The Subversion Of Our Democratic Political Spaces & What It Means For Sri Lanka’s Future
Dayapala Thiranagama
Introduction
Since Independence in 1948, Sri Lanka has witnessed three unsuccessful armed struggles. Two of these (1971 and 1987-89) have been confined mainly to the Sinhalese South. The last one in the North and East of Sri Lanka waged an armed campaign for almost 30 years until the Tami Tigers were defeated in 2009. The manner of the Sri Lanka’s state victory created acute political wounds and left unresolved the fundamental problems that gave rise to Tamil militancy. The devastating effects of all three armed campaigns conducted by the state and non-sate actors have scarred democratic governance in the country and its commitment to pluralism. These violent struggles have torn apart Sri Lanka’s social fabric and hindered economic wellbeing of its citizens. It has damaged the continuing efforts to create a healthy and pluralistic democracy for our young and fragile nation.
When SWRD Bandaranaike first attempted to reach an understanding between the Tamil and the Sinhalese in 1957, faced stiff opposition. James Manor observed ‘ this was an important moment in the Island’s political history. It marked a first cycle in a pattern, which recurred as central and poisonous feature of the political process at critical junctures. The party in power strives to foster communal accommodation. The majority party in opposition manipulates Sinhalese parochialism to wreck that attempt ‘. [1]This destructive cycle has continued, damaging fragile ethnic relations and the political unity as a nation.https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/the-subversion-of-our-democratic-political-spaces-what-it-means-for-sri-lankas-future/
The successive armed campaigns and the cumulative damage of the 30-year civil war has landed massive blows to democratic pluralism and narrowed our political space. Where democratic activity should have expanded and deepened people’s understandings of the collective challenges facing all citizens, it has instead narrowed them. Rather than healing ethnic frictions, it has exploited them. It has been too easy for the Sinhalese political leadership to whip up narrow nationalist sentiments to bolster their voter base. Even 30 years the Manor’s observation pattern has not changed despite the obvious need for a political settlement after a long and brutal war.
It has become a severe testing ground of the country’s political leaders and as well as the leading political parties particularly of their political honesty and responsibility towards plural democracy. There is a huge gap between political promises and the willingness of their leadership to achieve them.
Democratic Political Space and Pluralism
Modern democracy cannot offer meaningful freedom and basic rights unless it is able to expand and deepen the democratic political space incorporating diverse needs of the people it serves. If the space is not dynamic enough to incorporate such needs the potential for political emancipation becomes a difficult task. ”Pluralism lies at the very core of modern democracy: if we want a more democratic society, we need to increase that pluralism and make room for multiplicity of democratically managed forms of associations and communities’ [2].
However, the introduction of the Westminster model of majoritarian democratic governance to Sri Lanka in 1948 without any accommodation of an inclusive multi-ethnic notion meant Sri Lanka was politically ands constitutionally unprepared for what was to come. The new nation came into being with democratic and emancipatory aspirations amongst its ethnically diverse communities –but without the means to meet them. However, this was a logical extension of British colonial policy that had begun prior to Independence. Nissan and Stirrat have highlighted a major paradox at the heart of Sri Lankan polity under colonial rule. “On the one hand all citizens in Sri Lanka were to be treated equally: the island was subject to one set of rules and one set of governors; in terms of citizenship, all should be equal. Yet at the same time, British rule substantialized heterogeneity, formalizing cultural difference and making it the basis for political representation. This should not be interpreted as the manifestation of a wish to ‘divide and rule; it was done out of misguided ‘liberal’ sentiments which sought to protect different customs of different races”[3].However, this British policy and its continuation since Independence thus favored the further growth of majoritarian Sinhala Buddhist sentiments. Sinhala Buddhist supremacy occupied as the hegemonic ideology of the post -Independence political space, marginalizing minority communities and their right to be equal citizens. This marginalization has continued with utmost vigor despite some reformist zeal shown by the Sinhala leaders, which has tended to evaporate overnight when they faced with vociferous Sinhala Buddhist opposition.
