Government Monopoly Due to No Democracy within Opposition Parties

By Thomas Johnpulle

(March 15, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Democracy is a highly abused word. It has been used, overused and exploited for wrong ends by many quarters. An ‘interesting’ example is the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea (DPRK). There is another nation
by the name the Republic of Korea (ROK). Which is what? It may be tempting for some to link South Korea, which is democratic, with the abbreviation Democratic PRK. Wrong! In fact Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea is the communist North Korea where democracy is just a distant dream. The truly democratic South Korea does not even have the word ‘democratic’ in its name! The same holds true in the case of communist East Germany also known as the German Democratic Republic. Therefore it is no surprise when communists rebrand themselves as democrats.

It is true that Sri Lankans were given democracy without demanding it. When universal adult franchise was about to be given, eminent lawyer GG Ponnambalam protested.

However, all Sri Lankans came to enjoy the fruits of democracy. Ceylon became the first democratic country in Asia. Today certain democratic rights are being ‘revised’ as the nation reasserts its priorities. Some quarters blame the government for the erosion of democratic rights; for good reasons. Government must protect democracy. Rajapakshas should be stopped in their tracks in attempting to clampdown on democratic rights. But who is morally qualified to do it? The others don’t seem to be any better.

Demanding democracy while being dictators themselves

Unfortunately those who cry for democracy are dangerously not democratic within. The new political party, DNA (Democratic National Alliance), is so very democratic that its leader, Somawansa Amarasinghe, avoids facing the people knowing well the voters’ verdict! He simply does not allow the democratic process to push him to oblivion.
Before trying to establish democracy in the country, JVP must implement it within the party first. This has sent most successful JVPers out. Legacy of the old JVP and the league of old school JVPers cannot lead the party to success. Charity begins at home, isn’t it? The DNA is certainly raising eyebrows of true democrats – the people at large.

UNA/UNP in contrast is a much better political party in terms of its reach and inclusiveness. However, although the UNP also screams about democracy, it too lacks democracy within. The UNP leader has a stranglehold on the party and heeds no advice from other members of the party. Each time the party tries to meet to change it’s leader, Hon Ranil Wickramasinghe uses the party constitution to block it. Many UNPers are of the view that another leader would revive the UNP. But there is no room for that. If charity begins at home, UNP too has little moral right to demand democracy while not allowing any democracy within the party.

Compared to UNA and DNA, the TNA is in a worse predicament. Alleging that there is no democracy within the party, many members left and formed their own little parties. They allege Hon Sambanthan to make all the decisions without listening to party members even after the demise of the LTTE.

SLMC is also in a dilemma although it is better positioned within its limited electorates. It’s leader Hon Hakeem runs the party with no regard to it’s members resulting in repeated large breakaways. By the party constitution, the supreme party council makes all the decisions which is headed by the party leader and his very close associates.

SLFP (Mangala Wing) does not face any of these problems because it is a one-man political party!

Unfortunately this is the alternative people are faced with which is not democratic at all within and it is foolhardy to expect democracy from them. But people support these existing parties and the UPFA. Why? Is it because they have no choice? Or is it because people are generally contended with the level of democracy within political parties and resultantly, the nation?

It is a certainty that no party can win two thirds

Contrary to boastings by the ruling coalition, it is impossible for any party to win 150 seats in parliament. If the government, after winning the election, is keen to change the constitution, it will have to bait opposition MPs to support its constitutional change and the political solution. Ministries may be offered to willing yes-men from the Opposition. Since according to the present constitution no MP is answerable to a defined electorate, MPs will do as they wish. Using this gap which goes against the spirit of democracy and the President’s ability to create an infinite number of ministries, the government may push ahead with its political solution. But what if that is not what the people want?

There is another possibility. What if the government simply gives up on the political solution claiming that people rejected it by not giving two thirds majority to the UPFA? Does it affect, cost or otherwise cause any loss to the ruling party? No. They too are happy with the way things are. It’s easy governance. When their time is up, they will leave office handing power to a similar clique to do the same until political fortunes change again.

But what is the political explanation to all this? Simply put it, are people satisfied with the existing democratic structure of the nation and its political parties? While they want to protect what is available without expanding it, have they have come to accept ‘Asian democracy’?

Asian democracy

Western Europe can boast about their super democracy. USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand come next. Latin America, Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe (not in that order) follow. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan may be considered model Asian democracies. Still they are nowhere near super democracies. These democracies are very strongly governed by the majority leaving no room for others. Compared to super-duper democracies, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have considerable restrictions on democratic rights. Economic clout required to sustain it restricts other Asian countries from following them. India which is world’s largest democracy cannot boast about total democracy. Various laws and unofficial ways of doing things restrict a number of democratic rights. Caste is still a big determinant of rights in the Indian society while poverty dictates the rights of more than half a billion people. Malaysia too has its restrictions on democratic rights. Singapore, which is Sri Lanka’s economic role model according to some, has a number of democratic rights restricted officially and unofficially. For instance almost all the media institutions are controlled by the government. Publicly criticising the government, on most matters of human interest, is not allowed. Other south East Asian countries don’t have much to offer.

Middle Eastern countries are blamed for clamping down on democracy while former Soviet Union republics in Asia are no model democracies either. Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Maldives and Bhutan are democracies but not sufficiently democratic for Sri Lanka to follow. China, Burma, Laos, North Korea and Mongolia are not democracies.

So the Asian democratic band within which Sri Lanka must fit-in is not that wide. It is ridiculous for Sri Lankan democracy to be closer to Europe or the Americas; it is unattainable and unsustainable. Contrary to popular belief, democracy is not a bundle of rights; it is a bundle of rights and responsibilities. Higher the number and the level of rights, higher is their responsibility burden. This is what restricts a society from embracing super democracy.

A country’s democracy is restricted by the maximum weight of ‘democratic responsibilities’ its citizens are willing to shoulder. Democracy campaigners must take this into account when strategising their moves.

Democracy to achieve undemocratic ends

Tamil separatist movement often finds fault with democracy in India, Sri Lanka and Malaysia. While Sri Lanka banned separatism in 1981 with the Sixth Amendment, the Indian equivalent was enacted in 1962. Tamil separatists complain that while these countries don’t allow them to speak out about their Tamil aspirations, European, American and Australasian countries give them their democratic right to discuss openly how to dissect Sri Lanka and India. However, they are not comparing apples with apples. The UK equal to restrictions posed by Lanka’s Sixth Amendment can be seen if a movement to break-up the UK is started within the UK. Similarly if hypothetically a movement to disintegrate the UK is set up in Sri Lanka, nothing would happen to it; Sri Lankan law would not restrict it.

Ironically Tamil Elam activists don’t accept democracy when it comes to responsibilities. They have repeatedly failed to accept fundamental rights including the most basic right to live in any part of the country, of Sinhalas and Muslims. Therefore their demand for democratic rights (only rights and not responsibilities) from Sri Lanka will not yield anything. The first step to gaining democratic rights is to discharge democratic responsibilities towards others.

This hideous Tamil Elam movement for democracy has merged with the movement for democracy led by above mentioned political parties, most significantly the DNA. Democracy is a definite requirement but it’s champions must first conduct themselves democratically. Otherwise the whole process becomes a joke and people will reject it. That will be a body blow to democracy. Instead a new campaign is needed to safeguard democracy that conducts its affairs democratically and is backed by the civil society; it should fight for democracy for the sake of democracy with no other hidden objectives in mind.

Conclusion

It is clear politicians from all sides cannot save democracy as they are not democratic within their little entities. Civil society groups must organise themselves to defend democracy. However, there are many pitfalls. First of all civil society groups must identify the degree of democracy that can be afforded; the weight of democratic responsibilities that the population can bear. Then they should take into account the essential requirements of the society other than democracy such as national security, law and order, traditions and customs no matter how badly they function. Fixing these shortcomings though connected to the preservation of democracy, is a separate affair altogether best undertaken by experts in these respective fields. But the protection of democracy needs no expertise; just the appreciation of related responsibility issues would do. Most importantly, the group that intends to fix democracy in Sri Lanka must be democratic to its core. Otherwise it will end up like the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea, a namesake democracy.