General elections 2010: The power to win power

By Jehan Perera

(April 06. Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The outcome of the forthcoming General Election is generally taken to be a foregone one. Where victory is concerned the only issue is how close the government will get to the elusive one of a 2/3 majority. This would enable the government to defy the intention of framers of the Constitution and permit the present rulers to amend the Constitution on its own. The government is vested with power that it has shown itself prepared to use with not much concern for niceties. The government has attracted great clumps of opposition parliamentarians into its fold with the offer of position and privilege, making possible the largest number of ministers in the world. At the present election, the use of state resources and media for the government’s propaganda purposes has been without restraint. If the government achieves its 2/3 majority constitutional change without restraint is the likely outcome.

The election campaign so far has shown a breakdown of systems that give an indication of larger breakdowns that are likely to take place after the election. Government bureaucrats have defied the conventions that declare direct participation in politics to be out of bounds. They have mounted political platforms to urge people to vote for the government. Even worse, police officers charged with protecting the sanctity of the electoral process have been emboldened to publicly chide the opposition parties for making allegations of election fraud. In the meantime all the independent election monitoring groups have bemoaned the inability and unwillingness of the police to act impartially when it comes to dealing with election offenses and the violations of the electoral law. There is a breakdown of the separation of powers which democratic societies have developed to check the over-concentration of power in too few hands.

The display of overwhelming power that is used to overwhelm opponents is likely to induce voters to make a pragmatic decision to cast their vote for those who they consider are most likely to win. It is a pragmatic calculation to support those who will have the power and the inclination to victimize those who are losers, and who supported the losing side. The unimaginable fate of retired General Sarath Fonseka, the former Presidential candidate and former Commander of the Sri Lankan army that vanquished the most deadly terrorist organization in the world, the LTTE, is a fearsome example. He languishes in prison in conditions so detrimental to his health, caused by injuries from an LTTE suicide bomber, that the International Committee of the Red Cross is being requested to intervene, and has agreed to intervene. Whether the public sense of outrage will outweigh the sense of pragmatism of the ordinary voter and give him more votes remains to be seen.

POLITICAL POPULARITY

Those candidates with the greatest quantum of power and resources can expect to win most handsomely in circumstances where the rule of law is weak. Those believed to be front runners in different parts of the country are those politicians whose have the largest cut outs and most amount of posters. This demonstrates to the voters that they have power, the ability to get things done and popularity also. Those who are able to put up images of themselves in every conceivable public place can be believed to have many supporters able and willing to do the job for them. On the other hand, those who are unable to put up bill boards, cut outs and posters of themselves are likely to be seen as weak, without supporters they can pay for and without supporters dedicated enough to brave their rivals to put up the images of the chosen one.

This is not to say that government candidates do not have intrinsic popularity because of their own good works or abilities to help their constituents. During the period of the election campaign I visited interior southern villages along with a professor. We met with people in their homes and places of work and heard them say that the government was popular on account of its policies and what they did for the benefit of the people. An example given was the government’s delivery of Rs 1 million to every Grama Niladari unit, which is the lowest village level governmental entity in the country. This was contrasted with the Rs 200,000 that was delivered in prior years to the Divisional Secretariat level, which consists of many such village level units. This had enabled the people of the area to participate in the development process in their neigbourhoods to a greater extent than in the past. The President was also mentioned as the greatest strength of the government, who touched the roots of the people’s culture.

It was also pointed out to us that the brief two year interlude when the opposition led the government in the years 2002-04 was a harsh one for the poorer sections of the people. The wider world may have focused its attention on the Ceasefire Agreement that brought the war between the government and LTTE to a halt, and praised that government and also its World Bank/ IMF set austerity measures for the revival of the economy. But during those years, the government ruthlessly cut subsidies and halted the employment of the jobless into the government service. These were seen as harsh measures of a government that had no empathy for those who were poor and out of sight in the villages of the south. By way of contrast, the present government has been subsidizing the poor through fertilizer and other subsidies and swelling the public sector with those who might otherwise be considered to be unemployable in a market economy.

OTHER REALITY

On the other hand, as befits a plural and diverse society, in which traditions of dissent are deep rooted, there was also a different opinion that emerged. The community leader who accompanied the professor and me to the villages cautioned us not to believe all that we had just heard. His view was that the people we spoke to were either self-interested or afraid, and did not express their true thoughts. The reality, according to him, was one of extreme suffering by those who were poor as the cost of living had increased far beyond their incomes. The people were also aware of the crude misdeeds of those who governed them. But they did not wish to speak, he said, as someone could report them to those in power and this would be to their detriment. Those who were government bureaucrats were afraid to say anything critical as they feared they could be transferred or lose their jobs. Accompanying the culture of impunity is the culture of fear.

The professor said that at the end of the day it was all a matter of power. The ideals of democracy where people are free to choose from a range of political options is good in theory. The fact is that people vote for those who have power, especially if they believe that those who have power will use their power to win by hook or by crook. It is reasonable for people to believe that a government that vanquished the LTTE will also vanquish the much less deadly and much more disunited opposition. It is as if the government was headed by a king who is destined to rule the country, as made out in songs and billboards, and it makes no sense to oppose a king who has a dynasty behind him. All told this is a far cry from the democracy that Sri Lanka is said to have inherited, and tried to practice with less and less success even as the years of independence from British colonial rule have increased.

The government has its winning formula for itself, at least for now. On the other hand, Sri Lanka has also had a vigorous tradition of multi party democracy and changes of governments at elections. If the government fails to deliver the economic development that it promises, a negative reaction can grow amongst an electorate that has become accustomed to democracy and its freedoms. The first challenge is likely to come from the North and East of the country, where the ethnic minorities live in large numbers. They suffer from a double burden of economic destruction and under-development after nearly three decades of war, and also from a sense of political marginalization that stretches back six decades to the immediate aftermath of Independence. The international community and Tamil diaspora are powerful forces that are outside of the impunity that the government can claim over its own citizens living within the country. They will prove to be the challenge of the future.