We have come far from the days when D.S. Senanayake
‘protected democracy’ with a club. We
saw the hijacking of democracy first with the infamous referendum in 1982 to
seek a 50% + 1 majority in order to keep a five-sixths majority in parliament,
followed by malpractices at the election itself. We
have lived through the JVP threat, ‘the first to cast a vote will get a
bullet’. We went through ‘Wayamba
1999’. We had perhaps the cleanest
election in recent times in 2004, courtesy the 17th Amendment and
the Independent Elections Commission. We
have come far but have a long way to go still.
Today it is more about intra-party rivalry when it comes to
violence. The incidence of violence too has dropped. And yet, the staggered nature of elections,
the considerable sway over the media and other political pleasantries enjoyed by
incumbents compromise democracy, both its spirit and substance. When all factors are considered, it is still
hard to argue that recent electoral outcomes would have been reversed had the
ruling party did not enjoy such benefits, but that’s a poor excuse for
abuse.
The strength of abusers indicates and is fed by the relative
weakness of the people. Sadly even those
outfits which seek, in the name of the people, to play watchdog roles are
compromised by party loyalties, preferred outcomes and donor-dependency, not to
mention the various anti-people actions by prominent personalities who run
them. Still, even if messenger is
compromised, message remains worthy of perusal and cause for concern. Even if there are no funded-messengers, the
people know that elections are not lovely, fraud-free affairs. They are not
stupid.
It is heartening to note that the Elections Commissioner,
handicapped though he is by lack of teeth and absence of mechanisms to ensure
independence, has decided not to hold back punches in combatting
wrongdoing. Offices used by people who
have flouted election laws have been sealed.
Big name politicos known for strong arm tactics are being hounded as we
write. These are laudable acts and
welcome signs that the abuse of state resources will not go unchallenged.
What is abundantly clear is that despite ample evidence to
the effect that for all its errors and excesses the majority still prefer this
regime to any alternative, the people have more confidence in the ruling party
than the ruling party itself. That fear
indicates that for all the braggadocio regarding outcomes, there is a shade of
uncertainty, augmented by fear and also by the knowledge of the truth that they
are not clean.
Perhaps it is an occupational hazard; politicians don’t
trust the people because they know that they themselves are not trustworthy. This is what pushes the good to do the bad
and once that happens there’s no turning back; it becomes a habit. The truth is that the voter knows that saints
don’t offer themselves for elections. They will, as they have, choose the best
out of the bad lot. The bad, as well as
the less good, can always do better and no one is better positioned to help
bring change in the sad political culture we are saddled with than those who
call the shots, the ruling party.
People will go along with a result that reflects majority
will even if there’s hanky panky. People
will applaud, however, a true result, i.e. one where those who are best
positioned to tweak the law if not break it without batting an eyelid rise
above themselves and the political culture to uphold the law pertaining to
elections.
For this, guts are needed.
For this wisdom is needed. Will
the ruling party have the guts and the wisdom?
Will its leadership show the way?
['The Nation' Editorial, August 26, 2012]
0 comments:
Post a Comment