2019 presidential election more critical than that of 2015
The presidential election of January 8, 2015 was significant in more ways than one. The election of Maithripala Sirisena as the Head of State and Government signalled a halt to the authoritarian trend of Governance that was becoming increasingly evident, after the end of the armed conflict in May 2009, with the defeat of the LTTE.
While the yahapalana Government, which came into being in 2015, may not have been able to deliver all that was promised at the presidential election of 2015, it did make a significant impact on Governance, through various measures that contributed to democratic reforms.
With the passage of the 19th Amendment and the consequential whittling down of the powers of the all powerful executive presidency, as well as the setting up of the independent commissions, the space for the exercise of democratic freedoms increased. The rule of law was strengthened and both the judiciary and the law enforcement agencies began to function independently. What was even more significant was that the leading functionaries in the Government did not intimidate or coerce the various agencies of Government, when such agencies exercised the powers vested in them.
When Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe was summoned to appear before the Presidential Commission probing the bond scam, he responded to the summons and appeared before the commission. He also did so when he was summoned to appear before the Presidential Commission probing irregularities alleged to have taken place during the term of the yahapalana Government.
Both President Maitripala Sirisena and
Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe appeared before the Parliamentary
Select Committee that inquired into the April 21 terrorist attacks, when summoned to do so. Even when the Supreme Court held against President Sirisena’s actions, during the infamous October 26, 2019 constitutional misadventure, there was nary a word of rebuke from President Sirisena.
Even presidential candidate Sajith Premadasa did not hesitate to appear before the law enforcement authorities and defend himself, when allegations were made against him, in connection with the Ministry of Housing, despite being in the midst of the presidential campaign.
Contrast this with the case of the Divineguma judgment against the Rajapaksa Government, which resulted in the hostility shown to the then Chief Justice
Dr. Shirani Bandaranyake, who was shabbily treated and removed from office, after an impeachment process that saw her being humiliated in a deplorable manner.
Media freedom has been strengthened considerably, post January 2015, with the freedom of expression being exercised without any fear. The President, Prime Minister and other Government politicos are subject to the strongest criticism, with the knowledge that no harm would come to them because of such criticism.
Contrast this with the situation prior to January 2015, when many media personalities, including Lasantha Wickremetunge, fell foul of the authorities, merely for exercising the fundamental right of freedom of expression.
Another area where the yahapalana Government succeeded was in the area of national reconciliation. Here too, much was achieved, giving the minorities a sense of national recognition and dignity, although many more steps have to be taken in this direction.
The value of the changes that have resulted, as a consequence of the yahapalana Government’s actions, is often lost on the people. Even the educated class does not sometimes, quite appreciate the importance that should be attached to the strengthening of democracy.
The prevalence of a democratic form of Governance assures the citizenry of two specific benefits. If an elected Government is deviating from the norms of good governance, the public can apply pressure and endeavour to bring about a course correction. If attempts at a course correction fail, then the citizen has the option of voting the Government out of office at the next election.
In the case of an authoritarian Government, the luxury of trying to apply pressure on the Government to change course will not be available, as such Governments do not take kindly to attempts to challenge the Government. The Rathupaswela incident and the Roshan Chanaka incident are examples of how authoritarian governments react to demands made by the public.
Despite the numerous protests by different sections of society, at different times, the yahapalana Government has not resorted to suppressing such protests by brutal force.
The other danger is that, in the case of Governments that are not democracy friendly, even the question of periodic elections will be in doubt. With exhortations to rule like Hitler, those with a military mindset will not require much persuasion to subvert the democratic process.
Unfortunat e ly, the yahapalana Government has not been able to deliver on all of its promises, due to friction within the Government. The Government has also not been able to communicate its achievements to the public and, as a result, there is the perception that the Government has failed to deliver.
However, the public should not allow disillusionment, with regard to the gaps in the Government’s performances, to blind them to the considerable achievements in the field of democratic Governance.
When viewed in this light, the presidential election of November 16, 2019 is far more critical than that of January 2015. The issue before the voter is, whether the country will build on the democratic reforms put in place after January 2015 or, reverse such changes.
Such a reversal will not be a mere going back to the status quo that prevailed prior to January 2015.
A victory for the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna’s presidential candidate Gotabaya Rajapaksa will be construed as a mandate for authoritarian rule, and will further entrench all the failures of governance that characterised the period prior to January 2015.