Knocked Down, Getting Back Up: Sri Lanka’s Battered Democracy

As Asia’s oldest democracy, Sri Lanka is unfortunately a case study in how ethno-religious conflict, majoritarian politics and a systematic neglect of minority populations can undermine democracy. Still, its post-independence history has been marked by valiant efforts to reassert democratic norms, and it remains to be seen whether the country’s elections in April will underpin such efforts or see the deepening of authoritarian tendencies, writes Neil Devotta. the Contested Nature of democracy, which does not always bring forth individuals’ better angels, was perhaps what caused Winston Churchill to say “democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” since there are no guarantees that those contesting within a democracy will always observe the rule of law and pluralist values, even democracies considered consolidated are capable of regression, a development currently evidenced among some supposedly stable Western democracies. indeed, the more diverse a country is along ethno-religious lines, the more likely politicians will manipulate crosscutting cleavages in ways that promote democratic erosion.

this is also true in sri Lanka, which is Asia’s oldest democracy, having achieved universal franchise in 1931. the island gained independence soon after india, albeit without the ruckus and carnage that saw the British subcontinent partitioned. Yet sri Lanka evidenced its own carnage, thanks to sinhalese Buddhist politicians eschewing consensus building and instead pursuing majoritarian politics. this led to nearly three decades of civil war against minority tamils, with the Liberation tigers of tamil eelam (Ltte) playing a leading role in fanning separatist violence.

ethnic conflict between sinhalese and tamils is not the only violence that has affected the country. indeed, sri Lanka has hardly experienced a single decade since independence without undergoing a violent movement, including ethno-religious rioting, civil war and left-wing

insurgencies. the island saw two sinhalesebased insurgency movements (in 1971 and 1988-90) that led to thousands of sinhalese youth killed. it has also seen episodic anti-muslim rioting, which picked up after the Ltte was militarily defeated in 2009.1 the state-sanctioned violence (and pogroms in the case of tamils and Muslims) and the impunity with which it was perpetrated, consequently, disqualifies the island from being branded a liberal democracy, notwithstanding its formal political contests.

sri Lanka thus represents a democratic paradox: its people passionately value the franchise and have used it to regularly alternate parties in power even while tolerating grotesque ethno-religious violence. Post-independence sri Lanka initially looked like it had got on the road to being a liberal democracy. however, when sinhalese Buddhist majoritarianism took root, it turned the country into an ethnocracy: sinhalese Buddhist nationalist ideology now circumscribes minorities’ sense of equality by dictating that they live on the island thanks to majority sufferance.2

ultimately, majoritarianism has combined with the civil war and the authoritarian proclivities of individuals to compromise democracy. the island’s demographics necessitated checks against majoritarianism. the absence of such structural constraints ensured it was only a matter of time before ambitious politicians played the sinhalese Buddhist nationalist card to seek office. this happened within a decade of independence and led to anti-tamil discrimination. the sinhalese Buddhist nationalism undergirding such discrimination caused a reactive upswing in tamil nationalism, and hence the Ltte-led civil war.

it is debatable if an ethnically tranquil sri Lanka would have been able to stymie certain leaders acting in an authoritarian vein, but it is indisputable that the ethnic conflict enabled authoritarianism. in this context, the semi-presidential constitution instituted in 1978 allowed J. R. Jayewardene to act arrogantly, while the war and its triumphalist aftermath allowed Mahinda Rajapaksa to operate autocratically. ultimately, both leaders compromised democracy more than any other presidents. Rajapaksa’s failure to seek a third term in 2015 allowed for some democratic revival, but the Rajapaksas are now back in power, with Mahinda Rajapaksa currently serving as prime minister and his younger brother, the controversial former defense secretary, being elected president.

Over 30 countries proscribed the Ltte for its terrorist practices, and sri Lankans in the majority community especially focused on the separatist threat the group posed and overlooked how the war and other majoritarian practices undermined pluralism and democracy. While most today realize that discriminating against tamils was what caused the ethnic conflict, few connect this discrimination to the erosion of democracy. however, the majoritarian mindset, rooted in sinhalese Buddhist nationalism that justifies discriminating against minorities is directly connected to the island’s democratic backsliding.

Majoritarianism may privilege the sinhalese Buddhists within an electoral democracy but it will never allow sri Lanka to become a liberal democracy. For to rank as a liberal democracy, the country must go beyond merely holding competitive and inclusive elections; it must also uphold civil liberties for all citizens irrespective of ethnicity and religion, ensure an independent judiciary that fearlessly enforces the rule of law, tolerate civil society, minimize corruption and balance against executive overreach.3 the aspiration of progressive forces to attain this gold standard and the island’s failure to do so contribute to both democratic regression and resilience.