A Democratic Deficiency

On the delusion of democracy in Sri Lanka

APPARENTLY, Sri Lanka’s civil war can be brought to an end if the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) entered the “democratic mainstream”. Sri Lanka’s incumbent president Mahinda Rajapaksa called for such a measure on 11 October; he isn’t alone, as various members of the International Community (IC) had previously suggested the same. Thirty years after the Tamil people voted to secede from the conjugation created by the colonials, does democracy exist in Sri Lanka?

The Eastern province is a case in point. “Democratisation” of the province was a two stage process: firstly, local council polls; and secondly, electing the chief minister. The main opposition party, the United National Party (UNP), boycotted the first. The largest Tamil party in parliament, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), staid away from both. The ruling alliance was able to contest virtually unchallenged. State media, police and military campaigned wholeheartedly for the “rising of the east.”

The TNA had good reasons for not participating in the elections: it had lost three of its elected legislators in the last two years. One was shot dead at a church, the other on his way to the parliament and the third while visiting his constituents. Another Tamil parliamentarian from the UNP was shot dead inside a temple in Colombo. Interestingly, a paramilitary group headed by the eventual chief minister “elect” of the Eastern province was suspected in all the murders.

During the Eastern elections, one party, the one that won, had monopoly over violence. As the ruling coalition, it controlled the country’s armed forces and police. For unconstitutional violence, it maintained an armed paramilitary group. Popular opposition could not contest and smaller challengers weren’t even authorised to put up posters. Independent monitoring group CAFFE concluded that the elections were “not free and fair” and alleged that votes were rigged to shore up turnout count.

Sri Lanka’s “parliamentary democracy” is nothing but a “tyranny of the majority”. The legislature is a mere tool for imposing the “will of the Sinhala people” on the numerically inferior Tamil people. Sinhala Only and Standardisation, amongst various other legislations, were imposed in the sole interest of the Sinhala people; such measures are only associated with tyrannical despots. Since independence from Britain, Sinhala parties have simply rotated power between themselves.

In 1977, the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF), a grand coalition, was formed to contest the parliamentary elections on a single agenda of independence for Tamileelam. It polled more than 70 percent of votes in areas claimed for the independent state. Even so, TULF could only make it to the opposition benches in Colombo. The government decided to ignore the mandate of the Tamil people, and instead decided to unleash Sinhala mobs in yet another round of “ethnic riots”.

During 25 years of civil war, there have been plenty of repeated calls for a referendum to be held in areas claimed as Tamileelam. If democracy is a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” then, surely, allowing the people of the disputed region of Tamileelam to choose how they want to govern or be governed would be the ultimate form of democracy. Successive Sri Lankan governments have refuted such calls, but have never offered a full explanation.

Sri Lanka has continuously managed to score brownie points in the international arena for “embracing democracy”, despite the fact that the country has passed very many legislations directly discriminating against a particular ethnic group. Likewise, Eastern provincial elections are being hailed as “successful democratisation” of the region despite the elections being neither free nor fair. The hard truth is that there is no such thing as a “democratic mainstream” in Sri Lanka for the LTTE to join.