| by Siri Gamage
( February 13, 2013, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) It is interesting to see current discourses in the media about the undemocratic actions of the present government and the need for more democratically oriented reforms, both in the system of government, role of the executive President, electoral system and so forth. This is not a new debate in Sri Lanka’s political and social history, especially since the introduction of an executive Presidential system of governance in the late 70s.
From time to time when the more literate segments of the population –both within and outside the country- felt a trend towards a semi or full dictatorship emerging, critical opinions were published in the national media and in academic journals and books. This was the case when the UNP led coalition was in power and SLFP-led coalitions were at the helm. Therefore, when looking at the issue of democracy vs. dictatorship some balance needs to be injected to the discourses appearing in the media and other outlets because any trend toward a dictatorship is not a new phenomenon –even though it may have assumed a different quality and appearance in the current phase.
Party politics
What is more important is to focus on the nature of party political power and its dynamics, dominating impact on the populace and the necessary reforms not only in the system of governance but also in the way we tend to grasp the realities on the ground. This article is a first step towards identifying the nature of party political power, its manifestations and its impact on the populace on the ground.
It is important to start with an observation about the nature of major political parties existing in the country, who provide sustenance to them, why they exist and who benefits? Though it is not possible to address all these questions in one piece, it is important to understand that parties are there for the simple purpose of gaining power at formal elections in order to govern the country. Governance and administration are two different but interlinked processes. Elected representatives make laws in Parliament and some of them also belong to the executive, meaning the Cabinet. Administrators or bureaucrats as commonly known under various ministries, departments and other bodies, implement government policies and programs. Many of them are also affiliated with one or other party or are close to the powers that be and their families. These ministries, departments and other bodies control enormous amounts of public resources and therefore the decisions about how to distribute these resources –financial, human, material- have significant impacts on various segments of the population. Political power obtained at periodic elections is at the centre of acquiring the ability to make decisions and control resources at national, provincial and local levels. Thus, the presence of parties, groups and families who are familiar with the nature of the process for obtaining and exercising political cum administrative power. The continuity of politicians from given families in both sides of the spectrum has given rise to the concept of ‘political class’ in post-independent Sri Lanka. Janis Jiggins published a book on the nature of political families some decades ago.
Understanding boundaries
What is crucial in the context of Sri Lanka’s political history is to understand what boundaries exist or do not exist for the actions of politicians and administrators who are closely aligned with the governing parties to make decisions on behalf of the people who elect them. Ideally, when reading the constitution or the legislation passed through Parliament there are certain provisions that tend to limit the nature of political power of those who are in the governing seat. Very often, interested constituents test these limits in the courts also. Nonetheless, in countries of the South Asian region in particular, the constitutions, laws, and Acts of Parliament alone do not define the nature of political power and its limits. It is partly defined by the social, cultural, and historical contexts and provincial and local idioms and practices also. Thus, for example, in a status driven society like Sri Lanka, the position in the government cum administration one holds –irrespective of the means by which it is obtained- defines one’s status, identity wealth and power in reality and in the eyes of those around. This has been the case not only during the colonial period but also during monarchical times. During the early 70s I was part of a team of fresh university sociologists who conducted a survey of households in Tangalle, Kadurupokuna area.
Position
During this research we realised the importance of ‘position’ one held in the courts, Kachcheriya (government agent’s office), Police, hospital or the DRO’s office. Even those who held minor roles in these administrative spheres exercised enormous power and status in the eyes of those around as they had access to important decision-making processes that impact people’s lives. The diary of Leonard Wolf vividly illustrates the nature of power he held and the way he executed it in relation to the people in the Hambantota district with a degree of humility and understanding. What we need to understand is that political power is not only a vehicle for making decisions on behalf of the people in the country and its districts but also of acquiring status, wealth, opportunity and identity for those who are close to it. Thus, it has an introverted and extroverted dimension. Whether such power measures well in comparison to Western ideas of good governance is another issue for another time to discuss. If one is interested, such power and its display can, however, be measured according to the key religions that exist in the land, just as an intellectual and political exercise.
Behaviour of politicians
If we look at the behaviour of politicians of all kinds since the late ‘70s when the wearing of national dress became more popular among them, one can count on one’s fingers the number of politicians who followed ‘the middle path’ as defined in Buddhism in the strict sense of the term. Not only did they accumulate enormous wealth and status through their vocation as individuals, families and groups, but also dominated the lives of average citizens in the districts by the utilisation of such wealth, status and power. Such behaviour extended to Chief Ministers and other provincial level politicians in time to come. The display of such wealth, status and power formed an essential part of maintaining the very power as individuals, groups and parties. Thus for example, when a politician travels he/she was accompanied by a contingent of security and support staff in a convoy of posh vehicles. As they had access to resources belonging to various ministries, departments and other bodies, such facilities were easily available to them also. Many average citizens are intimidated by such display of power and misuse of public wealth. Therefore, even when constituents have burning issues to bring to the notice of elected politicians in the governing party, they were reluctant to visit politicians’ homes for this purpose (in Sri Lanka political offices are mostly run from the politicians’ homes rather than an office in a neutral location).
Lewd language
To add to this situation, some politicians used vulgar language to address constituents, especially if they were not supporters of the ruling party or brought an issue or an opinion contrary to the opinions held by the politician. Politicians considered themselves as those who know everything, every correct solution to the issues at hand, rather than those who wanted to study and understand what the actual issues facing people were. The one exception I can think of is former President D.B.Wijethunga who used to meet his constituents at the weekend at his home at Pilimatalawa and go through each person’s issue one by one together with his secretary in the most humble manner irrespective of the time of day.
Thus, the issue democracy vs. dictatorship is not one that is peculiar to the current phase of Sri Lanka’s political process. It is an issue that is firmly embodied in the political and governance systems that have evolved with contributions from all major political parties, groups and families since the late 70s. The manner political and governance powers are defined, characterised, exercised, and displayed,/presented to the larger population, have assumed peculiar features that have assumed an unnecessary dominance and a disempowering effect in relation to the very constituents who elect politicians to the office.
In my view, if there is to be any meaningful reforms in the system, the transformative ideas, actions, discourses etc. have to come from those outside the ‘political class’ rather than within. It is here that the intelligentsia concerned with this issue has to play a critical role not only in bringing various dimensions of this conundrum to the fore but also developing strategies that can help in the long term, health of the polity as well as the welfare of many generations of young and old who are dominated by the political class- day by day quite unnecessarily.
( The writer can be reached at amage.siri@yahoo.com )
 It is interesting to see current discourses in the media abo...){kind=link}