Universal franchise: Understanding its power and using it correctly

It may border on sacrilege to question the validity and purpose of the franchise and the party system in search of ‘democracy’ and governance. But looking at the results that have manifested through its exercise in the seventy three years since 1948, it is legitimate to entertain doubts about how well the immense powers of the franchise have been understood and applied.

Orderly governance is meant to provide happiness, comfort and security to all citizens. Fairness and equity should dominate. Benefits and burdens should be equally shared, and aim at the contentment of the citizens without curtailing human freedom. Democracy, despite shortcomings, is judged to be the best way. Periodic elections and the free exercise of the franchise (voting) are of paramount importance.

Let us examine these lofty intentions in the local context. We pride ourselves on being the first nation in Asia to adopt universal suffrage – even ahead of our colonial masters. Have we done well in our pioneering effort, or are we showing signs of electoral senility?

Democracy has been defined as a process based on the fond belief that by the exercise of the franchise (voting), we somehow transform the collective stupidity of the many, into wisdom of the chosen few. Some may say justifiably, that in our case, it seems that “the stupidity of the many gets concentrated in the elected few”. But let that pass for now.

Let us ask ourselves how the theory fits the truth.

(i) Most of us have not had the benefit of secondary education (leaving aside tertiary) and are not diehard members of political parties.

(ii) We are therefore compelled to vote rather “erratically” and therefore the system is open to unpredictable “swings”.

(iii) We generally regard the successful candidates as potential vagabonds, or scoundrel nitwits.

(iv) Our choices are based on personal fancy and the talks of ‘policy’ are poppycock. We may call it the ‘cahoots principle’. They are all in tow, and the displayed rivalry is fake. The real conflict is between politicians versus the people. When confusing situations arise, if one applies the fundamental truth of ‘cahootism’, the mist often clears.

Under the present systems, poor quality and educational standard in our pinnacle of Parliament, is inevitable. Some have suggested setting minimum educational standards for entry. Give it to Parliament, as a superb example of “lateral thinking”. Give enough fellows doctorates and thus bring up “the average” ! Clever, but not clever enough. One notices that none of these Virgin Entrants to erudition, disclose the awarding Institution – no BA (Oxon) or D.Sc (Lond). May be (EC) “Erronis causa”- How’s that for size?

It is the practice in reputable universities and similar awarding institutions that a copy of every doctoral thesis should be made available to their libraries as a record for reference. Why not a similar practice be adopted here? Of course, the Parliamentary Library is very rarely visited. But then, it may also have unlimited free space for perhaps even up to 225 volumes, if and when needed.

Another quaint creature is the “Political Party” myth. Ask any fellow ‘why’ and before long, the hollow word “policy” will enter. Then if you were to ask “What policy difference exist between, say the “Gentlemen vs Players “? After a pronounced silence, your conversation partner will slither off to a different circle!.

If you ask any “typical” voter for his choice and why? The majority response would be along the lines- “We are for so-and so’s man”. Party- wise “we have always been … so and so’s”, or habit. The kepuwath- nil/kola/rathu chant is the basis.

At elections during our youth, there were coloured boxes, with each candidate assigned one. You just chucked your ballot paper (no scratching, no ticking of boxes etc.) into the box of your choice. Thus you had only the character, background, honesty and quality of the candidates to consider. As a result, you had the Senanayakas, Bandaranaikes, Kotalawalas, Jayatillakas, Molamures and Kuenaman’s and many more truly Honourable people between whom, you made your choice. No loud-mouthed, uncouth, ill-educated rowdies, thieves, murderers, drug lords, pick-pockets, chain snatchers and all other, dis-reputable vagabonds, said to adorn our current scene. Please do not get me wrong, there are several exceptions, capable of contributing much to our society – medicoes, lawyers, economists, professors, servicemen, ex-diplomats, businessmen’ eloquent debaters and men of dignity and civility . These are persons, with whom one could be happy to be seen sharing a restaurant meal, (particularly with them picking up the ticket!)

Please follow this. As long as the Party System, the Party Whip and open voting in Parliament prevail, “Democracy” has little meaning”. Of what use is candidate quality, secret ballot and rituals of “Assembly”, debates, votes and budgets, if all that is required is for a puppet to hold up his hand from time to time, as ordained by the Party hierarchy?

In the present context, therefore, what is the use of Parliamentary debate, educated members, suitability and worth, if they are meant to be mere cyphers putting up their hands in accordance with the “Party Whip” rather than open vote? What is the logic in confidentiality at the periphery (at polling booths) and mechanical subservience (open Vote) at the end (Parliament)? Indeed, why have elections at all.

The operative word is “logic” – whoever said that logic is a part of “Democracy”? The abandonment of the concept of “confidentiality” in Parliamentary voting is difficult to understand, until you consider that this the best way to show up the “Bought Voters”? (or even the “Buyable” ones), or the promised cross-overs who didn’t, the ones who took the bribes but betrayed? The only other institution where “services” are bought is prostitution. Why then look for excellence in the elected? The only exclusions should be cripples and dual amputees unable to raise their hand or press a button. What point is there in debates, budget or other? Why indeed have a “budget” at all when “supplementary votes” are there to be fiddled?

But of course there are the bountiful Minister’s Tea Party at Speech- end and the sumptuous Speaker’s repast at Debate’s end, where Birds of a Feather can flock together, revel in conviviality, laughing together at the clots, who believe that they actually oppose one another? Cannot the asinine voting public learn to enjoy plays and circuses? Cannot they exult at their Ministers and proxies, standing in as “surrogate hosts” on their behalf ?

So far as I am concerned, political parties are a meaningless pretence, house debates are mostly of no substance (welcome exceptions are from the JVP members who seem to study their subject, make their points with elegant diction, unprovoked by rowdy interruptions and sometimes delivering devastating come-backs). The rest are pretty dull and vacuous nonsense. So, to me political parties are irrelevant while character and decency are non-negotiable. Much of the rituals are meaningless and fluffy. I smirk at the way they address each other as “Honourable”, only moments later to call each other by the vilest filth!

If it is true that the character of an institution or person show up best in times of distress, then there could be no better time than the present, for Parliament and its Members, give me even the slightest chance to revise my (generally) low esteem of it.

Dr. Upatissa Pethiyagoda