Democracy and debate
 Ancient
Athenian free men had a very direct form of democracy, which depended
very much on debate. The Athenian marketplace, the Agora, was the scene
of much political debate, which was part of the fun of being an ancient
Athenian (albeit male and un-enslaved).
The openness of debate in Athens led to a flourishing of all kinds of
ideas and philosophies - including the birth of history in its rigorous
form. Both Herodotus and Thucydides included in their works debates on
politics, democracy, oligarchy and monarchy. Contemporaneously, India
saw the flowering of the new philosophies, Buddhism, Jainism, Carvakism
and Ajivikism. Trevor Ling has shown how the democracy of the tribal
republics (such as that of the Sakyas) influenced the structure of the
Buddhist Sangha. The same atmosphere of debate pervaded all these
so-called ‘nastika’ schools of thought.
Political debate
This attitude continued in the Buddhist tradition, finding expression
in the 19th century religious debates in Panadura and elsewhere. Modern
Sri Lankan political debate is in many ways a fusion of this oriental
strand with the Westminster parliamentary standard, derived ultimately
from Athens.
It was in the State Council elected in 1936 that this fusion came to
fruition. Marx and Lerski joined Erskine May and Anagarika Dharmapala in
the House.
The two enfants terrible of the State Council, Philip Gunawardena and
NM Perera, complemented by DP Jayasuriya and DM Rajapaksa, took on the
big battalions of British Raj and its compradore allies in the house.
What resulted was not merely a very high level of debate. It was also
highly entertaining. People would go to the old State Council building
(now the Presidential Secretariat) just to hear the debates. In the days
before there were reality TV musical competitions, there were also
lively debates among the general Sri Lankan public on all issues
political. Personalities were important in this discourse, but so were
the issues and matters of political principle.
Philosophical issues
In the debate between the 15th century Buddhist scholar-monks
Totagamuwe Sri Rahula and Vidagama Maitreya, at stake were deep
philosophical issues.
However, vulgar tradition has reduced the argument to one of mere
personal rivalry between master and student. Alas, it appears that
politics in Sri Lanka have followed the same path. There now seems to be
little debate on the actual issues, but much about personalities.
This is no truer than in the United National Party. The Opposition in
the opposition wants to get rid of Ranil Wickremesinghe, and he wants to
remain as party leader.
There is no resolution to the crisis because the UNP lacks healthy
internal debate and democracy.
The ‘alternative’ group claims that Ranil’s lack of charisma is
costing the party elections. However, that should be no obstacle. The
party’s most successful leader was JR Jayewardene, who was notably
lacking in charisma.
JR Jayewardene was able to lead the party to a landslide victory in
1977 because the United Front had broken up and because the country was
facing enormous shortages. Plus, of course, JR had promised the
electorate a free ration of eight extra seers of cereal (‘eta ata’ ).
The far more charismatic Dudley Senanayake consistently beat JR in the
leadership stakes. He was far more popular among UNPers (and indeed
among the general public) than the dour JR. Nonetheless, he led the UNP
to one of its worst defeats in 1970.
One of the reasons for Dudley’s lack of success was the fact that,
under his leadership the UNP had moved closer to the position of the
SLFP. There was a bipartisan acceptance of the self-reliant approach to
economic development, and an equal commitment to democracy.
National assets
The voters saw little to distinguish the UNP from the SLFP (except in
nuance) and the overriding issue was chronically high unemployment and
shortages of consumer goods.
JR changed all that with a characteristically well-funded and
well-organized propaganda campaign which promised plenty for all.
Associated with this campaign was the building of a personality cult
around JR, complete with an adulatory soundtrack.
This was complemented by a consolidation of his hold within the UNP
and the expulsion of most of the Dudley-ite ‘democratic faction’.
Despite this, JR was able to present himself as more democratic than the
United Front, which soon proved false.
The UNP is unsuccessful today because it cannot offer an alternative
to the economic policy of the government - except perhaps in its
espousal of unpopular measures such as the privatisation of national
assets.
Because of the end of the war, the country is undergoing a period of
consolidated growth unprecedented even in the heady immediate post-1977
years, which saw expansion driven by the inflow of hitherto unimagined
amounts of foreign aid.
However, unlike in the JR years, this prosperity is trickling down to
the lowest levels of society. The government has targeted undeveloped
areas (both rural and urban) for infrastructure development which has
benefitted the neediest in society.
At the same time, the huge inflows from foreign employment have been
mostly to the poorer social strata. It is this equalising tendency in
society which has been the bane of Ranil’s bid for power, not his
personality.
The UNP has not been able to prove that it intends to do anything
different from what the government is doing. It is no point saying ‘we
will do it better’ - this has to be proven to the public.
The opposition in the UNP, if it is to be successful, should
concentrate on finding out what it can provide which is lacking. It has
to provide a programme which will appeal to the people. This requires a
high standard of debate on the issues.
The problem is that it does not have a drastically different
programmatic outlook from Ranil. It wants the same things that Ranil
wants, but it wants it for itself. The Bible says, ‘Physician, heal
thyself’ - the UNP, both Ranil-ite and oppositional, needs to take this
to heart. |
