Universal franchise: Understanding its power and using it correctly

Dr. Upatissa Pethiyagoda

It may border on sacrilege to question the validity and purpose of the franchise and the party system in search of “democracy” and “governance.” But looking at the results that have manifested through its exercise in the 73 years since 1948, it is legitimate to entertain doubts on how well the immense powers of the franchise have been understood and applied.

Orderly governance is meant to provide happiness, comfort and security for all citizen. Fairness and equity should dominate. Benefits and burdens should be equally shared, and aim at the contentment of the citizens without curtailing human freedom. Democracy, despite shortcomings, is judged to be the best way. Periodic elections and the free exercise of the franchise (voting) is paramount.

Let us examine these lofty intentions in the local context. We pride ourselves on being the first in Asia (?) to adopt universal suffrage – even ahead of our colonial masters. Have we done well in our pioneering effort, or are we showing signs of electoral senility?

Democracy has been cynically defined as a process based on the fond belief, that by the exercise of the franchise (voting), we somehow transform the collective stupidity of the many, into wisdom of the chosen few. Some may say justifiably, that in our case, it seems that “the stupidity of the many gets concentrated in the elected few”. But let that pass for now.

Let us ask ourselves how the theory fits the truth:

(i) The majority of us have not had the benefit of secondary education (leaving aside tertiary) and are not diehard members of political parties.

(ii) We are therefore compelled to vote rather “erratically” and therefore the system is open to unpredictable “swings”.

(iii) We generally regard the successful candidates as potential vagabonds, or scoundrel nitwits.

(iv) Our choices are based on personal fancy and the talks of “policy” are poppycock. “Unuth ekai munuth ekai “ We may call it the “Cahoot principle.” The essence of this proposition is they are all in tow, and the displayed rivalry is fake. The real conflict is Politicians vs. The People. When confusing situations arise, if one applies the fundamental truth of “cahootism,” the mist often clears.

Under the present system, inefficiency, ignorance, poor quality and low educational accomplishments in our pinnacle of Parliament, is inevitable. In a recent comment, the Speaker has lamented the poor use of the parliament library which is reputed to be among the best in the country. He says that there have been only some 330, of which 120 have been novels (what are they doing in a parliamentary library anyway?) borrowings (how many unreturned?).

Nepotism aggravates the situation. A simple “blood line test” may reveal much. Some have suggested setting minimum educational standards for entry. Give it to Parliament, as a superb example of “lateral thinking”. Give enough fellows doctorates and thus bring up the “average”! Clever but not clever enough. One notices that none of these ‘virgin entrants’ to erudition disclose the awarding institution – no BA (Oxon) or D.Sc (Lond). May be D.Phil (EC) – “Erronis causa”. Are these (sprouting like mushrooms) counterfeit? Are these stellar records transferable, to bring up the average? Is there some hanky panky going on?

Another quaint creature is the political party myth. Ask any fellow ‘why’ he votes this way or that and before long, the hollow word “policy” will enter. Then if you were to ask “What policy difference exist between, say, the “Gentlemen vs Players “? After a pronounced silence, your conversation partner will slither off to a different circle!

If you ask any “typical” voter for his choice and why, the majority response would be along the lines- “I am for so-and so’s man”. Party- wise “we have always been … so and so’s”, or habit. The kepuwath- nil/kola/rathu chant is the basis.

A certain firm felt that their recruitment practices could do with technical input. So, they brought in a human relations expert to ‘sit in’ on one interview for a secretarial position. There was the usual procession of hopefuls. As the interviews ended, the expert was invited to state his ratings. Without batting an embarrassed eyelid, he declared “I pick the one in the pink, tight fitting sweater, second place to the one in black slacks with shapely ankles”. So much so for selection criteria!

On a personal note, I had the opportunity to sit in on an interview board for the selection of a researcher for a top US university. Each candidate in turn was asked “In twenty minutes, please tell us what you have done with your life up until now?” What a clever departure from the norm!

At elections during our youth, there were coloured boxes, with each candidate assigned one. You just chucked your ballot paper (no scratching, no ticking of boxes etc.) into the box of your choice. Thus you had only the character, background, honesty and quality of the candidates to consider. As a result, you had the Senanayakes, Bandaranaikes, Kotelawalas, Jayatillakas, Molamures, Colvins and Keunamans and many more truly honourable people between whom you made your choice. No suspect, loud-mouthed, uncouth, ill-educated rowdies, thieves, murderers, drug lords, pick-pockets, chain snatchers and such other disreputable vagabonds, adorning our current political scene.

Please do not get me wrong, there are several exceptions capable of contributing much to our society – medicos, lawyers, economists, professors, servicemen, ex-diplomats, businessmen, eloquent debaters and men of dignity and civility . These are persons, with whom one could be happy to be seen sharing a restaurant meal, (particularly with them picking up the tab!)

Please follow this. As long as the party system and the party whip operates, and secret voting is out, and even a ridiculous voice vote decides, where is this so-called democracy?

As long as the present systems prevail, our “democracy” has little meaning. Of what use is candidate quality, secret ballot and rituals of “assembly”, debates, votes and budgets, if all that is required is for a puppet to hold up his hand from time to time, as ordained by the party hierarchy? Why then look for excellence?

In the present context, therefore, what is the use of parliamentary debate, educated members, suitability and worth, if they are meant to be mere cyphers putting up their hands in accordance with the party whip rather than by a free vote? What is the logic in confidentiality at the periphery (at polling booths) and mechanical subservience (forced vote) at the end (Parliament)? Why then is the need to look for excellence when all that is needed is to raise ones hand or press the button of a fancy electronic system when ordered to do so? Only double amputees need be excluded. Dual Amputees – No. Dual Citizens – perhaps.

The operative word is “logic” – whoever said that logic is a part of democracy? The abandonment of the concept of confidentiality in parliamentary voting is difficult to understand, until you consider that this may be the best way to show up the ‘bought’ voters; also the ‘buyable’ ones, or the promised cross-overs who didn’t, the ones who took the bribes but betrayed? Parliament provides the shrouds to those who can judge.

The few other institutions, where I have heard, “services” are clearly bought COD — is prostitution. But, would anyone dare suggest that the luxurious Diyawanna Palace is the world’s “best appointed brothel”? Of course not! It was once stated (by Lee Kuan Yew) that “In Sri Lanka, elections are an auction of non-existent assets”.

In the same spirit, I yield originality to President Ronald Reagan, who said “I have been told that politics is the second oldest profession in the world. The longer I remain in it, the more do I realize how closely it resembles the first”.

What point is there in debates, budget or other? (“Communication without transformation is gossip” – Tarzie Vitachchi). Why indeed have a budget at all, when supplementary votes are there to be fiddled?

But of course there are the bountiful minister’s tea party at speech end the sumptuous speaker’s repast at debate’s end, where birds of a feather can flock together, revel in conviviality, laughing together at the clots, who believe that they actually oppose one another? Cannot the asinines voting public learn to enjoy plays and circuses? Cannot they exult at their ministers and proxies, standing in as “surrogate hosts” on their behalf?

So far as I am concerned, political parties are mostly a meaningless pretense, house debates are mostly of no substance, (welcome exceptions are from the JVP members who seem to study their subject, make their points elegantly, unprovoked by rowdy interruptions and sometimes delivering devastating come-backs), The rest are to my mind, pretty dull and vacuous nonsense.

So, to me political parties are irrelevant, while character and decency are non-negotiable. Much of the rituals are meaningless and fluffy. I smirk at the way they address each other as “Honourable”, only moments later to denounce each other in the vilest filth! I graciously allow them that harmless privilege, as long as I am “included out.” So Parliament equals pantomime. I am tickled by the recent statement by Ranil W, that new rules of conduct are necessary for Parliament. We recall the “Kawda hora” performance!

If true character of an institution or person manifest best in times of distress, then there could be no better time than the present, for Parliament and its Members, thus giving me even the slightest chance to revise my (generally) low esteem.