by Sumanasiri Liyanage
(February 28, Kandy, Sri Lanka Guardian) In his key note address to the World Conference on Recreating South Asia: Democracy, Social Justice and Sustainable Development held in New Delhi on February 24- 26, Amartya Sen defined democracy as a form of government by discussion. Having listened to his talk, I have decided that I should bring in this notion as a subject of this week’s Note. In my view, when democracy is posited as a form of government by discussion, Sen in a way transcends the conventional notion of democracy beyond the boundaries that are generally characterised by elected representation, freedom of speech and association, and fundamental democratic rights. Undoubtedly, the presence of elective principle of choosing governments and basic democratic rights would provide a broader space so that many, if not all, can participate in the process of decision-making. Nonetheless, one may experience that the mere presence of these highly acclaimed principles in many instances does not ensure that decisions are made through deliberation. In other words, the ideas that emerge from deliberation may not be necessarily incorporated into the decisions that are made and implemented subsequently. One may even go beyond this and argue that the government by discussion may exist without the presence of elective principles and the fundamental democratic rights. If the latter argument holds water, the presence of different institutional modalities other than the elective principle and fundamental democratic rights may be delineated. In my opinion, posing this ‘problematic’ would enrich the democracy discourse in this part of the world since in the Western world democracy is almost synonymous with the regular elections, freedom of speech and association and fundamental democratic rights. Does Amartya Sen actually anticipate this problematic? I really do not know. In this note, my speculations are on two substantive points.
Once upon a time, Sri Lanka was portrayed as a model democracy to be emulated by other third world countries. Sri Lanka is still preserving some of the formal characteristics of democracy in spite of the fact that the substantive dimension has faded away during the last thirty years or so. Regular elections are held; government is in the hands of elected representatives; and the constitution guarantees most widely accepted fundamental rights. Nonetheless, it is highly unlikely to describe Sri Lanka as a vibrant democracy. Many commentators critical of Sri Lankan democracy use criteria including inter alia accountability, rule of law, the independence of judiciary and media freedom. Of course, these are dimensions of great importance. However, I believe that there is major deficit and vacuum in this assessment, if we define democracy, the way Amartya Sen has done, as a government by discussion. Most critical dimension associated with this definition is, in my opinion, the extent and degree, to which the on-going discussions in the country at all level are reflected in the decisions made and implemented. Elective principle and freedom of discussion are valued partly because the functionality of these principles facilitates this process. It has been oftentimes argued that in countries where regular and periodic elections are held, governments have to respond positively to peoples’ demands and aspirations so that discussions would end up in the decision making rooms. The normative value of freedom of expression is that media would make peoples’ opinion available on a daily basis to the policy makers. To what extent does this happen in Sri Lanka? Do the decisions made and implemented reflect discussions at the village level, factory level, and many other levels? Unfortunately, I would answer in the negative. The dissonance between party election promises and the governmental actions shows that the elective principle in itself has failed to ensure the government by discussion. In many countries in South Asia, media reflects the interests of privileged, not those of the downtrodden and marginalized.
Amartya Sen, in his key note address, referred to the Chinese experience in relation to healthcare. In China, there was a free universal healthcare for all people in the form of public entitlement. With the introduction of market economic reforms, the Chinese government decided to abolish free universal healthcare and introduced fee-levying health system. As a result of this new policy, the health statistics in many respects had shown a deterioration of health situation of the population. The Chinese government, as Amartya Sen has pointed out, responded and decided to change the system reintroducing the government-funded healthcare system. Almost all agree that the Chinese system is not democratic in terms of the widely accepted criteria but in this particular instance it has acted democratically. So, my second point is that we should explore the possibility of developing new modalities of government by discussions if the conventional modes do not work in bringing about government by discussion.
Experience in South Asia makes us rethink the nature of democracy that we have had in the last six decades or so. Of course, experience in different countries in South Asia on this count varies. In India, and Bangladesh, people have changed the parties in power at the elections on many occasions. In Sri Lanka, this possibility has now become somewhat subdued with the introduction of the presidential system of government in 1978. The UNP was in power from 1977 to 1994 and since then the SLFP led alliances have been controlling the government except a brief period from 2001 to 2001, when the UNP-led UNF was in power in Parliament. In reality, in the Sri Lankan situation, the formal democracy has not adequately created the government by discussion. On the contrary, the government has suppressed discussion. The situation is much better in India and Bangladesh. Nonetheless, discussion is confined to urban elites and the majority has been effectively excluded from discussion. Or, their participation in discussion happens outside the formal regular means. As a result, the demands and aspirations of peoples are not reflected in government policies.
Even the situation in Western democracies is not that satisfactory. This became manifest during the last decades in many occasions. Large number people took to the streets against US-UK led invasion against Iraq. The governments refused to take those protests into consideration when they decided to invade Iraq. The governments of the USA and UK lied to their own people. The same thing happened when the financial institutions in Western countries collapsed partly due to wrong government policies and greed of the banks and financial institutions. The way in which the respective governments behaved showed very clearly that the government policies are in fact determined by the upper social stratum.
If we accept Sen’s definition, we have to find out new mechanisms to develop and advance democracy. Hence, in making constitutions and restructuring the states. our horizons should not be limited by the modalities of democracy that we have known and experienced.
Once upon a time, Sri Lanka was portrayed as a model democracy to be emulated by other third world countries. Sri Lanka is still preserving some of the formal characteristics of democracy in spite of the fact that the substantive dimension has faded away during the last thirty years or so. Regular elections are held; government is in the hands of elected representatives; and the constitution guarantees most widely accepted fundamental rights. Nonetheless, it is highly unlikely to describe Sri Lanka as a vibrant democracy. Many commentators critical of Sri Lankan democracy use criteria including inter alia accountability, rule of law, the independence of judiciary and media freedom. Of course, these are dimensions of great importance. However, I believe that there is major deficit and vacuum in this assessment, if we define democracy, the way Amartya Sen has done, as a government by discussion. Most critical dimension associated with this definition is, in my opinion, the extent and degree, to which the on-going discussions in the country at all level are reflected in the decisions made and implemented. Elective principle and freedom of discussion are valued partly because the functionality of these principles facilitates this process. It has been oftentimes argued that in countries where regular and periodic elections are held, governments have to respond positively to peoples’ demands and aspirations so that discussions would end up in the decision making rooms. The normative value of freedom of expression is that media would make peoples’ opinion available on a daily basis to the policy makers. To what extent does this happen in Sri Lanka? Do the decisions made and implemented reflect discussions at the village level, factory level, and many other levels? Unfortunately, I would answer in the negative. The dissonance between party election promises and the governmental actions shows that the elective principle in itself has failed to ensure the government by discussion. In many countries in South Asia, media reflects the interests of privileged, not those of the downtrodden and marginalized.
Amartya Sen, in his key note address, referred to the Chinese experience in relation to healthcare. In China, there was a free universal healthcare for all people in the form of public entitlement. With the introduction of market economic reforms, the Chinese government decided to abolish free universal healthcare and introduced fee-levying health system. As a result of this new policy, the health statistics in many respects had shown a deterioration of health situation of the population. The Chinese government, as Amartya Sen has pointed out, responded and decided to change the system reintroducing the government-funded healthcare system. Almost all agree that the Chinese system is not democratic in terms of the widely accepted criteria but in this particular instance it has acted democratically. So, my second point is that we should explore the possibility of developing new modalities of government by discussions if the conventional modes do not work in bringing about government by discussion.
Experience in South Asia makes us rethink the nature of democracy that we have had in the last six decades or so. Of course, experience in different countries in South Asia on this count varies. In India, and Bangladesh, people have changed the parties in power at the elections on many occasions. In Sri Lanka, this possibility has now become somewhat subdued with the introduction of the presidential system of government in 1978. The UNP was in power from 1977 to 1994 and since then the SLFP led alliances have been controlling the government except a brief period from 2001 to 2001, when the UNP-led UNF was in power in Parliament. In reality, in the Sri Lankan situation, the formal democracy has not adequately created the government by discussion. On the contrary, the government has suppressed discussion. The situation is much better in India and Bangladesh. Nonetheless, discussion is confined to urban elites and the majority has been effectively excluded from discussion. Or, their participation in discussion happens outside the formal regular means. As a result, the demands and aspirations of peoples are not reflected in government policies.
Even the situation in Western democracies is not that satisfactory. This became manifest during the last decades in many occasions. Large number people took to the streets against US-UK led invasion against Iraq. The governments refused to take those protests into consideration when they decided to invade Iraq. The governments of the USA and UK lied to their own people. The same thing happened when the financial institutions in Western countries collapsed partly due to wrong government policies and greed of the banks and financial institutions. The way in which the respective governments behaved showed very clearly that the government policies are in fact determined by the upper social stratum.
If we accept Sen’s definition, we have to find out new mechanisms to develop and advance democracy. Hence, in making constitutions and restructuring the states. our horizons should not be limited by the modalities of democracy that we have known and experienced.
The writer teaches political economy at the University of Peradeniya
 In his key note address to the World Conference on Recreating South Asia: D...){kind=link}
Post a Comment