Was Sri Lanka ever a Democracy?

| by Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

( June 03, 2012, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) I write in response to the Sri Lanka Guardian article ‘Democracy Deficit and Citizens’ Initiatives’ by Shanie.

Shanie states ‘Democracy in a country can be simply understood, as a writer has put it, as a procedure for making decisions whereby all adult citizens have an equal right to have a say and make their opinions count.’

Accepting that as the common interpretation, I asked myself the question ‘Was Sri Lanka ever a Democracy?’ As a global citizen I had to ask myself the other question too – ‘Was Australia ever a Democracy?’ In both instances – the response from within me was ‘yes’ up to a certain point and ‘no’ above that point.

The best way a citizen could test this for her/himself is through the family. The next couple of questions I need to ask myself are ‘Am I Democratic in Sri Lankan family environment?’ ‘Am I Democratic in Australian family environment?’ The answer is ‘No’ to the first one and ‘yes’ to the second one. If I blindly practiced Democracy in Sri Lanka – especially in Northern Sri Lanka – I would seem like theory and a monstrous one at that. In Australia I now live close to those whom I groomed and influenced strongly as a family. Hence we are able to show each other our ‘other side’. If I am cause they show the effect and v.v. To be honest – I would not say I prefer one over the other. In Sri Lanka my investments in the vertical system of authority are returned much more than they are here in Australia.

To my simple mind as a citizen – apparently of minority category in both countries – the vertical system of autocracy is time based and the lateral system of democracy is space based. If we are good at one we would naturally be good at the other and v.v. The former is subjective and the latter is objective.

Under autocracy, only the leader/ head of family expresses on behalf of the whole. Hence each time I heard our former Prime Minister Mr. John Howard say ‘I speak for all Australians’ and I could not identify with it – I consciously rejected that message and placed instead my own message in my mind. I was thus fighting against autocracy at the highest level available to me. My message was not as the individual Gaja – but as per my Democratic position of Australian Citizen Equal to the Prime Minister. If it was a subject in which I had not invested much I did not give my own particular form to it.

I took Mr. Howard to Court due to my belief that Mr. Howard failed to complete the ‘other’ side of the picture I was presenting regarding the University of New South Wales. According to latest news, Mr. Howard has been awarded the ‘Order of Merit’ by the Queen. It is a highly subjective judgment. That confirms my own discovery that Mr. Howard was not democratic and therefore Australia under Mr. Howard’s leadership was not democratic. Mr. Howard’s Australia was continuing to use the vertical system of autocracy and hence has earned the blessings of the Crown. My legal actions through Racial Discrimination Act 1975, against Mr. Howard when he was Prime Minister of Australia were based on my practice of Racial Equality. This meant that I did not favor Mr. Howard and accept his subjective views but rather worked to the level of his position in my areas of expertise and made myself Equal in Substance in that subject – before showing the ‘other side’ of statements made by Mr. Howard in my special area.

The Australian Courts used Subjective Powers to judge through this legislation – which to me is the highest Democratic path available to Australia. The Prime Minister’s team did not ‘complete’ the other side of the picture. But I was able to establish that the ‘effects’ of an action by someone without subjective powers challenging a higher authority with abundant of subjective powers, beyond the latter’s capability to produce the ‘other side’ – was ‘imprisonment, mental torture & isolation’ by the Administrative system. This is not different to the complaints we hear from victims of the Sri Lankan Public Administrative system. Yet majority Australians of Sri Lankan origin fail to identify with this ‘common’ feature. Australians who have invested in the vertical system and therefore the British Royalty as the highest Subjective power go to Britain to identify with their credits in that environment. Likewise, Australians of Sri Lankan origin go to Sri Lanka to identify with their credits in that hierarchical environment. Some even bring brides and bridegrooms from Sri Lanka for this reason.

When they go there to urban areas where due to the rebellion the hierarchical structures have been damaged and sometimes destroyed, they are not able to identify with their investment in the ‘hierarchical’ system of our ancestors. Hence there is often conflict with local authorities who now occupy the higher positions in those structures which are neither democratic nor autocratic. They are more a collection of individual thinking. Then it becomes a match between two political powers.

An Australian of Sinhalese origin wrote to me about my Sri Lanka Guardian article ‘ Tamil Nation & Sinhalese Nation’ – “I thought that you mentioned in a previous conversation that you are personally against the country being divided.”

To this I responded as follows: “I am as an individual. But when I write on behalf of a community, I have the duty to bring out their collective thinking. I am still working for an undivided Sri Lanka. But my observations on behalf of the Community say otherwise. It is important for me to know this reality”

Those who would like to at least mentally take up the leadership positions carrying strong subjective powers in Sri Lanka, would continue to want a unitary State – such as the UK. As per their nature therefore – it is understandable that the Mr. Howard as well Mr. Rajapakse would feel honored when the Queen recognizes them specially.

Sri Lankans who do not see such possibility of stepping into subjective leadership positions through Sri Lanka as a country – would push for American style Federal Governance.

Those to whom the word of a subject is law suits the hierarchical system. Most cultural systems are hierarchical for this reason. LTTE was too. Hence Tamil Eelam under the leadership of the LTTE would have been autocratic – based on military style culture. It’s other side – the current Sri Lankan government needed to be more autocratic – which was not difficult for Politicians with strong investment in cultural systems.

The True example of natural Democracy happened not in the USA but in India where Sri Sathya Sai Baba who was born in a very ordinary looking family in a remote corner of India, was venerated above politicians – not because of one religion but because of His commitment to multiculturalism in religious life and more importantly His commitment to bottom up ‘Love All & Serve All’ values. Sri Sathya Sai Baba preserved the cultural values of the religion of his biological family. But at the Public level – those of different faiths were able to find their own solutions through His common teachings – at the simple practical level. Sri Sathya Sai Baba was/is King to millions – to a much larger and wider group than those who consider Queen Elizabeth to be their leader. India’s King happened due to conduct in current life, whilst England’s Queen inherited her position. Faith in the former would strengthen Democratic Powers at global level. All those who follow the bottom-up path to leadership are already democratic.

In essence – those who take up authority follow the vertical path whilst those who show the ‘other side’ are taking the democratic path. We need both as per our reality. The ultimate goal is Truth/Love. Sri Lankans who have had the more difficult experience in this war – would tend to seek the bottom up path of Democracy. Others would continue to use the top down Hierarchical path. Neither Sinhalese nor Tamils of Sri Lanka are strongly Democratic. Hence they continue to fight for the top positions through claims of ‘rights’ earned through their past rather than through democratic current conduct.