The Collapse of Authoritarianism

File Photo

by Shanie

(February 26, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

On 4th July 1776, thirteen former colonies of the British Empire formally declared that they no longer recognised British rule when at the end of a bitter war of American independence they signed the Declaration of Independence. The preamble to the Declaration, drafted largely by the then thirty-three year old Thomas Jefferson who was later to become the third President of the US, is a statement of the guiding principles of the founding fathers of the United States. The above is a slightly edited version from the preamble. The Preamble has been a source of inspiration to many people living under the yoke of oppressive, despotic and authoritarian regimes.

Jefferson had been influenced to a great extent by the social contract political theories of what has been called the Age of Enlightenment in eighteenth century Europe. One of the principal political philosophers of this era was John Locke who stated that a government’s right to govern derived from the consent of the governed and was a form of contract. When people give their consent to a government, they expect it to govern justly and to ensure certain liberties. If a government attempted to rule absolutely and arbitrarily, if it violated the natural rights of the individual, it was reneging on its social contract and thereby forfeited the loyalty of the governed. Such a government could legitimately be overthrown. Locke believed that a constitutional government that limited the powers of rulers was the best defence of individual tights. In the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson puts Locke’s ideas in the realm of real-world politics. It must also be noted that the Jefferson anticipated the principles articulated in the Preamble could be used towards rebellion elsewhere. So he cautions against doing so for light or trivial reasons. But people retain the right and a duty to overthrow corrupt and despotic governments.

People power in South East Asia

The present generation has seen Locke’s and Jefferson’s ideas being put to effect in a wide range of countries across the world. In the mid eighties, the corrupt and authoritarian regime of Ferdinand Marcos came to an end in the Philippines. He was an elected President but was widely accused of having diverted billions of dollars of government wealth to himself and his family. He also ruled like an elected dictator, having political opponents harassed and killed. There were hundreds of extra-judicial killings, tens of thousands were incarcerated and tortured. About ten years later, in another South East Asian country, Indonesia, another ‘elected dictator’ General Suharto’s corrupt and authoritarian regime came to an end. His regime was similar to that of Marcos in the Philippines – accusations of massive financial corruption, family bandyism, extra-judicial killings and harassment of political opponents. In both the Philippines and Indonesia, it was people’s power that finally overthrew two corrupt and authoritarian rulers.

Collapse of Communism in East Europe

Towards the end of the nineteen eighties, many countries of Eastern Europe broke free from being under the influence of Big Brother – the former Soviet Union. From the early ‘eighties, Poland had been experiencing ferment because of extreme poverty under their authoritarian ruler Jaruzelski. Lech Walessa’s trade union Solidarity, which for some years had to operate underground, emerged in 1988 to organise nation-wide strikes that led to the fall of Jaruzelski’s government the following year. This was followed by the collapse of authoritarian governments in several other East European countries. Three years later, even the mighty Soviet Union and Yugoslavia disintegrated, with each of the countries forming the Union declaring independence.

The collapse of authoritarian regimes in east Europe owes less to ideas of the Enlightenment and more to the actions of Mikhail Gorbachev, the then leader of the Soviet Union. His policy of glasnost or openness in politics and the need for perestroika or economic restructuring changed the face of Soviet Union. There were lively media debates and multi-candidate elections. Gorbachev sought to give a human face to communism. And he would not intervene to save a corrupt and authoritarian regime in one of the Warsaw Pact country.

The domino effect in North Africa

Now less than twenty years later, we are witnessing the collapse of authoritarian regimes in North Africa. Beginning in Tunisia, followed by Egypt, now the pressure is building up in Libya. Although Colonel Gadaffi still remains head of state, his regime is obviously tottering having already lost the eastern region to the protesters. In the troubled conditions as now existing in Libya, the stakes are high. The protesters will relentlessly pursue the overthrow of Gadaffi, because they know that thousands of them will have to pay with their lives if they fail to achieve their goal. But a sign that there is now every prospect of a regime change is that many officials and military personnel are switching sides to join the opposition protests. In all these countries, Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, and in some other countries where protests are now gaining some intensity, the rulers and their families are accused of corruption and misuse of power. And popular protests bringing down authoritarian regimes seem to be having a domino effect in the Arab countries of North Africa and the Middle East.

In all countries where, over the past twenty-five years, there has been violent regime change, rulers have been overthrown not by a military coup but by people’s power. This is the new force that is emerging in countries where too much power has been concentrated in one individual. It will be in the interests of the rulers that they divest themselves of unlimited power and encourage a more participatory democracy. In India, the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi learnt it the hard way when she imposed emergency rule over the whole country and incarcerated many opposition leaders. But the spirit of democratic rights was obviously ingrained in her and within a couple of years, she lifted the emergency and held a free and fair election. Even after she had reverted to democracy, people’s power asserted itself and at the ensuing election, they voted her Congress Party out of power. Not only that, the voters in Rae Bareili, Indira Gandhi’s constituency, voted her out of Parliament. It was a shocking defeat both for the Congress Party as well as for Indira Gandhi. Although there was economic progress during the two-year emergency rule, there was also massive dissatisfaction with some of the actions of the Congress Government. There was wide resentment when slums and tenements of Delhi occupied by the poor and the marginalised, were bull-dozed in the name of development. In short, instead of participatory democracy, the government leadership was deciding what was good and necessary for the development of the country. At the 1977 election, which to her credit, Indira Gandhi conducted in a fair manner, her opponents the Janata Party secured a two-third majority of seats in the Lok Sabha. But Indira Gandhi bided her time in the opposition and when the next General Election was held in 1980, she and her Congress Party were back in power.

The need for participatory democracy

If any country, including Sri Lanka, is to avoid the perils of the corrupt and despotic regimes that are collapsing around the world, it needs to re-create and forge the habits and attitudes of participatory democracy. Not only in government but also in the corporate world, the key to success is to delegate or devolve power rather than to centralise it. Success comes when power and decision-making are shared.

It is also necessary to treat the opposition, not just the political opposition, with dignity. It is a mistake to think, as did thoseclose Indira Gandhi during the ‘emergency’, that it is only the rulers who have all the right ideas and they need to be implemented, disregarding any opposition. In Negombo recently, people’s power has stopped, permanently we hope, the building of a air platform in the Negombo lagoon for the take-off and landing of air taxis. It did not seem to matter to the planners that the livelihoods of poor fishermen were being sacrificed in the name of development to cater to the luxury needs of a select elite.

Similar to the case in Delhi during the ‘emergency’, there are moves now in Colombo to evict several hundred families living in the city and settle them elsewhere, to make way for ‘development’. The development envisaged is to allow the foreign and local capitalists to use this land to boost their own little empires. That it means the displacement to an uncertain future of thousands of the poor and marginalised in our society does not seem to matter to the planners.

In the North, the displaced civilians have been left to their own devices. There is now uncertainty about the houses which had been promised by the Indian government. The opposition TNA has raised the issue of tractors donated by the Indian government, which apparently was intended for the displaced farmers but has apparently been diverted elsewhere. Again, the attitude is that the poor and the marginalised do not matter.

These localised issues are less likely to arise if there is genuine sharing of political power. The authorities in the periphery will be more concerned about the problems and hardships faced by those living in their midst. The Asian Human Rights Commission lists almost daily cases of abuse by the Police and those in authority of the poor living in our towns and villages. This can be reduced to a great extent if certain Police powers are devolved to the provinces. We will then have a community police who will undoubtedly be more responsive to law and order issues within their community.

If our country is to develop in the fullest sense of the term, with all her people reconciled, united and in the Lockesian phrase pursuing life, liberty and happiness, we need our government to seek co-operation from all, to promote the freedoms of the people, to devolve power not centralise it, to be a government of openness and candour, not one of secrecy and evasion.