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

 

THE OCCULT OF OCTOBER: CATALONIA TODAY, SCOTLAND TOMORROW?

October is considered the best month to visit Catalonia owing to the Barcelona Jazz Festival, the human castle building competition in Tarragona, the sparkling wine festival in Sant Sadurni d’Anoia and the festivities in Girona surrounding the Fires de Sant Narcis. Yet October 2017 draws to a close on a highly contentious note with a referendum, a declaration of independence and attempts to secede being met with a military response, the invoking of constitutional provisions for direct rule and strong attempts to stop the disintegration of a country.

Spain’s political turmoil in recent months has left the world flummoxed as states, especially in European Union, cautiously observe developments within a country which once conquered large swathes of territory and enforced the use of a language that is the second most spoken in the world today. Two centuries ago, at the Battle of Maipú, Spanish control of the southern region of South America ended. While the Argentine native, Jose de San Martin crossed into Chile in 1817 and joined forces with Bernardo O’Higgins to drive the Spanish out the following year, it would be a matter of years before the Spanish were completely routed from the mainland and retained only Cuba and Puerto Rico until 1898 when they became protectorates of the United States of America following the Spanish – American War. Two hundred years later in 2017 Spain grapples with a problem within her own mainland, which has festered for centuries.

The Catalan secession bid is not new. Identified as a vital region by the Romans, leaders and their empires at varied times, have recognised autonomous rule whilst thwarting attempts of secession. Catalans even placed themselves under French rule during the reign of Louis XIII, before facing complete subjugation in the ensuing decades. The harshest times were under General Franco who did not recognize autonomy. The President of Catalania from 1934, Lluís Companys became the first democratically elected European leader to be executed when he was killed by a firing squad on October 15^th 1940, following his capture by the Gestapo and being handed over to Franco’s forces. It is against such a backdrop that the Catalan bid to secede draws international significance as the resistance movement has floundered and flourished over the centuries.

The troubling factor remains the impact on the region, given the sensitivity of the issue. Secession is never a comfortable subject given the ramifications experienced and precedents established. With memories of the disintegration of Yugoslavia, the subsequent secession of Kosovo, the division of Sudan and the independence of East Timor among others, Catalonia’s people themselves stand divided despite the overwhelming Parliamentary vote of independence.

The October 01^st 2017 referendum called by Catalan President Carles Puigdemont rang alarm bells in Spain. Immediate concern arises over the validity of the vote, at which 90% of the 43% of eligible voters supported independence. This translates into 38.7% of the total eligible voters supporting secession.

What then of the remaining 61.3% and their stance on the issue of independence?

Nationalism, Europe and secession movements

The most pressing problem in Europe at the moment was supposed to be Brexit and the efforts being made to reach a ‘deal’ which is acceptable to all. Whilst the regional body was trying to extricate itself from the logjam of Brexit, Catalonia poses fresh concern as sovereignty and regionalism are challenged once again.

Nationalistic sentiment heightened in 2017. Dutch elections saw Geert Wilders out-performing expectation. France’s Marine Le Pen came to the very doorstep of the Elysees, before losing in the final round of the Presidential election. Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) became the third largest party, winning seats in the Bundestag for the first time. Although moderates were able to hold sway in 2017, the ensuing period till the next round of elections in 2022 remains crucial. Policy formulation and implementation over the next half a decade will decide the demise or rise of nationalism in Europe.

The present remains most concerning. Leaders across Europe have been quick to express explicit support for Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy. Knowing the consequences of secession, they don’t want the Catalan issue spreading its tentacles or influencing separatist movements in their respective territories. France’s Macron and his government have been firm in their opposition. Nationalist sentiments in Corsica and Brittany saw Macron not winning a single seat in the former territory at the parliamentary election earlier this year, but three seats were filled by a secessionist alliance. Nationalists in Brittany waved the Catalan flag warning that it is they who would decide on their own future.

Contending with separatism in Italy, the country’s foreign minister Angelino Alfano condemned the independence declaration, over fears of separatism movements in the Lombardy and Veneto regions gathering momentum along with those in Sicily and South Tyrol. Catalonia’s impact spreads further caution in Croatia over Istria Country which has been demanding regional autonomy; in the Czech Republic owing to Moravia which has been seeking self-determination since 2005, and Czech Silesia; in Poland given the strong advocacy for autonomy in Upper Silesia; in Romania with ethnic Hungarians demanding secession in Székely Land; in Denmark, although to a lesser degree, over Bornholm which has sought independence since the 1990s and Faroe Islands’ similar plea since 1948; in Belgium with disagreement over Flanders and Wallonia, in Germany given Bavarian nationalism; and even in the Basque region of Spain.

Despite Catalonia constituting one of the wealthiest regions of Spain, and contributing a sizable economic value to the EU, the President of European Commission cautioned that he does not want ‘a situation where tomorrow, the European Union is made up of 95 different states.’ Jean-Claude Juncker’s fears are well founded as the domino effect of Catalonia could be experienced across the European region.

Given the plethora of struggles, it is the United Kingdom that faces the gravest threat. Scotland’s External Affairs Secretary Fiona Hyslop noted that the people of Catalonia ‘must have the ability to determine their own future’, but stopped short of openly recognizing the budding state. With Northern Ireland and Wales also harbouring secessionist movements, it is the enthusiasm of First Minister Nicola Sturgeon to discuss a further referendum on Scottish independence in autumn next year that appears the immediate consequence.

The occult of October could very well return in a year’s time as the focus moves from Spain to the United Kingdom in October 2018.

-   -   AWARELOGUE EDITORIAL

Wilders’ ‘Patriotic Spring’ meets its Waterloo: Will Nationalism too?

Geert Wilders

The ‘Patriotic Spring’ has ended, or has it? If Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s election at the German Federal Convention in February 2017 gave Europeans a glimmer of hope in trouncing the rise of nationalism, Mark Rutte and the Dutch ensured Geert Wilders ‘patriotic spring’ ended, and with it, the tide has been reversed. Wilders, having campaigned heavily on immigration issues and promising exit from the EU, was set to benefit tremendously if the Rotterdam rallies went ahead. Intended to shore up support for the Turkish leader, the rallies would have served as ideal ammunition for heightened tension and possible violence if the Turkish Ministers took to the stage. Thwarting the move, the Dutch Prime Minister drew fierce criticism from Erdogen but his hard stance contributed to another term.

Securing a majority of seats, Rutte’s People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy will, over the next few days, begin coalition talks and form a government. Leaders across the continent have breathed a sigh of relief welcoming the news. Spanish Prime Minister Rajoy noted ‘the Dutch people made a show of responsibility and maturity.’ France’s leader-in-waiting Emmanuel Macron claimed ‘you can defeat the extremes.’ European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker hailed the Dutch for preserving the values of Europe of free and tolerant societies, given that the Netherlands risked electing a leader who would have marked the 60^th anniversary of the European Union with an ignominious exit of a founding member state.

The celebrations will die down and euphoria soon disappear. Yet this Dutch election seen as a litmus test by many will remain a critical platform from which the sphere of International Relations and her adherents will engage in much reflection. How and why was the rise of nationalism stymied?

‘Trumpism’ and the possible fall out of Brexit have woken voters. Stirred out of the nationalist rhetoric that seemed to engulf everyday discourse as tension flared, animosity grew and violence remained imminent, most Europeans appear to have realized the gravity of the experiences of their British and American counterparts. Rallying as they did on the eve of the Brexit referendum, European countries used their heritage monuments, including the Eiffel Tower and Spanish Palace among others to display the colours and the Union Jack itself, sending the strongest possible signals across the Channel to refrain from opting out.

The referendum is history. As Prime Minister May prepares to invoke Article 50, Britain, having sought the preservation of sovereignty is today poised with a bigger and possibly more worrying issue: that of Scotland and Nicola Sturgeon’s repeated calls for a second referendum on independence. The impact of Brexit will be felt for decades to come, yet it is what the British wanted and it is what they will get. They wanted to retain the Pound over the Euro, and they did. They wanted to remain out of the Schengen Agreement and they did.

Impacting regionalism and integration, the British move questions the relevancy of integration. Timo Behr and Juha Jokela’s assertion that regional cooperation provided the high-demand global good of ‘certainty’ appeared to fail owing solely to Brexit, which proved just the opposite. Questioning the appropriateness of deeper integration and shaking the European Union to its very core, the effect has and is being felt by Europeans. Le Pen’s calls for a looser Union, Wilders’ promise to leave it and the general far-right taking umbrage at Brussels, although raising alarm bells, has stirred the European psyche to wake up and take note of ramifications and the rigors of the past.

Across the Atlantic, Americans, and more rightly the American electoral system chose to abandon the vision of Truman, for the vulgarity of Trump, and those cautionary remarks to Congress that faltering ‘in our leadership, we may endanger the peace of the world, and we shall surely endanger the welfare of this Nation.’ His warning seventy years ago, whilst unheeded locally, has gained credence with global and particularly European populations, many of which he endeavored to assist through his Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. Whether it is the protests, climate change ignorance, travel bans or the high degree of frivolity with which attempts are being made to ‘make America great again,’ the United States is fast becoming an unenviable model of governance. Arguably herein lies the secret to the receding tide of nationalism.

Democracy and its intricacies, costly as they are, are weathering some of the roughest of storms, but experience remains the winner. The media, most of which in America has earned the wrath of the White House, has reveled in the disclosure of everything from minute details to gross misdemeanors and of course errant policies emanating from Washington. The information has if anything jolted populations. The level of awareness however remains questionable. Wilders may have lost his chance at governing, but his party garnered five more seats and taking their total to twenty, thereby becoming the second largest party in the Netherlands. Yet the Patriotic Spring he articulated has, if only for the present, passed.

While Steinmeier will be sworn in as the new German President on 19 March and the Dutch Premier as soon as he forms a coalition, Macron and Merkel have gained greater confidence in facing their own constituencies. Wilders has lived to face another day and unlike Napoleon this will not be the last we hear of him. 

- Editorial