Why A General Election Is Not A Solution To The Present Crisis
DR. Nandaka Maduranga Kalugampitiya
There is no question that Sri Lankan democracy is in grave danger. One of the solutions that is being proposed, particularly by the Mahinda Rajapaksacamp, is to dissolve the parliament and go for a general election. Many
government ministers (or, are they?) have been emphasizing this
solution over the past couple of weeks not only as the best solution to
the problem but also as the only way out of the present crisis. Their
argument is that the members of the current parliament have failed to
figure out a way forward and that therefore the only way to solve the
problem is to give the general public the opportunity to elect a
government of their choice. Such a move, they argue, is nothing but an affirmation of the sovereignty of the people.
Although this argument looks fine in itself, it is deeply problematic when read in its proper context, for many reasons. The reason, which I wish to discuss in brief here, concerns itself with the very nature of democracy. Everyone knows that elections are an essential component of a democracy. Elections are so central to the idea of democracy that, in the eyes of many, democracy equals holding popular elections. (It
was this thinking, which the Mahinda Rajapaksa government [2005-2014]
appealed to in justifying the scattered elections held during that
time.) Those
who either genuinely believe in this understanding of democracy or
simply side with it and use it to achieve narrow political objectives
often raise the question, “What is wrong about giving the people the
opportunity to decide?” They
are usually quick to brand those political forces that do not share the
same understanding of democracy as forces that fear the verdict of the
people.
The general understanding that democracy is mainly about holding
elections is important to the extent to which it underscores the role
that elections play in democracies; nevertheless, the reduction of the
idea of democracy to holding elections, which this understanding
entails, is deeply problematic. In representative democracies, like ours, people elect representatives at elections to represent them. Technically speaking, such representatives represent the will of the people as expressed at the time of the election. This
does not in any way suggest that the representatives should not take
into consideration the changes, including any shifts in the popular
will, that take place after the election. In
an ideal setting, the representatives should always be sensitive to the
changes that take place on the ground level, and their conduct should
demonstrate that sensitivity. Nevertheless,
it is also important to note that any developments that take place
after the election do not necessarily nullify the mandate expressed at
the election. The
changes and new developments, including those that impinge on the will
of the people, need to be accounted for necessarily within the
parameters of the existing mandate. In
other words, if it is important in a democracy to seek a mandate from
the public it is equally important to ensure that a mandate, once
issued, is respected and upheld.
This, however, does not mean that a mandate should be respected and upheld at all costs. If there is a widespread need to change a mandate before it expires there are ways of doing it. Many
countries have provisions built into their constitutions that enable
them to seek fresh mandates before the expiration of the current one. The Sri Lankan Constitution lists a couple of ways in which the parliament could be dissolved before the expiration if its term. Any
attempt at dissolving the parliament in a manner that is not provided
for by the Constitution is to defy the basic law of the land. In
this sense, although elections in themselves uphold the idea of
democracy, a general election as requested by the Mahinda Rajapaksa camp
at a historical juncture like the current one can only undermine the
very idea of democracy. In no way is it a celebration of democracy.
