Is ‘Democracy’ at Death’s Door?

By PALITHA SENANAYAKE

Whenever the government in a democratic country like Sri Lanka opts to assert control over a socially fluid situation, the opposition groups tend to question such efforts posing the question, ‘Is this democracy?’ The manner in which this question is posed infers that the government of the day, by its effort to assert itself, is attempting to impinge on the rights of a democratic society, where freedom to express and to demonstrate are upheld as ‘sacrosanct’. This, however, is not only a misconception but also a subliminal notion that opposition groups, in their politically expedient endeavours, try to inculcate in the minds of the people; much against the spirit of what a democratic society should really be.

The irony about democracy today, in relation to many developing countries, appears to be that everybody knows what democracy is and how good a system of governance it is, but nobody seems to know how to deploy it to pull their countries out of the woods.

The concept of democracy and constitution, as a form of government originated in ancient Athens, circa 508 BC. In ancient Greece, there were many city-states with different forms of government, and many intellectuals and philosophers as well, who evaluated the best form of governance for a state. They coined ‘democracy’ from the Latin lexicon to mean the ‘Government of the people’. It was in contrast, and was also an evolved form of the past forms of governance; monarchy- of one person, and aristocracy- of the elites, and to democracy- of all the people. The thinking at the time was that, the broader the base of governance, the more representative it would be of the peoples’ needs and aspirations. Yet, since the question of responsibility taking, and execution of power, was central to any form of governance, they realised that the broader the base, the weaker would be the execution of power and the responsibility for actions.

The problem of exercising power was overcome by electing a representatives’ Government for a particular period, entrusting them with the power to enact laws and to execute peoples’ power. Then, the last but not the least issue of responsibility, meaning the responsibility for the laws enacted and for the power executed. The fact that a government is appointed from time to time, does not exonerate the responsibility for the laws enacted and for the execution of power, from the true owners of the state; the people, as sovereignty lies with them and hence also the responsibility. Thus, it behoves that, if the king is held responsible in a monarchy, and the Council of noblemen in an aristocracy, it is the people themselves that are responsible for the actions and governance and also for the conduct of the democracy. A citizenry that is not responsible enough in his/ her conduct to ensure a democratic society, does not deserve to enjoy the democratic system, and hence will degenerate back to either a junta type governance or dictatorship; the current version of the monarchy.

Accordingly, if an elected government is not keeping up to its election manifesto, not transparent in its activity; financial and otherwise, the people have the right to demand that it carry out its election undertakings and exercise transparency in all its affairs. In this respect, it is more the duty of those who voted for the prevailing government that should question these aspects of democratic governance; because failure on the part of the current government on those, could lead to a debacle at the next election.

Having established the rights and responsibilities of those who voted for the Government elect, it is necessary to consider the responsibilities of those who voted against as well, because there is no democratic system of governance anywhere that enables all its citizens to win at an election. In this, that section of the people who voted against, have to assimilate into the mainstream whether they like it or not. Just as the government that is elected pledges to run the country for all its citizens, those who voted against too have a responsibility to abide by the rules of the new government. The emphasis this point deserves could be bestowed by stating that ‘just as a government that is not equitable and accommodative of all its citizens have no right to govern the country, those countrymen who are not prepared to concede the majority’s right to elect and govern will also have no right to enjoy or to be protected by, the democratic system’.

That invariably, has to be the stand to take, because the alternative is simply, anarchy.

In that light, how could we view the recent demonstrations conducted by the JVP and other trade union affiliated organisations in this midst? Their main point of contention was that the ‘pandemic curfew’ should not be used to suppress the democratic rights of the masses. Considering the fact that the JVP and certain other unions always had some demonstration or the other, there never could be a time for a pandemic lockdown, as it was a never-ending series of demonstrations since the current government assumed power. Another argument is that the government is using the pandemic to pass legislation that is unpopular and socially inimical.

Well, since the current government was elected with an extraordinary popular mandate, how could these trade unions and the JVP appoint themselves as the arbiters of the popularity or the socially inimical nature of a particular legislation? This makes the current demonstration scenario an attempt to sabotage the democratic right of the current government that was elected by the majority, thereby undermining the right of the majority in this country. This is simply because the trade unions and the JVP are organized, whereas the mass of people who voted are rather unorganized, and hence being reduced to the position of mere spectators. In any case, it is not a socially responsible act for the Government supporters to stage demonstrations in support of the Government at the current times.

Therefore, it should now be clear that the current conduct of the JVP and the trade unions is in breach of the core principle of democracy, and also it is the JVP and the trade unions that are taking advantage of the pandemic to stage their irresponsible demonstrations, reducing the responsible majority to be mere spectators. Sooner the people and the Government realize this, amidst all that rhetoric, coupled with prompting action, the Sri Lankan society would bring the most socially inimical action perpetrated on it in recent times, to an end.