of a society seeking change.

The electoral success of Milei reflects a broader trend where voters, disillusioned with establishment parties, turn to unconventional candidates who promise radical solutions. Milei's Trump-like rallies and social media presence played a pivotal role in engaging a demographic dissatisfied with the economic crisis and job uncertainty. The perception that establishment parties failed to address these pressing issues fueled Milei’s popularity, positioning him as the least worst alternative in the eyes of many voters.

As Argentina grapples with economic challenges, Milei’s promise of “shock treatment” and the acknowledgment that short-term hardships are inevitable has resonated with those eager for change, regardless of its immediate consequences. The economic outlook for Argentina, marked by high inflation rates and looming fiscal deficits, sets the stage for Milei’s presidency as a critical juncture in the nation's history, where the electorate opted for a radical departure from the established political order.

Navigating the Slippery Slope 

The concerns surrounding President Javier Milei's leadership extend beyond his unorthodox promises and electoral triumph. As the political landscape in Argentina undergoes a seismic shift with Milei's ascent to power, a growing chorus of critics points to worrisome signs of authoritarian tendencies. Milei’s response to the attempted assassination of former President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, treating it merely as a criminal act, and his praise for repressive acts during Argentina’s dark dictatorship era raise red flags. More alarming is his apparent readiness to curtail freedoms, evident in threats of legal action against journalists and political adversaries. This trend towards stifling dissent and criticism is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes. The tolerance or endorsement of violence, coupled with Milei’s defense of Argentina’s military dictatorship and proposals to loosen gun laws and legalize the sale of human organs, paints a concerning picture.

The appointment of Victoria Villarruel, who has defended military officers involved in human rights abuses during the dictatorship, adds another layer of controversy. Critics argue that Milei’s presidency poses a threat to democratic freedom and human rights, with concerns amplified by derogatory references to opponents and a disregard for political opponents’ legitimacy. While Milei’s radical plans to dismantle the state persist, including the elimination of various ministries, the absence of concrete checks and balances raises questions about the potential unchecked slide towards authoritarianism. As Argentina grapples with economic challenges and widespread disillusionment with established parties, the lack of viable alternatives may inadvertently provide tacit support to Milei's unconventional governance, with implications for the nation's democratic institutions.

Navigating Pragmatism

As Javier Milei assumes the presidency in Argentina, a complex tapestry of expectations, contradictions, and pragmatic shifts unfolds. While Milei’s campaign brimmed with anti-establishment fervor, his actual governance navigates a more nuanced landscape. Economists emphasize the practical constraints imposed by the limited representation of Milei's party in Congress, highlighting the necessity for negotiations with the very politicians he once disparaged.

The president’s adeptness at political realignment became apparent post-election, as he forged alliances with figures like Patricia Bullrich and Mauricio Macri, thanking them in his victory speech. However, concerns linger about the potential implications of his leadership for Argentine society, particularly with controversial appointments like Victoria Villarruel, known for defending officers involved in human rights abuses during the military dictatorship. Critics worry that Milei’s victory may compromise constitutional freedoms, yet the question arises: which version of Milei will govern? Will it be the chainsaw-wielding, anti-establishment crusader or the more moderate leader who emerged in the weeks following his win?

Pragmatism, it seems, is dawning as the president faces the monumental task of steering Argentina through economic challenges, political complexities, and the need for broader support in Congress. Despite earlier pledges to purge corruption and eliminate the Central Bank, recent developments indicate a shift toward moderation. Milei, once a vocal critic of global socialism, now engages in diplomatic overtures, sending a climate negotiator to the COP28 conference and backtracking on plans to scrap the health ministry.

His moderation, seen by some as a pragmatic response to political realities, includes appointing experienced politicians like Patricia Bullrich to key positions. While hints of moderation and backtracking on extreme proposals raise questions about consistency, the core narrative remains one of adaptability to the demands of governance. The preservation of democratic principles amid these shifts is underscored by Milei’s commitment during his inaugural address not to “persecute anyone or settle old vendettas.” The balancing act between campaign rhetoric and pragmatic governance, evident in Milei’s alliances and policy adjustments, sheds light on the intricate dynamics of leading a nation.

The analysis of Milei's evolving approach becomes crucial in understanding the trajectory of the nation. The chainsaw may be set aside, and the pledge to replace the peso with the dollar deferred, yet the essence of Milei’s presidency emerges as a study in adaptation, prompting a broader reflection on the resilience of democratic principles within the Argentine political landscape.

Javier Milei's Economic Revolution

In the aftermath of Javier Milei’s swift ascent to the presidency, the economic landscape of Argentina underwent a radical transformation. Within 48 hours of taking office, Economy Minister Luis Caputo announced a series of measures aimed at cutting public spending, devaluing the peso, and implementing various reforms. This ambitious agenda, an attempt to steer the country's economy toward surplus amidst a severe crisis, garnered international attention and earned praise from institutions like the IMF. However, as Milei moved to dismantle what he termed “the caste” – a network of political, business, and media elites – resistance emerged from various quarters.

An omnibus bill sent to Congress outlined Milei’s intent to rule by decree, reshape Argentina's electoral system, and impose stringent penalties for protest-related disruptions. The ensuing weeks witnessed a cacophony of dissent from different sectors – lawyers, doctors, artists, fishermen, and more – each expressing discontent over specific policy changes affecting their domains. Perhaps most vehement was the opposition from trade unions, central to Milei's target for systemic overhaul. His proposed labor reforms, which included making union membership opt-in and not automatic, triggered nationwide protests and a swift response from major unions.

While initially welcomed by financial markets, doubts arose concerning the political viability of Milei's transformative agenda. Challenges include the need for congressional approval on key fiscal measures, a shrinking economy, and rising inflation. The 2% monthly devaluation of the peso, aimed at boosting foreign reserves, faces skepticism, and there are concerns about the feasibility of tax hikes without legislative backing. Analysts are questioning whether the proposed changes will bring the anticipated economic revival or exacerbate existing challenges.

Beyond the Horizon

The nation finds itself at a critical juncture where the promises of radical reform meet the complexities of political reality. As ramifications of its decision to elect Javier Milei, a figure who personifies political unpredictability, the sustainability of Milei's vision and the extent of its impact on Argentina's deeply entrenched economic structures remain subjects of intense scrutiny and debate. From his flamboyant entrance into politics, marked by a whirlwind campaign that seized attention both nationally and globally, to his unexpected ascent to the presidency, Milei embodies a departure from conventional political norms. The nuances of his leadership style, from fiery rhetoric to signs of moderation post-election, underscore the complex landscape of Argentine politics.

While Milei’s victory raises concerns about authoritarian inclinations and potential challenges to democratic institutions, the enduring strength of Argentina's democracy persists. The very system that allowed a political outsider to ascend to power also carries within it the capacity for resilience and adaptation. The global community, too, has a stake in this unfolding narrative, as the fate of democracy in Argentina reverberates beyond its borders. Supporting Argentina’s democratic journey is not merely a national obligation; it is a shared responsibility that transcends regional boundaries, reflecting a broader imperative to safeguard democratic principles on a global scale.

THE DEMOCRACY THAT IS INDIA: INTRIGUING, EVOLVING AND INSPIRING

Marking 75 years of Indian Independence

By George I. H. Cooke

Preserving democratic values, ensuring the maintenance of democratic standards and strengthening the process of democratization, are formidable measures for any country. When a country with a population of nearly one and a half billion embraces democracy as its political ideology, continuously champions this system for more than seven decades and implements it across the entirety of its length and breadth and at all levels of its political being, it is clear that democracy has been able to withstand much. India is today the largest democracy on the planet, and with its position comes much responsibility.

The democratization of India, whereby the world saw the abandoning of hereditary monarchical systems, and the dismantling of the privileged structure that had existed even through colonialism, was to set India on a pedestal. Yet this pedestal was not one of natural influence and ability. It did not occur accidentally either. It was to be one on which and from which India, her leaders and people would be called upon to formulate and implement policies that would sustain democracy, nurture its values and ensure that all - irrespective of their communities, religions and castes - who identified as Indian, would be beneficiaries. The journey was not without its challenges, but it is the journey itself that remains remarkable.

The Intrigue - Lessons of the Past

At Independence, Jawaharlal Nehru, was at pains to ensure that India remained a secular nation, which rallied around the Indian flag and identified primarily as Indians, before all else. Undoubtedly it was a firm foundation that gave the Indian nation a strong start. His presence at the helm for seventeen years till 1964 guaranteed that the seeds he sowed would have the opportunity to grow unhindered for nearly two decades. In many neighbouring countries of South Asia, leaders at independence did not survive for even a decade thereafter to see the results of their pre-independence struggles or to fully implement policies they deemed fit for their emerging countries.

India thus received an advantageous commencement on a journey, that has seemed more like a race, with neighbours, with the Cold War, with non-alignment, and with economic liberalization among other entities and concepts, but most importantly with internal challenges of keeping a country as diverse, as different, and as divided as India, together. This diversity is upheld today as a great boost for image and publicity in the international community. Yet arriving at the present involved much cohabitation, compromise and cooperation, that was, is and continues to be unparalleled in the world.

The Evolution – Overcoming Challenges

While it is argued that the holding of elections at regular intervals and electing leaders are not the totality of democracy, they are key components. In the last 75 years Indians have elected leaders and political parties and in so doing removed others, who were subsequently bought back at later times. Leaders have resigned, died in office, been assassinated, Parliament has been attacked, the fundamentals of democracy have come under siege, but despite all of these occurrences and much more, the Republic remains strong. Presiding over a federal system that aims to embrace the diversity and overcome the differences is a complex task. In reflecting upon that which has been, it is evident that the complexity has been comprehended. If not, the Republic would have disintegrated quite some time ago.

Lincoln observed that people remain at the core of any democracy. Whether the ones who are elected, or the ones who elect, it is people who are the direct beneficiaries of any democratic society. Thus, people must never leave the equation nor allow themselves to be excluded from it. If any attempt has been made or is being made to restrict that which a democracy affords, all effort needs to be exerted to rein in the constrictions and permit instead the prevalence and proliferation of all that a democracy stands for.

In neighbouring Sri Lanka, the oldest democracy in this part of the world having gained universal franchise in 1931, when efforts were underway to undermine people, with ill-advised policies, erroneous decisions, incompetent leadership and heightened corruption, that collectively misled a nation of 21 million, people rose up. In proof that democracies are constantly evolving, the people forced leaders out of office due to the aforementioned reasons, and demanded change. While mandates are given at elections, mandates can also be withdrawn especially through mass protests that signify the displeasure of the people and their desire to safeguard the democratic standards that are enshrined in the constitution and which must be preserved in a democracy.

The Inspiration - Strategizing for the Future

Democracy with all its complexities and connotations is still the optimal governance system for any country. Giving people the freedom to elect their representatives who in turn are called upon to formulate sound policies which would have a positive impact on the entirety of the polity, is by far the accepted form of governance, and is widely practiced. India, as the world’s largest democracy has a bigger burden. This is not confined to the implementation of proactive democratic principles within the country alone. It extends to the immediate sub region, the greater Asian region, and the international community. The Indian model, despite its complications and conundrums experienced within, is still the largest working model in the world today. With the growth in population, this position is not likely to be changed for the rest of the 21^st century, and would only be further strengthened in the decades to come.

The onus is thus on India. Indian leaders have an obligation to their people, which extends beyond. The first obligation is to the people of the vast country to be able to live in a society that enshrines basics freedoms, guarantees equality in all respects, and promotes understanding amid diversity. At no time must the citizenry of a country that occupies this primal position be forced to compromise on their freedoms, have their voices silenced, find themselves bereft of recourse to justice, encounter an erosion of democratic institutions, or have any form of ideology foisted upon them. The liberal nature of democracy can create space for such challenges to thrive, but it is the people who remain at the core, and who must be able to thwart any weakening or destabilizing of the democratic norms upon which their nation has been built.

The second obligation is to countries that adhere to the democratic form of governance. If a country the size of India falters, the repercussions would be widespread. Thus far the country has survived in close geographic proximity to two of the largest countries, that advocate different policies of governance. Whilst their preferred policies have been implemented for decades, and would prove effective for them as a means of governance, the larger Asian neighbourhood has adopted democratic norms, as has most of the world. Any faltering or failure to remain the strong, representative democracy that India was envisioned to be at independence, would prove detrimental to many.

Given the challenging global environment in which democracy attempts to thrive, with a skew of ‘isms’ disrupting countries and their courses, India has a third obligation to the democratic tradition as a whole. The concept was first coined in the middle of the 5^th century to denote the system of governance in Greek city states, which had populations of several thousands. Thereafter it survived millennia, and is today practiced in a single country that possesses a population of nearly one and a half billion. This is testimony to the fundamental importance of the system, its traits and what it proffers its adherents. Therein India remains an inspiration to all, from fledgling states to well-founded ones, and cannot renounce its role.

As India surges ahead towards further milestones, it is the action taken at present, that would see the country emerge as a global giant or remain a regional power. Whether through partnerships with the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) or membership in the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multisectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) or even Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), through intensified performance in larger multilateral bodies like the United Nations and its affiliated agencies and organizations, or even in its bilateral relations in South Asia and the world, India can readily rely on two key features, democracy and diplomacy. Both have been strategically implemented and have stood the country in good stead. However as with all key characteristics, no lapses can be encountered, no slips allowed and no mistakes permitted.

India’s place in the world, and also in history has been guaranteed to a large extent by its democratic credentials, which have been bolstered by an effective diplomatic apparatus. In its engagement with the people of India, the people of the region, and those of the world, the Indian leadership has and must continue to safeguard democratic ideals, and guarantee their implementation. A strategized foreign policy administered by an effective and efficient diplomatic structure will see the country raise its stakes for global leadership, realize that which was envisaged more than seven decades ago, and reinforce the enormity of potential and opportunity of the country and her people.

 

 

 

 

 

RUSSIA OVERSHADOWS G7 2022 SUMMIT

GUEST COMMENTARY by Banura Nandathilake

Despite being an informal collective of ‘advanced economic’ liberal democratic states, the Group of 7 (G7) bringing together Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom and the United States have fervent goals. Held from 26 to 28 June 2022, the summit was in response to a global society capsized by division and shocks, as a call to unite and join to defend ‘universal human rights and democratic values, the rules-based multilateral order, and the resilience of democratic societies’ (G7, 2022). The viability of such remains to be seen.

Formed in 1975, leading states in a world of global economic recession induced by the OPEC oil embargo understood it may be in their mutual interest to coordinate on macroeconomic interdependencies. While it was first a forum for Finance ministers to hold annual meetings, the G7 developed into a round-table between leaders of the Western World. In 1988, Russia joined the G7, which was then named the G8 albeit temporarily until Russia’s dismissal for its annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.

The G7 states in the contemporary, with an aggregate that represents 45 percent of the global economy in nominal terms and 10% of the world’s population, hold annual summits to coordinate economic policy goals, facilitate collective action on transnational issues and propagate neo liberal norms, in conjunction with the European Union and other invitees. All 7 member states are identified as mature and advanced democracies with a Human Development Index score of 0.800 or higher.

Unlike international organisations and groups such as NATO, the G7 group has no formal legal existence, no permanent secretariat or official members. It thus has no legally binding rules that abide by or ratify states to uphold decisions and commitments made at G7 meetings. As such, while compliance with G7 norms is procedurally voluntary, they are impacted by social norms of persuasion, influence, mutual accountability and reputation. Topics of conversation between member states have encompassed growing challenges such as counterterrorism, development, education, health, human rights and climate change.

The 2022 Summit

From 26-28 June 2022, the leaders of G7 States met in Elmau, Germany joined by the leaders of Argentina, India, Indonesia, Senegal and South Africa, as well as Ukraine. Representatives included German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi, US President Joe Biden, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, French President Emmanuel Macron, European Council President Charles Michel and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen,

The summit focused on the Covid-19 crisis, climate change, the Russian Ukrainian conflict, and China. 

Climate Change

The shared concerns of climate change were a major topic of discussion during the 2022 Summit. The group endorsed the goals of an open and cooperative international Climate Club, in alignment with the 1.5°C pathways and hastened the implementation of the Paris agreement. The group further pledged to commit to a decarbonised transportation sector by 2030, a fully or predominantly decarbonised power sector by 2035. However, the latter may have been incentivised by political concerns of Western states to a major degree.

Liberal Democracies of the West

Liberal democracies may be understood to exist where the state subscribes to a liberal economic system and a democratic political system. A concise summary of such is as a liberal economic system proscribes significant political control over an decentralised, capitalistic, market driven economic system, as it is understood that the market mechanism is the most efficient means of linking demand to supply, market to consumer. A democracy may be understood as a domestic political model which, in conjunction with an impartial judiciary, free media and others, elected representatives aim to promote a decentralised representative governance through accountable, transparent and inclusive institutions.

By virtue of being a liberal democracy, all member states find common ground, parallel norms, alignment of macro foreign policy goals and understanding with each other. This allows the informal G7 to coordinate hard power security and economic interdependence in addition to cooperating with civil society groups to promote human rights, and uphold a democratic zone of peace in the face of non-democratic powers. A strong culture of mutual accountability exists between G7 states. Accountability may be through internal processors of the forum, where social norms allow for persuasion and disincentivize coercion. Coercion may not at all be necessary, as liberal democratic states would all be of a positive sum world view. Furthermore, the level of trade interdependence between states would act as means of checks and balances, as every state is needed by the other, thus it is in every G7 state’s interest to be in their good books.

The Illiberal Rest

Russia and China, in addition to states such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela are understood by the West to be illiberal states. Both major powers, albeit one a receding power, have capitalist and liberal economic systems where the state’s political machine exerts a heavy pressure on the market mechanism. While the state may be able to provide a higher quality safety net to its citizens by restraining the destructive forces of capitalism to better allocate scarce resources amongst the vulnerable, significant barriers to such exist. China’s GDP has grown at a surprising rate vis a vis other developing states, which has allowed the CCP significant geopolitical leverage. However, China’s domestic political model is authoritarian, whereby citizens do not have much say in how they are governed. Exclusive political institutions have no means of accountability or transparency, which leads to significant corruption. As Wedeman (2004) analyses, corruption is a feature of the Chinese system, thereby stifling economic and social growth. Corruption and lack of domestic checks and balances to those in power may be more apparent in Russia than China, where the control of the Kremlin and the Oligarchs have poignant effects on not just its citizens but also its neighbours; as the lack of domestic accountability may mean the lack of stringent checks balances, which then mean lesser shackles on the zero-sum ambitions.

Russia-Ukraine Conflict

The Russia-Ukraine conflict may be interpreted as a conflict between the forces of liberal democratic values of positive peace, pluralism and self-determination versus a one man’s nostalgic dreams of a ‘Neo’ USSR. Being at complete odds, the reaffirmed condemnation of Russia’s ‘’illegal and unjustifiable war of aggression against Ukraine’’ by the liberal democratic G7 states is hardly a surprise. Nor is their promise of ‘’needed financial, humanitarian, military, and diplomatic support’’ for Ukraine in its defence of its sovereignty, during its path on a free and democratic society.

The Sanctions Regime

Sanctions and more sanctions were promised by the group of seven advanced economies, who vowed to “align and expand targeted sanctions to further restrict Russia’’ in its access to key technological industrial imports and services. Such a move would severely restrict the ability to sustain their war machine thereby adhering to security commitments to Ukraine. The G7 Leaders pledged new sanctions on Russians who had committed war crimes in Ukraine, and are contributing to exacerbating “global food insecurity” by “stealing and exporting Ukrainian grain”. New penalties on Russian gold exports were further proposed, as well as a cap on the oil price to phase out global dependency on Russian energy.

However, a complete restriction of the import of Russian energy may be an ambitious task. European nations such as France get a quarter of their oil and 40% of their gas from Russia. While Germany has halted the progress of the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline, the EU has currently agreed to reduce its Russian gas imports by only two-thirds. President Biden however is banning all Russian oil and gas imports to the US, and the UK is ready to phase out Russian oil by the end of the year. The US, UK and Ukrainian Leaders are keen for other G7 nations to follow suit.

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who joined in on a trio of meetings via Videolink, stated that the summit will show "who is our friend, who is our partner and who sold us out and betrayed us". He reiterated his calls for fresh deliveries of weaponry, as he believes Russia will want to extend the war until winter wherein they could make new territorial gains to consolidate power. The financial support of G7 allies in 2022 already amounts to more than USD 2.8 billion in humanitarian aid, and a further USD 29.5 billion is pledged in supporting Ukrainian reconstruction.

China and the BRI

A growing China poses a “threefold threat” to G7 countries — economically, ideologically, and geopolitically. China’s GDP is second only to the US and it is fast catching up. China’s growing state-overseen tech industry, fuelled by globalisation and interdependence, is fast spreading a culture of surveillance and censorship, which act as means for the globalisation of authoritarianism. Said authoritarian ideals are further spread through Chinese geopolitical projects and alliances such as the BRI, which usually focus on developing, quasi democratic states with little to no accountability such as those in Africa and Central Asia. Furthermore, China’s action with regard to the Uyghurs in the Xinjiang region and its influence in Hong Kong have drawn condemnation from G7 members. China’s growing trade and defence ties with Russia have also caused concerns.

A Western Counter to the BRI

A Western counter to the BRI emerged during the G7 summit, aptly named Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment. The BRI is a global infrastructure development strategy which was developed as per Chinese leader Xi Jinping's vision in 2013, as a means for China to assume a greater role in global politics by easing access to China and its capabilities and boosting global GDP. Dubbed the Belt and Road Initiative and with over 145 countries signed up, the BRI is currently constructing a network of overland routes, rail transportation, sea lanes and energy pipelines to connect China to Southeast Asia, Central and South Asia, the Middle East, Europe and Africa. However, the project has been criticised as a tool to increase China’s political leverage in developing countries. Thereby, the BRI has been criticised for neocolonialism, economic imperialism.

In such a context, the G7 had launched a $600bn Build Back Better World (B3W) initiative infrastructure plan to counter China, in private and public funds to finance infrastructure in developing low and middle-income countries over five years. By working to narrow the global investment gap, the B3W would create new Just Energy Transition Partnerships with Indonesia, India, Senegal and Vietnam, building on existing partnerships with South Africa.

While US President Biden understood that “Developing countries often lack the essential infrastructure to help navigate global shocks (thus) feel the impacts … and they have a harder time recovering,” he stressed that the B3W “isn’t aid or charity. It’s an investment that will deliver returns for everyone”. Despite being dwarfed in comparison to the multi-trillion-dollar BRI, the B3W offers means of accountability, transparency and mutual trust between the neo liberal developed states and the developing states. The initiative would, according to Biden, further allow developing states to “see the concrete benefits of partnering with democracies”. While a cynic may argue that the developed have no interest in the developing other than exploitation and/or self-interest, and such may be observed to be true, President Biden may have been right when he said that underdevelopment is “not just a humanitarian concern, but an economic and a security concern for all”.

Mutual gains depend on interdependence, and without developing countries, there cannot be any sustainable recovery of the world economy. However, the development of low-income states is necessary but insufficient for a holistic global economic recovery, which remains shadowed by the conflict of value systems: liberal and illiberal, democratic and authoritarian.

 

SHANGRI-LA DIALOGUE 2022: DEEPENING DIPLOMACY AND DEFENCE

GUEST COMMENTARY by Banura Nandathilake

On 12^th June, Asia Pacific’s leading forum for defence diplomacy - the Shangri-La Dialogue ended after a pandemic-induced three-year hiatus. While the Dialogue is procedurally focused on cultivating a sense of security community within the Asia Pacific, which it solely lacks, this year’s event concluded under the uncertain shadow of the Ukraine-Russia conflict and the increasingly tenuous US-Sino relations.

The Shangri-La Dialogue is an intergovernmental security conference held in Singapore, by the London based think tank, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in collaboration with the government of Singapore. The Dialogue is chiefly attended by state actors such as Military chiefs, Defence and Foreign Ministers. However, non-state participants too, such as legislators, academic experts, distinguished journalists and business delegates attend the summit. Named after the host venue since 2002, the Shangri-La Hotel in Singapore, the forum serves as a platform for debate, expression of views and discussion on specific issues through bilateral meetings. However, off the record meetings are also held, chaired by IISS, to advance policy goals more freely.

Apart from the host nation, participating countries for the 2022 Shangri-La Dialogue included Australia, Cambodia, Brunei, Chile, France, Canada, China, India, Germany, Japan, Indonesia, Laos, South Korea, Myanmar, Mongolia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Russia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sweden, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste, Thailand, Vietnam, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Dialogue was attended by about 500 delegates from more than 40 countries.

Forum Proceedings

The 2022 Dialogue, as all previous sessions, was commenced by Dr John Chipman, the Director-General and Chief Executive of the IISS. This year’s keynote address was given by Fumio Kishida, the Prime Minister of Japan, who set the overall tone for the dialogue - the need for security cooperation and collective action between state and non-state actors in the Asia pacific to counter growing threats in the region and beyond. Broad topics such as the US Indo-Pacific Strategy - a significant shift of resources from the Middle eastern theatre, Competition in a Multipolar world, Military Modernisation, Prescriptions for Myanmar and China’s vision for Regional Order were covered. 

US-China Relations - a String Pulled Taut

The 2022 Shangri-La Dialogue was a significant milestone in contemporary US-China relations. The forum facilitated a meeting between the U.S. Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin and the Chinese Defence Minister Gen. Wei Fenghe, the first face-to-face encounter since President Biden's inauguration in January 2021. Any hope or reassuring signs of reinstalling lines of direct communication were dispelled by the increasingly sparring headline speeches and subsequent conversations between the two nations, on topics ranging from the status of Taiwan, proceedings within the South China Sea and questions and concerns surrounding grave human rights violations within China.

The US primary criticism of China’s international conduct centred around the latter’s coercive and aggressive actions in the disputed South China Sea, wherein China has constructed man made islands within the shared seaway in an attempt to solidify its claim to the areas enclosed by a ‘9-dash line’ which is claimed by Beijing to grant it exclusive rights, despite non-recognition by international law. “Indo-Pacific countries shouldn’t face political intimidation, economic coercion, or harassment by maritime militias,” Secretary Austin asserted, as “the PRC’s moves threaten to undermine security, stability, and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific.” He further reaffirmed the US position to defend its interests and those of its allies despite increased Chinese movement, mobilisation and pressure.

Secretary Austin’s Chinese counterpart's response was as headline jarring as his. Minister Wei Fenghe described his country’s position as one of self-defence in a global world of zero-sum, self-interested actors. Wei acknowledged his country’s increased nuclear and naval capabilities, in a speech peppered with warnings to tread carefully and avoid Chinese provocation. He further reaffirmed China’s strong stance of a rising great power, one of self-defence but also a crave for international legitimacy through recognition as a peaceful actor. Wei stressed that “It is a historic and strategic mistake to take China as a threat or enemy”. To ensure global peace and development, by virtue of China now being a great power, Wei called for a stop in attempts to “contain China, to stop interfering in China’s internal affairs, and stop harming China’s interests,” signalling that peace was conditional on China’s free reign. His speech further contained a stronger reiteration of the Chinese position on the disputed island of Taiwan - “If anyone dares to secede Taiwan from China – let me be clear – we will not hesitate to fight. We will fight at all costs and we will fight to the very end.”

Shared Ukrainian Costs

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy participated in this year’s Dialogue for the first time through a video link teleconference. Highlighting the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he urged the attendees of primarily Asian states to “remember that support and attention is not only for Ukraine but for (the greater Asia) as well, to ensure that our and your future is safe’’ in the contemporary globalised world. Despite Ukraine’s geographical distance from Asia, Russia’s invasion of his country has global implications, as the political, social and economic distance between countries are much shorter in the present than they ever were. Thus, the costs of war are shared between states, through trade interdependence, geopolitical institutions, and have direct effects such as rising global inflation.

Mr Zelenskyy further stressed that there are ideological costs, as “it is on the Ukrainian battlefield that the future rules of this world are being decided along with the boundaries of the possible.” His position drew clear parallels and a not-so-subtle nod to China's desire for Taiwanese reunification. The political alignments and the ideological divides of the attendee states were made abundantly clear as Prime Minister of Japan Kishida noted that “Ukraine today may be East Asia tomorrow,” further adding to the underlying tension of the Dialogue.

Collective Concerns of the Divided

Despite the lack of collective action on political qualms and tensions owing to non alignment of political compasses, the attendee states of the 2022 Shangri-La Dialogue remained receptive to prescriptions for collective concerns. The Dialogue served as a platform to tackle contemporary issues such as global underdevelopment and need of environmental security as a response to climate change, and the green defence agenda wherein the low-lying nations of Maldives, Polynesia and Micronesia were focused upon. The scope of prescriptions for global development and climate degradation are far beyond a single state, and collective action of all nations has shared global benefits. However, talks of nuclear disarmament were pushed by Prime Minister Kishida, who raised the potential for nuclear weapons of China, Russia and North Korea, to cause devastation more than that which was experienced in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Despite such a statement representing a significant change in the security environment, as it differed from the zero-sum, negative peace structure of the past, it was not well received possibly as one nation may seek to gain more from the said action than the other.

Why They Do What They Do

Security forums such as the Shangri-La Dialogue would be those where one is likely to hear more bad news than good. However, the 2022 forum was not so much a “glass half empty but more of a vessel placed precariously close to the edge of a table, one small slip away from smashing to pieces” (Sachdeva, 2022). As New Zealand Defence Minister Henare noted, there existed “an underlying tension”.

Borrowing from the English School of International Relations (Buzan et al 2002, Bull 1977) would contribute to an apt analysis of the Shangri-La Dialogue. Great power interests define international aspirations and ambitions, even in regional institutions. The Dialogue subscribed to the broad tensions of the Ukraine-Russia conflict and the US-China hostilities. Military diplomacy and international institutions which are dominated by great power interests, and smaller developing states are more rule takers than agenda setters. Further, international and weak regional institutions would have little sway in changing great power behaviour and are platforms for great power machinations. Weak regional institutions and forums would have less stringent rules, and less enforcement of such rules which would serve as checks and balances to the power of larger states. Fora such as the Shangri-La Dialogue, as opposed to stronger institutions such as NATO do “not provide much in the way of reassurance about the future trajectory of the relationship (between states) and only reinforces the sense that competition between the two powers is likely to linger thereafter” (Parameswaran 2019).

The fact that the sour relations between US and China continued on since the 2019 Dialogue, which was dominated by the subject of heightened U.S.-China competition serves to solidify the aforementioned understanding.

Despite such dire notions for international cooperation and mitigating global anarchy, the Shangri-La Dialogue represents a necessary, albeit insufficient platform for diplomacy and the peaceful resolution of differences between states. Institutions are only as strong as the rules that states are willing to enforce on themselves. However, institutions and fora such as the Shangri-La Dialogue are still important platforms which aim to resolve statist tensions through negotiated compromise and diffused reciprocity over hard power coercion and war (Keohane and Nye, 1977). The contemporary world is interconnected, with the space and time between events and reactions to such decreasing at an exponential rate. The contemporary world cannot afford to disregard the power of diplomacy for in the words of Henry Kissinger, despite animosities of history, diplomacy serves as means of restraining power.

 

UNIVERSAL FRANCHISE: The Democratization of Sri Lanka

By George I. H. Cooke

     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 20^th 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 20^th 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 90^th 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 21^st 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
[2]Ibid. p3
[3]Muni, S. D. (2009). India’s foreign policy: the democratic dimension, New Delhi: Cambridge University. p3
[4] Boutros-Ghali, B. (1996). An Agenda for Democratization, New York, NY: United Nations. p 1
[5] Ibid.
[6] Naseer, S. (2010). Building Trust in Government in South Asia in Cheema, S. G., & Popovski, V. (ed.) Building Trust in Government, Tokyo: United Nations University. p143
[7] Ibid.
[8] Boutros-Ghali, B. (1996). An agenda for democratization, New York, NY: United Nations.  p53