Presidential Election 2010: What is at Stake?

By Dr. Siri Gamage

(January 10, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) By most accounts the forthcoming election has been framed by main contenders as a referendum on who contributed most to defeating Tamil Tigers by launching an unprecedented war in modern history of the country. In essence, people are being asked to vote for a Presidential candidate on the basis of the role one played in winning the war. As a formality, election manifestoes will also be released including other promises in coming weeks. The main barometers of whether such promises are fulfilled by those who come to power has to be the quality of 'living conditions' of the people, the ability to exercise 'democratic and civic rights', whether space for living a peaceful and dignified life is provided by those who hold power (and wealth), whether equal opportunities for men and women and those from rural and remote areas as well as other disadvantaged backgrounds are available, and indeed the level of state corruption or misuse of public resources that are there for public use. Voters need to carefully consider these and associated factors as measuring stick of the performance of main parties and coalitions before making a decision about who to vote.

It is difficult to distinguish fact from fiction in a highly charged environment of an election campaign like the present one because parties are using rhetoric and discourses on trivial and symbolic matters rather than substantive matters such as the living conditions, rule of law, democratic and civic rights, transparency in the use of public funds. Voters, in particular those who belong to the category of floating voters, should not be misguided by such rhetoric.

They also have to contemplate about which candidate has the potential to maintain rule of law, independence of the judiciary, police and the public service, use state's resources for the benefit of the people at large rather than the privileged few (due to their birth status). Over the decades, partly as a result of the steps taken to ensure the victory against Tamil Tigers, e.g. emergency laws, there has been a gradual and serious deterioration of democratic rights and freedoms in the country. Top down decision making in a centralised and highly hierarchical plus expensive system of governance has been a main feature. This has excluded large segments of the Sri Lankan population in directly or indirectly participating in important decisions that the state makes on their behalf at various levels. Those who are thus excluded from being able to participate in democratic decision-making at various levels should be in the majority.

Democracy doesn't mean only the ability to vote in every now and then in an election (free and fair if the voters are lucky enough?). More significantly, it also means that those who come to power in such elections rule the country according to democratic norms of governance where the ability for the population to participate and contribute to the governing and decision making processes is a key element. In other words, democracy in between elections is far more important to sustain a peaceful society without conflict. Ensuring the rights of people to freedoms of expression, association, and dissent are other important norms. Because a highly conformist society is not good for creativity of the people at large to be unleashed in a society for the benefit of all.

From the point of view of civic population -excluding those who wield power as elected (and non elected representatives), it is far more important to have 'independence' for the key arms of the government. For example, the police should have 'operational independence' without being subjected to political interference - once their duties and roles are specified by acts of parliament irrespective of the person or the group under investigation. There has to be an apex authority to monitor the independence and non-interference by way of a police commission. Sri Lankans are fully aware of these requirements, as they have had to live with such provisions in the backdrop of continued agitation by those concerned about the irregular nature of the existing practices and provisions.

By various accounts as reported in the media, it seems that the gap between the rich and the poor are being escalated. Government waste and personal embellishment seem to have increased and parliamentary watchdog that has the mandate to investigate corruption seems to have gone into hiding. In a country like Sri Lanka, where there is a majority of population in conditions of poverty or semi-poverty, such waste and corruption or scales that favour the few rather than the many should not be tolerated whether these unfavourable conditions are hidden in a barrage of nationalistic rhetoric or anti western propaganda. The behaviour and decisions by those elected have to be in the best interest of the majority and minority rather than the few who acquire power and then wealth.

Voters should not allow for the re-emergence and consolidation of a semi-monarchical system of governance that belonged in the past rather than the present in the country. I believe that the democratic consciousness is firmly ingrained in the minds of Sri Lankan people as a result of the longstanding tradition of elections and universal franchise. However the risk of such consciousness being clouded by heavily biased propaganda seems to be high this time in particular as the parties are using the war victory as their main platform to the exclusion of other main issues. Peace dividend should be equally and fairly distributed to the whole population by way of good governance, civic and human rights, removal of emergency regulations that were set in place to fight so-called terrorism, and transparency in legitimate government expenditure

Use of thuggery, intimidation and other extra judicial measures during the campaign needs to be thoroughly condemned by the fair-minded voter. If they see any party or person is using these acts they should take these into notice when voting. If there is widespread use of these unacceptable practices, the election commissioner should even consider postponing the election until such time when there is an environment free from such acts to hold the election (However, I am not certain whether he has such powers under the constitution?).

More than winning the war, the crucial factor is who has the potential to share the good life with people in an environment of peace and communal harmony. Previously dictatorial regimes where 'crony capitalism' prospered such as in Indonesia, steps have been taken to institute democratic mechanisms. The Human Rights Commission there is being jointly financed and operated by Australia. Supremacy of the parliament as the peak legislative body and the cabinet as the executive body need to be re-instated. The presidential system of governance has to be removed from the Sri Lankan political scene, as it has become a very expensive and anarchical institution to maintain. The system is indeed one of the root causes of generating conflicts of various kinds in the country since its inception. These conflicts go beyond normal political conflicts that are based on verbal exchanges. Resort to open and hidden violence has been the consequence of this system and its monolithic operation The power of one individual assured by the system does not go well with the 'collective decision making' traditions that are fundamental to universal democratic norms of governance. A ceremonial role for a president elected or nominated by the parliament seems to be the better option for a country like Sri Lanka. Parliament should be the supreme legislative authority while the cabinet and the Prime Minister elected by the parliament becomes the executive arm. So, the voters need to contemplate which candidate has the best potential to do away with the executive president system as currently in place and bring about the necessary changes to the system of governance. Another generation should not be subjected to the 'excesses' of this system. My previous academic writings include clear arguments to this effect.

In short, while the war victory has been a landmark event in Sri Lanka's recent history and the credit for it should go to all who contributed and sacrificed their lives, the far more important issue to consider in the forthcoming election is which candidate has the ability and inclination to re-establish a fair and democratic system of governance along with the freedoms prescribed by various UN covenants, and distribute the peace dividend widely by adopting sensible measures that benefit the majority than a chosen few. In the end war was fought to bring about a peaceful, tolerating, pluralistic society where every citizen can enjoy the fruits of peace and no one ethnicity acquires supreme authority to the exclusion of others. As the society is comprised of different ethnicities, the government should also be an inclusive one. A government that is accountable to the people every day rather than every six years is an important pillar of creating a just and free society. A police force, public service, election commission and a constitutional commission free from political interference are other pillars of such a peace dividend. I hope the Sri Lankan voters will have the wisdom and experience to cut through the constructed rhetoric and jargon when it comes to exercising their votes in the coming election by distinguishing the woods from the forest and thus allowing to create a 'free and fair society' where there is rule of law and security for all the citizens guaranteed by way of a bill of rights!