Challenges for democracy - a regional perspective
Presentation by Prof. Rajiva
Wijesinha, MP at a meeting of the Pakistan Liberal Forum in Islamabad,
on September 11, 2012
I am grateful to the Pakistan Liberal Forum for having invited me to
speak today at your seminar on 'Challenges for Democracy in the upcoming
Elections'.
Though you have suggested I present a regional perspective, it would
be more practical I think for me to talk about democracy in Sri Lanka
and the challenges we have faced, which may perhaps have lessons for you
in Pakistan too.
Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, MP addressing the Pakistan Liberal Forum
in Islamabad |
Sri Lanka has been a functioning democracy for 80 years now, with
Universal Adult Franchise bestowed on us by the British in 1931. That
they gave us a privilege you in the then united subcontinent did not
receive for over a decade longer is not a tribute to us, but rather a
function of our small size and the perception that, whatever happened,
we would not be a threat to the Empire. We were given not only the
opportunity to select a legislature, but also an approximation to
Cabinet government with seven ministers chosen from amongst the members
of the Legislature. Needless to say, though, there were three appointed
ministers, for Law and Finance and what was termed Chief Secretary,
while Defence and External Affairs were kept in the hands of the
Governor.
We followed the classic Westminster model which, as you know, does
not separate the Executive from the Legislature. All members of the
Cabinet were chosen from the Legislature, but unlike in Britain this
soon turned into membership of the Legislature being seen as the main
qualification for becoming a minister. Ability was not considered
important, and seniority seemed a sufficient claim.
Youth insurrection
There were a few exceptions, and I can also think of one case where a
man of recognized ability was brought into a safe seat, a practice that
the British had, so as to bring in people of talent. More importantly
they also had a House of Lords to which proven talent could be
introduced, which India for instance still continues with, in the form
of the Rajya Sabha. As you know, several of the most distinguished
ministers in the Indian cabinet have not faced the hustings, but are in
effect appointed.
Sri Lanka however had a Senate, which rapidly became a joke, since it
was generally a tool for patronage rather than a repository of merit. It
had just two ministers, who rarely did credit to the administrations in
which they functioned, and in the early seventies it was abolished.
That was the time at which we introduced a new constitution which
emphatically bestowed all powers on Parliament ,with a President
appointed by the Prime Minister, instead of the Governor General we had
previously had, who was of course chosen by the Prime Minister, but
appointed by the Queen.
The new constitution had been pledged in the manifesto of the Sri
Lanka Freedom Party and its Communist allies who formed the 1970
government, but it seemed more urgent because of a youth insurrection
that took place soon after that election. This indicated the frustration
young people felt about governments that did not seem to take their
concerns into account. Unfortunately the remedy was the classic response
of radicals in that period, which was increasing centralized authority.
The dominant view was that reform was essential, and to achieve this
soon, the government needed more power.
Promote efficiency
That perspective also informed the government of J R Jayewardene
which won the 1977 election. Though the platform was right wing, it was
an authoritarian capitalism that he installed, with power being
concentrated in the hands of an Executive President. However he ignored
the logic of such a position, which he had claimed in his manifesto was
necessary to promote efficiency. Though he had advocated a separation of
powers, with a Cabinet removed from Parliament, he decided against this,
and introduced a hybrid constitution whereby the rest of the Cabinet had
to be part of the legislature.
One consequence of this, even if it was not the reason for this
inconsistency, was that it made his power over Parliament absolute. The
leading figures of Parliament constituting the Executive meant that the
oversight function of Parliament was observed in the breach. From that
day on, the scrutiny that Parliament has engaged in has been minimal,
and the Executive has had a free run for its money.
Jayewardene also introduced a few more measures that reduced the
effectiveness of Parliament as a legislature and an oversight body. He
decided that proportional representation was desirable, which was
understandable in view of the lopsided majorities the first past the
post system had engendered, in the context of a volatile electorate,
with most seats being marginals. His first idea, of list based PR, where
members were placed in order by the party, for which alone electors
voted on a district basis, was abandoned when he found that those low
down in the list would not work for the party since they had no hope of
getting into Parliament.
Decentralized budget
He then introduced what was perhaps the most cynical innovation of a
diabolical mind. He gave every voter, not just one preference (which
might have made sense), but three, for which candidates on a party list
had to compete. They were thus forced to publicize themselves over
entire Districts to defeat others in their own party. The cost of
elections became colossal, the violence that was engendered excessive.
As serious a consequence was the need after election to nurse a whole
District. Ensuring popularity thus became the principal focus of a
legislator, with the need to compete also against representatives of
other bodies, Provincial Councils as well as local bodies, who could
easily become threats if their work proved popular. Government indeed
went so far as to introduce the concept of a decentralized budget, to
bestow funds on Members to use in their electorates, but given that all
Members in a District have to work in the whole District, the funds are
inadequate and have to be supplemented.
Successive governments have talked about electoral reform, and all
pay lip service to the German system, which mixes individual
constituencies with a final result that is proportional, but change is
not likely when it has to be passed by those who have got in through the
current system. Perhaps simply reducing the preferences to one each, to
enable Members to concentrate on the particular constituency which they
are allocated, may prevent unhealthy rivalry. Thus also reducing
excessive expenditure, that is populist rather than coherent, may help,
but perhaps the rot has set in too deep for Parliamentarians to resume
their principal role of legislators who monitor the financial outlay of
government.
Legislative enactments
For legislation has indeed suffered as a result of this change in the
role of the Parliamentarian. The committee stage of bills, where
problems should be ironed out through discussion, hardly exists. The
consultative committees which should formulate policy have turned into
yet another forum for solving constituency problems. And there are of
course far too many of these for there to be any coherent approach to
problems of governance, since the number of ministries has multiplied,
given the assumption of all Members that they need an executive position
in order to command the resources that will ensure continuing
popularity.
Thus it is rare that ideas about governance come from ministers. As
part of the centralizing process, bills are developed centrally, when
indeed there are bills. Over the last two and a half years, Parliament
has spent its time approving regulations, in particular financial
regulations, while legislative enactments have been few.
Sadly, two of the most important measures government pledged in its
manifesto, electoral reform and a compulsory pensions scheme, have been
abandoned, because it became clear that there had not been sufficient
consultation before the bills were presented. Especially important
legislation to promote reforms in education seems likely to suffer the
same fate.
I have highlighted the current problems because they made clear that
power no longer lies in any sense with the legislature in Sri Lanka.
While legislators have to be kept happy, because they can vote out a
government, this is done by raising many of them to executive office
while providing funds and job opportunities to enhance their electoral
appeal, in a context in which that needs relentless shoring up. The same
goes for other layers of government. We set up Provincial Councils in
1987, but there too power has passed to the Provincial Ministers, or
rather what power remained after the central government arrogated many
functions to itself.
Political parties
Thus we had a situation where one Provincial legislature has had no
quorum on I think 30 occasions, if I recollect aright what its Governor
complained of. Of course in some areas statutes are made and the Council
functions effectively, but given the limited powers it enjoys, and the
ambiguities inherent in a failure to outline the distinction between
National Policy - which remains with the Centre - and the instruments of
implementation, which are with the Province, the scope for action is
limited.
It is perhaps for this reason that the recent turnout at Provincial
Council elections was so small. In a country which had traditionally
enjoyed deep commitment to the electoral process, this suggests that the
voter has realized that elections mean little.
Of course I have no doubt that, in a national election, enthusiasm
will return, especially if there is a possibility of a change of
government. But for the moment I feel that democracy is seen as more
cosmetic than a means by which people can exercise their power.
I should note that one reason for this is the absence of a vibrant
opposition. Given the advantages of office, there is a tendency for
politicians to gravitate towards government, and the present Leader of
the Opposition in Sri Lanka has facilitated this by making it clear that
reform or leadership change in his party will not be permitted.
Unfortunately the clear legislative provisions against change of
party allegiance have been subverted by courts that are more concerned
with technicalities than justice. Since however Sri Lankan political
parties have not been based on ideology, except for some broad
characteristics that have become blurred following the conclusion of the
Cold War, politicians have no reason not to switch party allegiance for
purely practical considerations.
While I have presented a generally bleak picture of electoral
politics in Sri Lanka, I should note that we have benefited from
continuing democracy in a manner that only India in the subcontinent has
enjoyed apart from us. India did have its Emergency and we suffered from
a suspension of elections for six years in the eighties, but in both
cases I believe the resistance has ensured that such excesses will not
be repeated. Unfortunately, whereas in India the resistance was by Civil
Society, in Sri Lanka it was spearheaded by yet another youth
insurrection, and that may be a bad precedent in case things seem
unbearable again. But for the moment all major parties agree that we
must never seek to circumvent the electoral process in the future.
Democratic process
What we need to concentrate on then is to make this process more
meaningful. I believe this will only be possible if we allow more space
for elected officials at local levels whose responsibilities are clear,
and who can be made accountable to the citizens they serve. Local
government reform seems then a must, and may be the first step we must
take to ensure responsive government, before going on to tackle larger
questions of provincial powers and authority. After all, without only
arguing about areas in which all stakeholders feel insecure, we could
begin by empowering people in small units which are not seen as a threat
by anyone. With strengthening of their capacities with regard to the few
areas in which they now have powers, such as utilities, and extending
this to basic services such as educational administration, we could
broaden the concept of democracy.
We must after all promote the understanding that democracy is not
just about elections, it is also about governance. Responsible and
transparent government is best achieved through subsidiarity, that
places people at the centre of the democratic process, without treating
them simply as voters, to be cajoled into voting and then not consulted
again until the next election. |