Democracy as we had learnt in school is the government of the people, by the people for the people. What we have in Sri Lanka is the Parliamentary Democracy introduced to us by the British. Though it was at the beginning strictly applied to the formation of a government by a Political Party accepted by a majority of the people casting their votes at a Parliamentary election. It is also extended in the conduct of organisations, institutions and societies as well.
There are differences in the democratic system of governance in different countries of the world. There are liberal democracies, direct democracies implemented through Soviets, socialist democracies, participatory democracies etc. But lot of the critics of the government of Sri Lanka accepts no other but the sacrosanct British Parliamentary Democracy.
Most of our compatriots in Sri Lanka are in the habit of accepting what ever comes from the West as some thing very special- almost sacred, and follow it to the letter, and become more fervent adopters of these burrowed systems than their promoters. It is the same with many thing, a little brush with the culture of the British makes them feel more British than the British. The Sri Lanka Christians are more Christian than the Christians in the West. Hence in democracy too we try to be more democratic than the democrats in the West- even if their democracy is mutilated when it comes to be applied in dealings with the developing countries.
In a democracy, it is the political party that gets the majority of the votes of the people that wins. It is that Party that forms the government. And the government lasts until the end of the term specified in the Constitution. Normally the looser should respect the result of the elections and accept the government formed by the elected representatives of the people, and work as the opposition to the government.
Being the Opposition in Parliament is not to start a campaign of discrediting the government from the beginning, boycotting its presentation of bills, trying to mobilise the people against the government, tearing of the copies of the bills, or burning the effigy of the head of the Government in public. That is not democracy. It is making a travesty of democracy.
The Opposition should not forget that they may form the next government, therefore it should act with responsibility and with respect to the majority that elected the political party and hence the government. The opposition should not act as an enemy of the government, but should support the actions of the government, when they are of national interest.
The opposition may speak against actions of the government which they think are not for the benefit of the people. But such actions of agitations of the Opposition against non-beneficial proposals by the government should be made in side the house of Parliament in an environment of toleration and compromise, and out side in meetings explaining the reasons for opposition with discipline, not to whip up the emotions of the people against the government.
Taking the 18th Amendment as an example, once it has been passed with a majority of the Parliamentarians voting in favour of it, it becomes the law of the land, according to the “sacrosanct” democracy we are following. If there are short comings, the opposition may bring in amendments but always respect and accept the verdict of the majority. If the opposition comes into power next they could propose an amendment to the amendment , or abrogate it and remove it from the Constitution.
That is how the democracy works, if barriers are put to stop the elected government from continuing its work in terms of the Laws that have been passed, the democracy goes “sour”, it becomes anarchy. And the opposition in so doing goes against the very people they are accepted to represent in an accepted democratic system of government.
To know the taste of a cake it has to be eaten, therefore to see whether the 18th Amendment works to the satisfaction of the people it has to be allowed to be put into practice by the Government that presented it to the Parliament and got it passed with a majority.
Even, the best of law would not help those who are imprisoned in “ prejudice” to see the value of it. So they will continue to criticise neither with any benefit to themselves, nor to the people who have used their democratic right of vote to elect the government.
This is how the pretended “lovers” of democracy in Sri Lanka seem to accept the system.
Then there are those who say the President- elected democratically by the people- is a dictator for having presented the 18th Amendment to the Constitution to the Parliament and got it passed with a two third majority. They are democrats against democracy !!
A candidate elected at the Presidential election and won the election with a majority of the votes of the people, cannot be a Dictator. Therefore those who say he is a dictator do not know who is a dictator, or they are making a false allegation disrespectful to the people who elected him-the President, and also against democracy of which they pretend to be the fervent supporters- but unfortunately do not seem to know how it works. For those who do not know democracy it has already been explained above.
It remains to explain: who is a Dictator ?
A Dictator is defined as: “…..a ruler …….. who assumes sole and absolute power (sometimes but not always with military control)
In modern usage, the term “dictator” is generally used to describe a leader who holds and/or abuses an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly. Dictatorships are often characterized by some of the following traits: suspension of elections and of civil liberties; proclamation of a state of emergency; rule by decree; repression of political opponents without abiding by rule of law procedures; these include single-party state, and cult of personality.”(Wikipedia)
If elections have been stopped. If the Parliament is abolished. If only one political party exists. If the army has been deployed every where taking over the function of the police.. All manifestations against the government have been prohibited. If the media is taken over all news censured. If all political leaders have been arrested and imprisoned. If the country is cut off from the rest of the world. Then there is a Dictatorship.
But has that happened in Sri Lanka with the adoption of the 18th Amendment to the constitution ?
If not there is no Dictatorship. The antagonists of the government of the President Mahinda Rajapakse may write articles “embellishing” the news media, websites, and blogs, explaining their idea of democracy, and how the President of Sri Lanka has become a Dictator by passing the 18th Amendment to the Constitution.
But yet, all that does not make the President a Dictator, because in Sri Lanka there is a healthy Democracy.
But only those who are blinded by anger, hatred, and jealousy, and living in ignorance will see a dictatorship in Sri Lanka.
(without disrespect to Mugabe)
Under the 18th Amendment the President is not there for life. But he will have the right as any other citizen to contest the Presidential election every five years, or when ever there is a Presidential election if he wants to, and the people may vote for him, or for some one else. He may be elected or some one else may be elected.
The difference this time is that the President has a long term project. If he is not there to continue it after his second term in office, the next elected President may undo every thing that has been done , and the expected development will not take place. But it is all up to the people to elect the president for him to continue his development projects or give it to some one else to change everything.
When Dr.N.M.Perera became the Minister of Finance of a coalition government in 1964 a ten year Plan of development was proposed, but it could not be carried out as the government changed, and they forged new plans. Even recently as in 2001 the UNF government of Ranil Wickramasinghe changed the political face of the country doing much damage to Sri Lanka.
Even though the donor community, predicted that Sri Lanka under the UNP regime was well on its way to rapid economic recovery. The Cooperative System was abandoned and many state corporations were sold to the private sector. And the country under a CFA was getting enmeshed in a seemingly unending terrorism.
What is the guarantee it would be different if by any chance the UNP with Ranil Wickramasinghe is to take over the reins of the Government from Mr.Mahinda Rajapakse ?
But on the other hand if the President Mahinda Rajapakse has the chance of being elected once again the people of Sri Lanka will be assured of a continued development plan.
Those who discredit the President Mahinda Rajapakse for the 18th Amendment are those who have no interest of the country, they are either paid by the expatriate Tamil Community still hoping for another “spate” of terrorism or helped by the West who wants to rid the Country of a progressive President to be replaced by one who will follow the whims and fancies of the West.
There are always people to follow those who want to thwart the progress of developing countries, but few to help the developing countries to rise above their status of underdevelopment.
Sri Lanka after 60 years of Independence is today a country rising fast into development. The country is not following a strong Marxist programme of development , but is following nevertheless a Socialist programme. And that is the path of development to be followed.
Democracy as it is suits developed countries , but the developing countries have to change democracy to suit their purposes, fit into their culture, their accepted way of thinking.
If China had followed the dictates of all those foreign “do-gooders” the Hunman Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Ban ki Moon of the UN, Milibands, Kouchners, Hillary Clingtons, Robert Blakes etc. and allowed them to interfere into its affairs, China would still be only a “developing” country depending on the West- that once devastated it with the “opium wars”
Mr;Mahinda Rajapakse should be evaluated from what he has done so far.
There are still those who cannot understand progress from regress, cannot evaluate a man from his acts, cannot see in Mahinda Rajapakse a man who wants to develop the country, without seeking benefits for himself surrounding himself with people whom he could trust. They cannot see that in Mahinda Rajapakse there is no semblance of a Dictator .
In any case, can any one point out to any political leader other than Mr.Mahinda Rakjapakse who can lead Sri Lanka for progress and development as he had been doing since 2005 ?
The Parliamentary Council under the 18th Amendment is much more workable than the 17th Amendment. If there would be difficulties it could certainly be corrected as and when difficulties arise. That is how progress is made. 18th Amendment is a workable alternative to the 17th Amendment. It is also a necessary step towards progress and development and some thing to be emulated by all developing countries, to get away from the West determined to keep the poor countries poor and dependent on the West.
Those who speak about Tamils, ethnic problem, devolution of political power, dictatorship under the Amendments to the Constitution, dynasties, and family and Co, do not love Sri Lanka as their motherland, they are all seeking to feather their own nests.
For instance what can Mangala Samaraweera, Tilvin Silva, Vijitha Herath, Anura Kumara Dissanayake or Sarath Fonseka contribute to politics in Sri Lanka or to its people other than division, separation, political and social regression ? They are the prophets of doom. They have nothing to give to the people other than their hatred, jealousy , and hostility.
No comments:
Post a Comment