Lanka at crossroads, looks for statesman

By Sinha Ratanatunge

(January 26, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The country goes to the polls on Tuesday to choose its President for the next six years. It is these elections that make the 'King' and the wannabes have been crisscrossing the country soliciting the people's vote. Elections are, probably next only to death, the great equalizer. Whether a man or woman has a million rupees or nary a cent, however high or low in the social hierarchy; whether employed or not, he or she has one vote.

When the British decided to grant the vote to Sri Lankans, they first gave it only to the 'educated Ceylonese'. Later, they felt that the entire populace was sufficiently politically mature to grant universal adult franchise as far back as in 1931. The women of Ceylon had a vote even before their counterparts in France, and the advanced network of primary health care facilities island-wide, in comparison to many other economically developing countries is directly attributed to this.

Yet over the years, the quality of men and women elected to public office has left much to be desired, with standards plunging in recent decades. Half a century ago it was the landed gentry and professionals who were sent to Parliament. They had their henchmen to do their bidding to get entrée, and as time went by, these henchmen aspired to high office themselves. The old-school politician gave way to the new. With the rapid expansion of the military to deal with insurgencies in the country - a direct result of political ineptitude and other geo-political factors -- men in uniform have asked why they should be the ones upholding the politicians when they can do the job themselves.

And so we come to the crossroads where a retired army commander challenges a veteran politician for the country's topmost job - the President of the Republic.

Holding elections is not the ultimate in a democracy. The election must be free and fair. Sham elections are not democracy.
We have a situation where the Elections Commissioner has quite patently said that he is not satisfied with the conduct of the Police and the State media in the run-up to Tuesday's poll. Is he then saying that the situation warrants him declaring the election null and void? Or is he only saying that he is not satisfied but if the election is conducted fairly alright on Tuesday then he will gladly issue the certificate that only he can issue the day after (January 27) saying the poll was properly conducted and declare a winner? Or is he saying that if on election day even if there are cases of rigging, if in his opinion, they wouldn't alter the final result, then he will issue that certificate declaring a winner?

Unless the Commissioner is merely trying to save his own skin, these murmurs have a pathetic ring. Even Supreme Court decisions are not carried out, and it has been left to the Maha Nayakas and Bishops to come out and call for a free and fair election.

Democracy cannot revolve around an individual, however benevolent. That is then an autocracy. Democracy means having strong institutions, not individuals. Western nations, and India, Japan and Australia are vibrant democracies with prospering economies. In Africa, countries like South Africa and Ghana have emerged as strong democracies in recent decades.

In Sri Lanka though, the franchise won in 1931 is in danger of sliding into an autocracy. Quite understandably, the allegations against competing forces in the election have people concerned about their future.

If they are to believe these allegations, the choice before the people is whether we will have a Suharto-style democracy (Indonesia) in Sri Lanka where economic development came packaged with family bandyism, nepotism and repression of democracy and the rule of law - or a Musharraf-style democracy (Pakistan) with the country run at gunpoint with the backing of the military and repression of democracy and the rule of law.

The voting public has been overfed on half-truths, promises, propaganda and misinformation while serious national issues have been relegated into the limbo of forgotten things. Unlike in the 2005 Presidential election when there was moratorium on slander and vituperative politics by both the main candidates, the flood-gates were opened this time. The danger is that after the election, and should the Commissioner declare a winner, he will run away with the belief that he has received a mandate to do anything and that whatever faults have been pardoned, if not rejected by the nation.

That clearly would not be the case. The total vote in Tuesday's election is, like in most democracies, going to be segmented - there will be the youth vote, the urban and rural vote, the professionals' vote, the farmer vote, the trader vote, the growing service personnel vote, and the traditional 'tribal vote'; much like what we find even in advanced democracies like the United States with its tradition-bound 'redneck' states, the anti-immigration set in Europe and the rising caste vote in India.

The one who can garner most of these segments will win. We hope there will be no votes that are not supposed to be there - the stuffed ballots or the rigging at the count; nor intimidation and pre-poll violence that will make the verdict legal but illegitimate. That will be nothing but a hollow victory.

The unfortunate choice before many voters is whether to close their nose and vote for the Government or shut their eyes and vote for the Opposition; a choice they have made before either to their satisfaction, or regret, as the case may be.

The winner is bound to inherit a crown full of thorns nevertheless, and almost certainly find almost half the country having voted against him. His first priority will be for bi-partisanship, and national reconciliation - and to heal this divided country from a premature election thrust upon it.

One would sincerely hope that post-election victimization of the vanquished will not lead to the further division of this nation and its people. One would sincerely hope that the country is going to elect a statesman on today.

[Editor's Note: The writer, editor of the Sunday Times, where this piece appears]