|
Mocking Democracy with Shackled Choices
"Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed
no better than we deserve."
- George Bernard Shaw
The
unhappy reality today is that the provincial council
elections do not provide the Sri Lankan voter with even
a modicum of basic democratic choice. First, the main
parties themselves do not focus on substantive issues or
principles, but can be seen to be differentiated purely
by personalities, gossip and trivia. Prospective voters
are faced with only a range of ad hominem attacks at
rival candidates, outrageous claims and horrendous track
records of violence, corruption, and crime, including
murder and rape.
Clearly visible in the wings are the entire array of
underworld figures, responsible for the lion's share of
this country's ever-rising rate of drug-dealing,
extortion and so on. Surrounding the candidates as they
bulldoze their way across the campaign trail, stopping
traffic and causing chaos, are Montero-loads of security
officers, either on "loan" from the military or on
"leave" from it. The agenda seems to be to imitate an
incumbent minister, thereby demonstrating power and the
ability to use force where necessary. During election
time force is always necessary, and the threat of
imminent use of force is a major weapon in the arsenal
of any successful political candidate.
All
this sounds like a cheap and old fashioned gangster
movie, but, alas, this does not even begin to describe
the fiasco of our electoral system. To continue to
itemise the problems with the PC elections, the ruling
party's strategy to hold them in an ad hoc and piecemeal
manner is clearly anti-democratic and self-seeking. The
general population is faced with the dilemma of either
having a division of power between the provincial and
national administrations, which would inevitably lead to
a deadlock in our petty and personalised system of
governance, or to vote for the party in power in order
to "get the job done." This coupled with the current war
hysteria makes the current regime a shoo in, aided in no
small measure by the main opposition party's own
internal antics and absence of leadership.
Who
wins or loses the provincial council election for the
Western Province is irrelevant in the present context.
Even as a component of the devolution process, the PC
system has failed because of the fact that in practice
it has merely provided yet another avenue for elite
families to capture power: typically the father is in
parliament, while a son reigns in the provincial council
and another relative is ensconced in the pradeshiya
sabha!
The
point is that the people deserve better than this gaggle
of clowns and crooks who are being trotted out for
election at these various occasions; they deserve better
than the pettiness and lack of vision of the national
parties, the utter impunity and non-accountability in
selecting candidates, many of whom would not qualify for
admission to a decent home. Perhaps it is naive to wish
for ethics or even principles in politics in Sri Lanka
today. The governing palace ethos appears to be based on
a clear division of labour. Hence, doers have their
uses, as do orators. But, taking the national situation
as a whole, and focusing on the kinds of candidates
submitted to us for our endorsement, do we as voters
have to accept and condone this rapidly-worsening state
of affairs?
The
candidate list reads like a rogues' gallery. The debates
and discussions among them are at best gossip and
claptrap. The richest sell themselves in the media in
the most idiotic and blatant ways. Is this not an
outrageous state of affairs, and one that should enrage
every single one of us? Am I not being insulted, even
humiliated, when I am being asked by people in whom I
have apparently placed my trust, either by electing them
into power or parliament, to choose between an alleged
multiple murderer or an alleged rapist, a bookie or a
drug dealer? Is this the best that the political parties
have to offer us voters?
Even
one such person in a party list should serve to sully it
beyond redemption, and it should be the others on the
list (who do not have such notoriety) who should insist
that they don't want to be tarnished by association. One
might say that not all the candidates are beneath
contempt, that there are some who have worked their way
up the ranks and/or have quietly stayed in local
politics, being loyal to party and constituency.
True,
but these are not merely exceptions, they are
outnumbered and endangered. They are also being devalued
within their own parties and have less and less to say
about national issues. Moreover, should they not stand
up and be counted against the riff-raff that is
contaminating the entire electoral process? Should they
not say we do not want to be on the same list as
so-and-so, even if it means the end of their political
careers? The fact is, if they are honest and altruistic,
it is the end of their political careers anyway!
If, as
is inevitable (since the worst offenders and their
sponsors are all rich criminals operating with
impunity), a rapist or a murderer or a drug dealer is
elected to one provincial council or another, it is
democracy that has died yet again in
Sri Lanka.
How many more such murders of the democratic process
will we as voters and citizens countenance before
demanding that at least candidates for election should
not be the worst scum of the earth?
We
must take some measure of responsibility for this sorry
state of affairs. As Voltaire so vividly describes, "So
long as the people do not care to exercise their
freedom, those who wish to tyrannise will do so; for
tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote
themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious
and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men."
In
this present context it is unrealistic to expect that
either opportunistic politicians or their crooked
patrons will clean up their collective act. We must
ensure that they cannot shackle us with their henchmen
and agendas by resoundingly defeating anyone who has
even a hint of violence, corruption or illegality in his
or her history. This may mean that we have no one to
vote for, but even if that is the case our commitment to
democracy must be unwavering. The rejection of this
sham, the raising of the bar is an affirmation of
democratic values for future generations.
Eugene
Debs was surely right when he said, "When great changes
occur in history, when great principles are involved, as
a rule the majority are wrong. The minority are right."
 |
