Framing A New Constitution; Avoid The Hidden Tyranny Of Democracy
Somapala Gunadheera
An appeal to avoid tyranny in democracy may appear to be a contradiction in terms. It is taken for granted that democracy is a form of ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people’. This naturally leads to the deduction that such a system can do no harm to the people.
But an analytical look at how democracy operates in practice, would reveal contradictions in that conclusion. As it is not practicable to please all the people all the time, democracy seeks to get over such situations by upstaging the will of the majority over that of the minority. But the solution may result in manifestations in which the rational and ethical position of the latter is overridden by the former through sheer force of numbers, however erratic their view might be.
My play, “Umathusanvarusava”, written in the Seventies, was intended to illustrate this truth dramatically. Briefly, the plot of the play was based on a mythical shower. It was predicted by the king’s chaplain who declared that those who got wet in the rain would go mad. The king proclaimed that anyone who jumped out to get wet in the rain would be summarily shot and positioned his soldiers to carry out his order. But when it started raining, all the people, including the soldiers and even the king’s family members, barring the king and the chaplain, could not resist the temptation to expose themselves to the shower. They jumped out and started dancing in a frenzy. The drenched called the sun the moon and forced the king and the chaplain also to say so and on their refusal to comply, orders were issued to behead them. The duo saved their lives by wilfully going mad, after soaking themselves with a can of rainwater they had collected from the shower.
A clash of interests
The story illustrates the hidden tyranny in democracy. What prevails under it is the number supporting a proposition, not its validity or fairness. If it was otherwise, Socrates and Jesus would have lived their lifespan to the full. A democratic country is presumed to be run by the majority living in that country. But under a Parliamentary system that control abates after an election. Elected representatives take over the reins and govern the country under the name of the people who elected them to power, although in course of time, they had lost the confidence of their electors. But the elected can be removed from power only at the next election, short of a revolution to oust them, which is a rare occurrence. In the meantime the representatives continue to govern the country at their pleasure and naturally their personal interest takes precedence over the peoples’. How else can one explain legislative decisions to increase MP’s salaries while the bulk of their electors were under the poverty line or to give themselves permits and finance to buy luxury cars under a creeping economy? Would the people have approved such selfish, extravagant expenditure, if they had a choice to debar them?
