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 73 years since 1948, it is legitimate to entertain doubts on how well the immense powers of the franchise have been understood and applied.

Orderly governance is meant to provide happiness, comfort and security for all its 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) is paramount.

Let us examine these lofty intentions, in the local context. We pride ourselves on being the first 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 transforms 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) The majority 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. “Unuth Ekai munuth ekai ” We may call it the “Cahoot 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 provided for the library, 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 Player’s “? After a pronounced silence, your conversation partner will slither off to a different circle!.

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.

A certain Firm felt that their recruitment practices could do with technical input. So, they brought in a Human Relations Expert to ‘sit in’ on one interview for a secretarial position. There was the usual succession of hopefuls. As the interviews ended, the expert was invited to state his ratings. Without batting an eyelid, he declared “I pick the one in the pink, tight fitting sweater, second place to the one in black slacks with shapely ankles”. So much so for selection criteria!

On a personal note, I had the opportunity to sit in on an interview board for the selection of a researcher for a top US University. Each candidate in turn was asked “In 20 minutes, please tell us what you have done with your life up until now!” What a clever departure from the norm!

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, Kotelawalas, Jayatillakas, Molamures and Keunamans 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, disreputable 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 tabt!)

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.

But, would one dare suggest that the luxurious Diyawanna Palace is the “World’s best Appointed Brothel”? Of course not! In this context, I yield originality to President Ronald Reagan who said “I have been told that Politics is the Second Oldest Profession in the World. The longer I remain in it, the more do I realize how closely it resembles the First”.

Why then look for excellence in the elected? The only exclusions should be cripples and dual amputees, unable to raise their hand or press an (obscenely expensive electronic) button? (Dual amputees, No. Dual citizens, perhaps Yes.). What point is there in debates, Budget or other? (“Communication without transformation is Gossip” Tarzie Vitachchi). 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 pretense, 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! I graciously allow them that harmless privilege, as long as I am “included out”. So Parliament = pantomime.

If true 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.

Dr. Upatissa Pethiyagoda.