Necessary transition from personalized to

system-based rule
By Jehan Perera-August 18, 2015, 1:19 am

Elections in a
democratic polity provide an opportunity
to assess the mind of the people. They
are superior in gauging public opinion in
comparison to any opinion poll which is necessarily of a sample of society
only. During the last phase of the election campaign, there were reports of
opinion polls that showed a last minute surge for the opposition. This
countered previous surveys that showed a comfortable lead for the
government. These coexisted with still other surveys that claimed the
opposite. The choice of the electorate at this general election would
provide an invaluable insight into the priorities of the Sri Lankan voter,
especially whether they are moved more by emotion than by rationality.
This applies both in the North as well as the South.
In the North, the main issue is whether the voters will support Tamil
nationalism, and a confrontational posture against the government that is
elected, or an accommodation with the government. The northern Tamil
dominated electorate will have a choice of parties that are prepared to
work with the government as well as those that are more geared to opt for
confrontation and have the support of the separatist section of the Tamil
Diaspora. Emotion might dictate confrontation but rationality suggests
moderation, especially after the tragic experience of three decades of war.
An indication of the strengthening of the post-war ethos of reconciliation is
the entry into the electoral battle of rehabilitated LTTE cadre amongst
whom the best known is a former bodyguard of the slain LTTE leader.
In the rest of the country, the main line of contestation is between the
personality-based politics of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa who has
headed the opposition campaign on the one hand, and the good
governance promise of those who governed the country for the past seven
months on the other. A positive feature of the new order is the conduct of
the elections by the election authorities. Unlike the presidential elections
which took place under the former presidents government, there has been

no significant abuse of either state resources or one-sided violence

perpetrated against political opponents. Instead there has been a general
observation of the election law by the contesting political parties and
aspirants for parliamentary seats. These elections can be said to be the
cleanest and fairest in a long time.
The predominant feature of these elections has been the deference given
to rulings of the Election Commissioner by the government, contesting
political parties and by the supporters of the political parties. There is no
sense of a powerless Election Department struggling to cope with the
excesses and violations of the government. On the contrary these elections
have showed a real shift in power towards the elections commissioner who
is not battling the government to ensure that the law was implemented.
This was especially stark in relation to the election that preceded this, the
presidential election of January 2015 in which violations of election law
that involved the gross abuse and misuse of state resources took place on
a large scale with impunity, including on Election Day itself.
The pasting of posters and displaying of cut outs was only permitted next
to registered election offices and not anywhere the candidates wanted, as
has been the case in the past. Election meetings could only be held with
permission and at designated places only. There was no distribution of
state resources as personalised gifts to voters on a large scale or any scale
this time unlike at the presidential election. While this limited the scope of
campaigning, there was also a level playing field, unlike in the past
elections, when the opposition was routinely denied places where they
could hold their election meetings. Due to the discipline imposed on
political campaigning it was easy to forget that the country was in the
midst of a hard fought election. It was mostly in front of the television that
the passion and energy of the election campaign was manifest to the
majority of the population.
However, there was a unique feature at this election that put the
opposition into a disadvantageous situation. This was the antagonism
between President Sirisena and former President Rajapaksa who led the
oppositions election campaign. This led the president to undermine the
former presidents leadership on three separate occasions. The first
occasion was shortly after nominations had been submitted when he said
that regardless of the result of the elections, he would not appoint the
former president as the prime minister. President Sirisena repeated this
warning just prior to the end of the election campaign. He then followed up
by sacking the two secretaries of the main opposition party and opposition
coalition that he leads and replacing them with his confidantes.

There is a legal dispute regarding a party leaders ability to sack a party

secretary during the course of the election campaign. This matter is now
before the court, and the court has asked the parties to come before it on
August 24, which is a week after the election takes place. By then the new
MPs will have been declared, and national list MPs too would be appointed,
and decisions taken may not be easy to reverse. It can be argued that the
presidents actions are not in keeping with the premises of good
governance. On the other hand, the fact of an internal party struggle
taking place during the election campaign, and finding expression it, needs
to be seen as part of the transition of Sri Lankas system of governance
from a leader-centric one to a system-based one in which the rule of law
prevails.
HIGH COMMITMENT
The political clash between the president and former president reflects the
personality-based and leadership-centred politics in Sri Lanka that needs
to be changed. The previous decade in which former president Mahinda
Rajapaksa held sway was marked by the increased centralisation of power
in the presidency. Centralised rule was initially justified on the basis of the
need for rapid economic development in the 1970s and it was reinforced
by the need to cope with the war in the 1990s. It reached its apogee in the
last phase of the war under former president Rajapaksa and led to
dismantling of democratic procedures to enable quick decisions to be
made. Contracts for armaments were entered into without tenders being
called and without transparency. Even worse decisions regarding life and
death were made on the spot.
This explains why the recurrent theme of this election campaign, which
was also seen at the presidential election earlier this year, was the issue of
abuse of power, impunity and corruption. It is widely believed that the
level of corruption in the country, and especially amongst politicians who
hold positions of power, reached outrageous proportions. Dealing with the
problem of corruption especially is going to be difficult. Corruption is
embedded in political and administrative structures at all levels. The bond
issue on which the new government committed to good governance
stumbled so soon is an indication of the nature of the challenge for the
future. As the preliminary inquiries by the government indicated, patterns
set in the past continue to operate in the present.
At the election campaign, civil society activists conducted voter education
campaigns that urged voters to choose candidates who were clean and not

corrupt. If Sri Lanka is to evolve as a democracy, it needs parliamentarians

who understand, and respect, the need for systems of government in
which the corruption and political favouritism has no place. It will need
leaders with an unwavering commitment to the rule of law. The voters
have been so much disempowered by the political system over the past
decades that they feel it is necessary to go to politicians to sort out their
basic problems. It is easy for politicians to play god, and become abusive,
if systems are not strong. The outcome of the election will show what path,
and which leaders the people have chosen for the country. Much more will
also need to be done to further educate the population to hold their
leaders to account.
Posted by Thavam