Radical changes to political system are required for national progress

" What followed was indeed a period of transition during which the whole political system underwent many changes. Although some of the things done were beneficial to the country, a great harm was caused to the country by driving the wedge of division into the body politic."

by Milinda Rajasekera

(November 16, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way--in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.”

This interesting opening paragraph in Charles Dickens’ ‘Tale of Two Cities’ illustrates the dichotomy of opinion that prevails in most countries where political party system operates. While the ruling party thinks that everything is hunky-dory, the opposition parties rant and rave about everything going topsy-turvy. It is perhaps in few other countries this phenomenon is as clearly evident as in Sri Lanka. A cursory glance at recent history of this country would show how this division of attitudes obstructed the solution of the country’s problems and thwarted its steady economic and social progress.

The emergence of this divisive pattern of public opinion in a destructive way could be traced to the period after independence. It was during this period that the political party system had its beginnings. However, it was after S.W.R.D.Bandaranaike’s departure from the United National Party (UNP) Government and the formation of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) in 1951that the party system emerged as a real divisive force. The SLFP-led Mahajana Eksath Peramuna (MEP) in 1956 caught the imagination of the ordinary people who awaited the full fruition of the freedom they gained from foreign rule. They elected Bandaranaike and his party to power.

What followed was indeed a period of transition during which the whole political system underwent many changes. Although some of the things done were beneficial to the country, a great harm was caused to the country by driving the wedge of division into the body politic. While some hailed everything that was done by that government others denounced its decisions and actions. The people polarized along party lines fanatically did the bidding of their parties.

The bugbear of divisive politics thus began plaguing all spheres of activity in the country. Families, villages, social organizations, trade unions, welfare societies and all other organizations speedily fell prey to dissension and disunity. Acrimony, rancour and animosity overwhelmed society. Policies and actions of the government were decried by opposition parties and they did everything possible to topple the government at the first opportunity. Government decisions and actions also were mainly aimed at promoting the narrow and selfish interests of the ruling party. Opportunistic, duplicitous and deceitful politics became the order of the day. The democratic concept of majority rule with the consent of the minority became a dead letter.

The vicissitudes the Tamil minority question suffered since then is the best example of political expediency submerging national interests. Leaders of both main political parties entered into agreements with Tamil leaders with a view to bringing about a reasonable solution to the problem. But none of these pacts reached the stage of full implementation as they were sacrificed at the altar of opportunistic politics. It was this failure that paved the way for the rise of terrorism and the armed conflict.

The elections became virtual battles where the force of rational arguments was increasingly replaced by the forces of money, muscle and state power. There were, of course, formulated policies, manifestoes and splendid promises to make the lives of the people more comfortable. A notable feature was that the parties that condemned the policies of other parties were often seen attempting to implement the same policies with minor adjustments. It was narrow party interests and squabbles that prevented the formulation of common policies on national issues.

Today, the government claims that it has accomplished the great task of crushing terrorism and unifying the country; impressive economic progress is being made, the rate of economic growth being 8.5 percent in the first quarter of this year; per capita income has doubled; some development projects have been implemented while many others are being completed; political stability achieved with the support of opposition party members too; earned the encomiums of other nations and world bodies; the path to the improvement of public morality has been paved through ‘Mathata thitha’ and intensified religious programmes; cultural heritage is being restored and on the whole, the country is well on its way to impress the world as Asia’s wonder.

The scenario portrayed by the opposition is in complete contrast to the above estimation of state of affairs. In its view, political confusion reigns supreme. The victory against terrorism has not been consolidated with required action to remedy the grievances of the Tamil community; claim of economic progress is fictional rather than factual – the data in the Central Report contradict government claims; the 8.5 percent economic growth is a temporary phenomenon brought about as a result of stepped up economic activity in the aftermath of the war; commercial loans taken on high rates of interest; national debts are growing at a rapid rate making it difficult for the government to meet installment and interest payments; budgetary gap is ever widening; political and administrative heads indulge in extravagance and profligacy while burdens are heaped continuously on the ordinary people; trade union demands for increased salaries and elimination of anomalies are ignored; fundamental rights are being curbed through dictatorial measures and commercial institutions of the state continue to be burdens on the exchequer; politicization goes on denying equal opportunities for opposition party supporters; morality in politics declining with allegations of corruption, fraud and abuse of power; duplicitous conduct pollute the political arena despite the claims of improved moral rectitude; good governance, justice and fair-play thrown overboard; budgetary allocations for more important sectors reduced and in short, the country is marching fast towards bankruptcy and autocratic rule.

What is detrimental to the country is the resulting conduct of those blindly accepting these partisan claims. Those accepting and believing in the government’s optimistic theory tend to conduct their affairs as if they are now living in a truly prosperous country. The politicians and officials occupying various positions now ask for more perks and privileges. Trade unions demand higher salaries. The ordinary people too develop new lifestyles to conform to the newly acquired national prosperity. Although the opposition politicians and supporters dismiss claims of prosperity, they nevertheless step up their demands for the enhanced salaries and reliefs as benefits of claimed economic prosperity.

The bamboozling of the public this way by hiding and distorting the truth for political gain would continue unless a new political charter is quickly initiated. A combined effort by all political parties which have the country’s common interest at heart is necessary to formulate the required package of radical changes to the political system. In the first place these parties, particularly their leaders, have to be honest and patriotic enough to realize the disastrous nature of the existing system.

A degree of this realization is apparently dawning on some politicians in the political arena. It is this development that has made it possible today for a conglomeration of parties with divergent views to work together for the country’s common good. Some among them are those who castigated ‘Mahinda Chinthana’ policies. This shows that it is not impossible to evolve a system where consensual and cooperative politics would replace the present contentious and acrimonious politics.

This innovative exercise needs the active support and cooperation of constitutional experts who are not unduly obsessed with traditional and hidebound theories and concepts that are inappropriate for adoption in the context of rapidly changing situations and country’s requirements.