(January 27, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Whatever the result, yesterday’s election was a disappointment. The participation of Sarath Fonseka opened up the possibility of an energetic and forward looking campaign, leaving the old problems and controversies of the war behind and bringing two strong leaders into healthy competition with each other, reinvigorating a political scene that had been dominated by one side for too long. I didn’t much fancy the prospect of his replacement, but it was clear that Mahinda Rajapaksa needed to face a real challenge. The Opposition, united or not, simply wasn’t up to it.
This didn’t happen. The race was close alright, but we were treated to some of the least interesting and useful debates imaginable.
More concerning was the resurgence of violence. People were threatened, beaten and shot at. Grenades were thrown. Campaign offices were burned down and the property of key activists destroyed. A number of Sri Lankans are dead because of the vote, including some who did nothing more controversial than attend a rally. It’s a terrible price to pay for democracy.
I don’t buy the claims some groups are making about this being the worst poll in history. Anybody who says so must be rather forgetful. They can’t have looked at the evidence either, because the reports of NGOs like the Centre for Monitoring Election Violence indicate that there was nothing new, at least at the time of writing this piece. It’s the same story that has been played out on so many occasions. We might almost call it a habit.
However, this doesn't mean we can dismiss what happened. The last presidential election and the general election before it were clearly better. What's more, a good deal of the violence we saw then was perpetrated by or was a consequence of the presence of the LTTE, and the Northern and Eastern Provinces bore the brunt of it. The main issue was the boycott that Prabhakaran enforced in areas under his control to upset Ranil Wickremasinghe. The Government couldn’t be excused of its responsibility for the problems, but there was a context to be understood.
This isn't the case any longer, and it would have been reasonable to have expected an even more peaceful poll this time. The terrorists are gone, after all.
Instead, violence saw a comeback. Desperate to win, politicians and their supporters undermined the process in which they were participating. Voting is supposed to be an alternative to the use of force, not a complementary activity. This doesn’t mean that their antics had any impact on the outcome, but they served to further turn public opinion against the very system that is supposed to protect its citizens. Confidence in politics was already low.
It was as I was reflecting on this situation that I read of Milinda Moragoda’s latest initiative, calling for more women representatives. He wants 25% quotas at all levels of governance.
His statement as reported in the media was somewhat condescending. Noting that women in Sri Lanka were just as educated as men and that they were present in numbers at the top of many other sectors, it implied that they needed help to get into politics.
I suspect they don’t want any such thing. If participating in elections were regarded as an honorable undertaking, women would be doing it already.
However, the basic point of the message was correct. Women make up less than two percent of those elected to local government bodies, five percent of provincial councilors and no more than six percent of the people who sit in Parliament making the country’s laws. That’s pretty close to zero. Naturally, the same goes for ministerial appointments. For verification we need only look at photographs of official functions, which are overwhelmingly populated by ageing men with pot bellies, badly dyed hair and oversized moustaches. Look and try to enjoy the spectacle. I’m not sure whether I could name more than a handful of women in politics.
Milinda Moragoda’s comments suggested that this was a paradox, given that Sri Lanka produced the world’s first female prime minister and has since had a female president, which is rather more than the world's only superpower has managed over the years, but I don’t see it that way. Politics has become such a dirty game that women stay away.
A lot of men do too, I should add, before somebody gets upset at the implication.
There would need to be a full discussion of the way in which 25% quotas could be implemented if the proposal were to be taken seriously. Voting is already a complicated procedure in Sri Lanka, and there are other suggestions for reform under consideration. Progress on such issues is typically slow, and working out how best to achieve the intended objective wouldn’t be easy.
Nevertheless, it might just be the kind of revolutionary change in the political scene that is so sorely needed. I haven’t heard any better ideas, at least.
The standard response to polls violence is to bang on about legislation. The Seventeenth Amendment is a particular favorite, for the powers it gives the Election Commission to monitor what happens during a campaign and on the day of the vote and order corrective action by the State and its agencies. As an independent body established with the approval of the Constitutional Council, which itself is supposed to be a product of agreement between the major political parties represented in Parliament, it appears to be the ideal solution.
As part of the constitution, it must certainly be implemented in full. However, the events leading up to yesterday's election demonstrated that this would be nowhere near enough to ensure that people can choose a government without risking their lives.
The long suffering Dayananda Dissanayake is able to issue all the necessary instructions as things stand, and nobody can accuse him of being less dedicated than he was in 2005 and 2004. He may be desperate to retire, but he continues to work tirelessly to ensure the integrity of polls held in Sri Lanka. Whatever failings there were can't be blamed on neglect of duty on his part.
We need to find other explanations for violence. Only then can remedies be worked out.
I must say that what strikes me most at election time in Sri Lanka is how eager people are to forget these problems and go out to vote. Very little can stop them exercising their franchise. Turnout was high even during the war, and growing cynicism about politicians doesn’t seem to have had any impact on participation either.
This sends an important message. Whoever emerges victorious, Mahinda Rajapaksa and Sarath Fonseka both know that people dearly value the right to choose their representatives. They use it to reward those who deliver and punish those who can’t even offer hope.
That’s some compensation. |
