The fifty-ninth anniversary of Sri Lanka’s Independence Day was celebrated yesterday (February 4, 2007). Democracy in Sri Lanka lasted only 30 years after independence. In 1978 an authoritarian model of government was introduced through a new constitution and under this constitution the executive president was not only above the law but even the constitution. The parliament and the judiciary were subordinated to the executive president.
In the 29 years that followed since the country has been under this authoritarian system all institutions of the rule of law and democracy have been dismantled, thus creating a chaotic situation in all aspects of governance throughout the country.
The following are the salient points that should have received attention on this 59th anniversary.
?That the country has suffered an exceptional collapse of the rule of law. This has happened in all aspects of the rule of law such as investigations into crimes by the police and prosecution of the crimes by the Attorney General’s Department. The people have lost trust in the police, and the judiciary and this fact is not disputed.
?The failure of the state to provide security for the people in any part of the country is also beyond dispute.
?Ninety percent of the state sector is considered as corrupt. Instead of heeding assessments of corruption the attempts have been to suppress the agencies that make authentic reporting on corruption possible.
?The abuse of power in all areas of life is also an acknowledged fact and the large number of cabinet ministers and even a larger number of non-cabinet ministers is the clearest indication of a government that remains in power by providing opportunities for corruption. (Sri Lanka now has the dubious privilege of being in the Guinness Book of Records as having the largest cabinet in the world). Besides this there is no agency that has the strength to resist corruption and to enforce transparency and/or accountability.
?There are accusations that a disappearance is taking place every five hours in one part or another of the country including the capital itself.
?The authority/authorities for monitoring of human rights violations are completely absent. The Presidential Commission of Inquiry is a complete mockery that has been designed only to withstand pressure for an authentic human rights monitoring body through the intervention of the United Nations Human Rights Council or through other interventions.
These are just a few of the stark realities that need to be considered on this day of celebration? In 1931 when the British, through a commission known as the Donoughmore Commission, introduced universal franchise to Ceylon it was considered the first country outside the western world where this had happened. The commissioners at the time said that the world would watch this experiment. The commission also noted that universal franchise was introduced before a political party system had been developed in the country and that perhaps the outcome would depend on that development.
Now after 76 years Sri Lanka is unable to develop a political party system with any sort of internal disciplinary process that is required from a party that could contribute to democracy. It is quite popular to refer to political parties as belonging to some individuals or families and even recent attempts at reforms in some parties showed how one individual can subvert any such attempt at internal democracy. Even the formation of governments, with all sorts of party combinations, do not require internal consensus within the ruling party or in others.
A pertinent question to ask in relation to independence is as to how an authentic party system failed to develop in the country and what factors have contributed to this. Often the party leaders have been blamed for this failure. Notwithstanding the fact that the leaders have indeed contributed to this process, this alone does not explain as to why the leaders themselves did not realize the advantages of an authentic party system with internal controls. A factor that is not discussed in this regard is the influence of the caste factor in Sri Lankan elections and politics in general.
At the time of the Donoughmore commission there was even an attempt to play down this factor. It was held by some that unlike in India, caste was not a significant factor in Sri Lanka. ?lt;em>The legal secularization of caste?which was so vital a factor in the modernization process in India, for instance, has not been necessary in Sri Lanka? (Communal Politics under the Donoughmore Constitution 1931-1947 by Jane Russell).
The alleged reason given in the footnote is that Kataragama and Sri Pada for example, are acknowledged religious symbols for Hindus, Muslims and Christians and well as Buddhists! However, the same author noted ?lt;em>The 1971 insurgency and the more recent upsurge of Tamil youth movements are indications that under certain conditions tensions can fall just as easily and perhaps more dangerously along caste and or class lines.?(Ibid).
All political party leaders, including those of leftist orientation, when choosing candidates for electorates do so from the caste that the majority of the electorate belongs to. Despite of all the talk of modernisation and secularism the candidates selection for each electorate is very much along caste lines. The advertisement of this factor though not done openly is done by many subtle means. Voting for our man?means voting for a particular caste.
It is not difficult to understand how internal democracy within a party on the basis of a meritocracy cannot arise when the candidates for the election have to be chosen along caste lines. Any political leader who would even for a moment been sincere about developing a genuinely democratic political party would have been overwhelmed by those who, by the sheer belonging to a particular caste can claim to get more votes.
It is starkly clear that the unwillingness and incapacity of political leaders of both Sinhalese and Tamil communities to deal with the caste factor, and in fact their willingness to exploit this, has caused Sri Lanka to be a fragmented and divided society. This division manifests itself also in the very organisations of monks in the countrys leading religion, Buddhism. It has also divided each of the political parties into many factions and groups.
It was quite usual in the first decades of independence to completely down play the caste factor by political analysts as well as researchers. Much of the theory on society and politics written on Sri Lanka has paid scant regard to this factor. To this extent these theorists are today dumbfounded in the midst of the worst ever crisis in this society.
In the local and the international debate on the situation of human rights and democracy in Sri Lanka the influence of the caste factor needs to be studied thoroughly if the reality of the situation is to be understood at all. The authoritarianism that has given rise to militarism in the country, claiming also quite a large part of the national income on military expenses, will eat up whatever is left of the early experimentation on democracy and human rights in Sri Lanka unless the basic realities such as the influence of caste in the political life of the country is given serious heed. Liberty, equality and fraternity will remain a distant dream for Sri Lankans unless they learn to openly talk about the devastating effects of caste identification and caste based relationships within their society. The hue and cry about anti-terrorism will not provide for the vacuum that exists in the country when the actual nature of the social organisations in the country defy democratic reforms.
