By P.K.Balachandran
Colombo, September, 22; On the day this article appears, the outcome of the September 21 Sri Lankan Presidential election will have come to light. No matter who has won or lost, democracy will have won.
At this juncture, one’s mind goes back to the epoch-making Tamil Nadu State Assembly elections in 1967, when the Indian National Congress was pulverised by a new force, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). The Congress stalwart, freedom fighter, and a top national leader, Kumaraswami Kamaraj was himself humbled by a college student in his home turf of Virudhunagar. Congressmen were aghast and in tears. But Kamaraj was not perturbed. “Democracy has won” he said triumphantly. The people were able to speak and they spoke, he said.
Kamaraj’s response indicated that democracy had struck roots in India though it is a highly stratified and unequal society.
Structures of democracy have been around in South Asian countries and in many parts of the world after decolonization. But they are in decline. A few countries like Sri Lanka and India have been able to sustain it while others have practiced it only in fits and starts.
This is a global phenomenon says the latest report of the Stockholm-based Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA).
“Globally, in almost 20% of elections between 2020 and 2024, one of the losing candidates or parties rejected the results, and elections are being decided by court appeals at the same rate. The global average percentage of the voting age population who vote has declined from 65.2% in 2008 to 55.5% in 2023.”
The reasons for the decline in democracy vary from country to country, depending on its political and constitutional history, and the vision, commitment and strength of its leadership. If Sri Lanka and India have been able to sustain democracy while Bangladesh and Pakistan have not, it is because India and Sri Lanka have retained the political and administrative institutions set up under British rule, says senior Bangladeshi journalist Afsan Chowdhury.
Sri Lanka has been particularly fortunate. The British had introduced universal adult franchise in Sri Lanka in 1931 under the Donoughmore Constitution. The entire legislature (State Council), was divided into executive committees with the chairmen of these committees becoming the Board of Ministers. Thus, every legislator got opportunities to participate in policy making. The committees were valuable training grounds for budding nationalist politicians who not only learnt how to mobilise votes but also to govern responsibly.
By the time Sri Lanka got independence in 1948, it had politicians who were experienced in governance and a body of civil servants with experience. This gave democratic governance a protective steel frame. Not surprisingly, a bid to stage a military coup in 1962 was thwarted by a conscientious police officer.
However, a smoothly functioning parliamentary democracy was disrupted by the introduction of the Executive Presidential system in 1978. Under it, the Executive got enormous powers. The legislature was important only for passing laws and money bills. Its voice in policy making became weak. The Executive impaired the functioning of the judiciary too.
However, Dr. Asanka Welikala, says there is room for strengthening parliamentary control over public finance, administration and legislation. But that needs spirited parliamentarians with public support. This is possible in the political culture of Sri Lanka where the feeling for democracy is deep-rooted and participation in elections is very high.
In India, universal adult franchise was introduced only after independence. The 1952 elections were the first to be held with universal adult franchise. Defying nationalists’ clamour for throwing out British institutions lock, stock and barrel, India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru retained the British-built Indian Civil Service and modelled the successor Indian Administrative Service after it.
India also retained the constitutional structures set up by the pre-independence Government of India Act of 1935. Thus, India travelled from British rule to independence seamlessly. Generations of Indian politicians stuck to this model though serious erosions have occurred from time to time. But eroded values have been restored by corrective political action.
However, today, India is only “partly free” with a score of 66/100 according to the US-based Freedom House. According to it, India is a multiparty democracy, but the government led by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has “presided over discriminatory policies and a rise in persecution affecting Muslims.”
It further says that while the constitution guarantees civil liberties including freedom of expression and freedom of religion, “harassment of journalists, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and other government critics has increased significantly”. The government has increasingly used government institutions to target political opponents. The government, through the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate, has selectively pursued anticorruption investigations against opposition politicians while overlooking allegations against political allies.
In March 2023, opposition leader Rahul Gandhi was disqualified from his seat in Parliament and received a two-year prison term for defaming Prime Minister Modi and others with the same surname. The Supreme Court suspended that conviction in August, allowing Gandhi to return to his seat.
Hindu and Christian residents of the state of Manipur engaged in clashes beginning in May after Christians protested a Hindu ethnic group gaining scheduled-tribe status. 160 had died as of mid-August.
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) of 2019 grants special access to Indian citizenship to non-Muslim immigrants and refugees from neighbouring Muslim-majority states. At the same time, the government moved forward with plans for the creation of a national register of citizens, which observers believe is meant to disenfranchise Muslim voters by effectively classifying them as illegal immigrants, Freedom House said.
Pakistan is a chip of the old colonial India. But the chip is unlike India. It could not nurture democracy. Few of its early leaders had any experience in either mass political mobilisation or in administration. Two of the most experienced leaders, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan, had died by 1950. As most indigenous bureaucrats in undivided India were Hindus, Muslim-majority Pakistan lacked experienced administrators.
The only organized body was the army and that was because the British had preferred to recruit from areas in India which became Pakistan in 1947. With civilian institutions remaining undeveloped, the army has played a dominant role in Pakistan’s governance since 1950. Dubbed the “Establishment” the army has either directly or indirectly wielded power in Pakistan. Policy, whether domestic or foreign, can be scuttled by the army. While India and Sri Lanka assigned the army a subordinate status as per the British tradition, Pakistan chose the opposite model injuring the cause of civilian supremacy which is at the heart of democracy.
Bangladesh shares important features with Pakistan. It was “East Pakistan” till it broke away from West Pakistan in 1971 after a long and bloody struggle against West Pakistani economic, political and administrative dominance. Born in the crucible of a violent freedom movement, its leaders were unschooled in peaceful governance which calls for moderation, discussion and consensus.
No wonder, founder Sheikh Mujibur Rahman ruled dictatorially. His rule was brought to an end violently in 1975 by a group of politicised army officers. But Mujib’s assassination only set off a chain of assassinations by various army groups.
Eventually, powerful military dictators, Ziaur Rahman and H.M.Ershad, restored order with an iron hand till democracy was restored in 1990 by a mass movement. Sheikh Hasina came to power democratically in 2009 but only to rule undemocratically till she was ousted by a violent mass movement in August 2024.
As in Pakistan, the army has been army the guarantor of stability in Bangladesh right through. This is so even now. Whether Bangladesh is ready for Western-style democracy is still to be seen. The present chaos could lead to direct army rule if the shattered public institutions are not restored to health soon.
Nepal is a functioning democracy though chaotic with very frequent changes in the government. The changes are due to personality clashes rather than political or ideological conflicts. The same group of leaders from the same upper castes of Brahmins and Rajputs become Prime Minister.
Though there is little or no economic progress and social stratification is rigid, the Nepal is wedded to participatory democracy and is resolutely ppposed to the restoration of the monarchy of the Shahs or the hereditary rule of the Ranas.
Maldives became a democracy since 1968, though with yawning gaps as during the Presidency of Maumoon Abdul Gayoom (1978-2008) and Abdulla Yameen (2013-2018) when they ruled dictatorially.
Maldives’ problem is Islamic radicalism which tends to be intolerant of anything it deems un-Islamic. In 2012, Buddha’s statues belonging to the islands’ pre-Islamic era, were smashed by a mob raiding the museum. Some free-thinkers were killed.
END
