The race to adulthood
What can I say about the politics in Sri Lanka, living so distanced from the country, in space and time?
Not very much from firsthand experience. I have to base this page on what I gather from the mutterings of expatriates expressed over after-dinner drinks, settling down in sumptuous settees.
We, living here, are by now accustomed to the styles of Government of our host countries. In Britain, without getting into its history, peoples' rights had to snatched from ruling classes after bitter struggles. Even now, there is a nominal recognition of the previous history of ownership in a Royal representative and a House of Lords.
Now, in Sri Lanka, how the power happened in the hands of the "people" has no parallel in any of the well-established democracies. We transited from a feudal system into a foreign dictatorship and then to a 'democratic' system.
This is not to say that there was no struggle for freedom. Though not in the same scale, people did sacrifice their lives for freedom from the British.
What I am trying to convey is, the struggles that preceded independence was not in the same scale as they did in Britain, for instance, or in France, for that matter.
The 'revolution' had no, not enough anyway, roots in the population. We didn't fight hard enough for it. Our neighbour - India - paid a big price to win independence. One may say, Sri Lankan independence was a fallout of the Indian independence.
Another reason could be that the British, recovering from the war, was sapped too much to worry about its 'colonies'.
Anyway the country obtained independence.
What is this independence the country got? Basically, it was an arrangement, for the world to recognize Sri Lanka as an independent, sovereign entity, and rule itself the way its people desired.
Fine, what way? Yes, by perpetuating the prevailing British administrative, economic and political systems.
Suddenly, overnight, a population with a feudal mindset was required to govern itself.
I wonder whether there was any preparation for independence at all. For example, any debates over the kind of administrative, economic and political systems we ought to install in this virtually virgin country after independence. True, there was a period of legislative chambers, to which representatives were selected/elected and could voice their opinions.
Who were these representatives? Did they come from the 'people' that would eventually inherit the country?
So, one could claim that the independence was a non-event.
True independence would have at least reverted the administrative structure to the post-European structures, and not to the province/district structures quite arbitrarily imposed by the British. Also to breakaway from an economy which made the European lives comfortable.
The root of some of the current problems can be traced to this particular anomaly, I think.
It is fashionable, some may say, to blame the British for everybody's ills. We have to admit that they do share a sizable chunk of the blame for making arbitrary geo-political demarcations in their former colonies and protectorates, and the resulting upheavels that have no end in sight. Africa and middle east are glaring examples.
Spiritually, who were the people's representatives? Some say they were the reincarnates of the British with a new shade of skin. I hear that "coconuts" is the popular term.
In 1956, there was the political upheaval, which appeared to pass power over to the people, at least to a set of representatives more close to the public they represented.
One could argue whether that transfer of power yielded any positive results to the country at large.
Many tasted power for the first time - an experience for which many were never ready. It proved too sweet an experience and too tempting to lose. What happened out of sight earlier became too obvious to the eye.
Form outside, it is a sad inference to make from the observations one make, that the 'hands in the honey pot' motivation drives politics in Sri Lanka.
This is not to point a finger at any one political party. It does point to the pitfalls in handing reins, at whatever level, in whatever position, at whatever institution, to those who are ill prepared to hold those reins.
Sri Lanka, struggling under a British legacy, has been making headway to shed that image since independence. She discarded the European-assigned name Ceylon, and reverted to its real name: Sri Lanka.
Politically it broke off from the protectorate of a foreign sovereign and became a republic.
Economically, she has obtained a certain degree of independence from the vested interests of the British commercial empires.
These patchworks haven't really helped the country politically, as the country was to learn in 1971, when an armed rebellion broke out all over the country. The educated of the rural classes, who had no say in the running of their lives, had decided to take matters into their own hands.
A similar rebellion was the erupt once again, backed by the same classes, but in a much wider and a more violent scale.
This arrived in parallel with the rebellion in the Tamil-speaking areas, who were demanding a separate state.
The need to devolve political power from Colombo was eventually recognized. Several steps were taken, all within the existing structures. One was the introduction of provincial councils, and the most notable was the introduction of the "proportional representation" system of government.
The first need no further elaboration. Second is, by far the best political system for electing representatives to govern a country. That is my opinion. In Europe, where democracy is so well established, all the countries have proportion representation form of government. It has yet to reach Britain, who openly sneer at the idea.
It does work. It does work when the participants are sufficiently politically mature. That is the secret. It cannot flourish in environments where a "them and us" mentality is the norm. It requires a mindset of compromise to succeed. One sees very rarely in Europe, one party winning the power to govern on its own. Hence the give and take - the horse-trading, which can drag on for weeks and months before a Government is assembled. The Government then proceeds to implement the agreed task list.
These Governments are considered unstable, because, a pullout of one party could cause the Government to collapse. I think that is its strength too.
OK, now Sri Lanka has the right political infrastructure. Is it time to turn one's attention to the geographical and administrative structures next?