.

Legal Watch
Monitoring Committee: Return to sanity or passing the buck?

by Nayana
The establishment of a multi-party Monitoring Committee chaired by the President to formulate plans and procedures to ensure that the upcoming Provincial Council elections are free and fair may give rise to a feeling of cautious optimism that the mayhem witnessed at the Wayamba election will not be repeated.

Another episode of mass rigging of the kind that is widely agreed to have taken place in the North-Western Province last month would be insanity. What the country would lose through the resulting instability, indiscipline and mass disenchantment with the democratic process (not to mention LTTE propaganda about the inability of the Tamil people to co-exist with the lawless Sinhalese) will be harder to win back than all five Provincial Councils put together.

However, vigilance is still required as it remains to be seen what steps the Committee will take beyond the usual directives to the Police and elections officials to do their duty "without fear or favour" and to party supporters not to violate the law. Such statements were made before the Wayamba poll as well and do not need the backing of a Committee.

Already there are not only posters and banners of both government and opposition candidates illegally displayed at places other than the venues of meetings, but also reported incidents of violence. The speed at which action (if any) is taken on these matters will be a test of how effective the Monitoring Committee is going to be.

Visible action is required from this Committee if it is to have credibility. It cannot confine itself to monitoring and reporting violations since there are citizens groups such as PAFFREL and the Centre for Monitoring Election Violence who can do that better, simply because they have been doing it for longer and can be expected to be free of the internal tensions and rivalries that are bound to affect the multi-party Monitoring Committee.

Thus if Government and Opposition get together in a Committee, their joint efforts must go beyond observing, monitoring and issuing pious directives. They must set in place legal and institutional safeguards to prevent the kind of abuses that have already been well-documented in the previous elections.

One of the most urgent priorities is finding a way to halt politically motivated transfers of police officers. A Presidential directive, however sincere, may not be enough. In the fundamental rights case of Bandara v Ratwatte which concerned events long before the Wayamba election, it transpired that the Deputy Defence Minister and the then Inspector-General of Police had permitted the unscheduled transfer of a competent officer at the request of the SLFP organiser for Polgahawela.

Already, after the announcement of the new date for Provincial Council elections, questionable police transfers have been reported from the Matale and Kalutara Districts. It will be interesting to see whether the Monitoring Committee looks into this.

Moreover, it is not only pre-election transfers that need to be stopped. There are also reports of some conscientious officers who tried to do their job at Wayamba being transferred to the North after the election

Thus police officers must be assured that they will not feel the vindictive hand of the politician before or after the poll. One of the most confidence-inspiring moves that the Government could make is to agree to the establishment of an independent body to supervise police transfers. Perhaps the Monitoring Committee itself could fulfil this role pending the setting up of a permanent institution, by agreeing that no unscheduled transfers of police officers will be made without the consent of all the parties.

The procedure by which the Monitoring Committee will operate is also important. Is it merely going to be a forum where the Opposition can ask for measures which the Government may or may not chose to grant, or are all parties going to have an equal voice?

It must be remembered that elections are constitutionally required to be free and equal, which means that there should not be a concept of "government" and "opposition" in relation to an election campaign, but only a single set of rules and procedures governing all contestants.

Hence, another task that can usefully be performed by the Monitoring Committee is to see that State property and facilities are either made available to all the contesting parties and groups in equal measure or else not used at all.

The Committee is also an appropriate body, in consultation with the Commissioner of Elections, to work out a regime for electronic media broadcasts for all the contesting parties and groups. This would reduce the need for personal appearances by senior party figures and thus also reduce the security problems associated with such appearances.

The mere fact that the Provincial Councils Elections Act contains no express provision allowing for party political broadcasts does not mean that such broadcasts cannot be made. The freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 14 (1) (a) of the Constitution reinforces the view that such broadcasts should be permitted, subject only to measures such as fair regulation of air time designed to ensure compliance with that other constitutional requirement of equality contained in Articles 12 and 93.

The press release regarding the establishment of the Monitoring Committee stated that under its terms any party dissatisfied with the Committee could pull out at any time. One may question the wisdom of this arrangement, given the fact that the Committee includes representatives from a myriad of parties - several component parties of the People's Alliance participating as separate groups, plus the fence-sitting CWC and certain other parties who are contesting in only one or two Provinces. This means that one of the major opposition parties could be effectively pushed out of the Committee which would still have sufficient numbers to function with a veneer of respectability while the party who may have a legitimate grievance would be portrayed as the spoiler.

Since an election must be fair by all, it might have been better to make the functioning of the Committee conditional on the agreement of all the parties. Thus if anyone is pushed out the Committee would come to an end.

Nigeria - the hard road to democracy

by Dr. Stanley Kalpage
For all but 10 years after independence from British rule in 1960, Nigeria, a potentially oil-rich country has been under military rule. The largest country on the African continent, with a population of around 115 million, Nigeria has about 40 million registered voters.

When it gained independence in 1960, Nigeria was a unitary state. In 1963, a quasi-federal government structure was instituted. Today the Nigerian federation has 36 states.

Poverty and deprivation are rampant. The economy has been crippled by years of mismanagement and corruption. Conflicts between Christians and Muslims and among the 250 tribal groups have compounded Nigeria's problems.

The vast majority of the Nigerian population (about 60 percent) are illiterate. Many of them can neither read nor write. Thus, policies and programmes matter less in an election than tribal allegiances and acceptable personalities. This is why the three parties participating in the presidential elections on 27 February have been engaged in frantic attempts to choose their presidential flag bearers with the broadest popular voter appeal.

After June 1998
The presidential election on 27 February is the final phase of the transition programme devised by President Abdulsalam Abu-bakar, to hand over the military governance, of the country to civilian rule Abubakar. Nigeria's eleventh Head of State, a professional military officer, had never held a political post before he succeeded the late dictator Sani Abacha who died suddenly on 8 June 1998. On assuming office, Abubakar's promise to revert the country to civilian rule was nothing new as other military dictators in the past had also made similar promises.

The start of the transition process was somewhat delayed. Like his military predecessors, Abubakar did not carry much credibility when he assumed office. Nonetheless, he has steadily steered a course of reform that has been hailed both within Nigeria and abroad.

Moshood Abiola's sudden death
Less than a month after assuming power, General Abubakar's regime suffered a serious setback with the sudden death in captivity of Chief Moshood Abiola who had been languishing in prison since June 1994.

It will be recalled that in June 1993. Moshood Abiola, billionaire industrialist, had been elected as president, gaining 58 percent of the votes cast. The supporters of former president Babangida filed a complaint irregularities in the election and the Abuja High Court ordered the results suppressed. The military regime of Sani Abacha, then president, annulled the poll.

One year later, on 12 June 1994, Abiola declared himself as president and said that he would announce a new government in thirty days. He was soon arrested and charged with treason. Abiola languished in prison without trial. When Abacha died in June 1998, there was a clamour for the turning over of the presidency to Abiola. In fact, a month after Abubakar became president, United Nations General-Secretary Kofi Annan arrived in Nigeria to secure Chief Abiola's release.

Less than a week later, Nigerian radio announced that Abiola was dead, "apparently of cardiac arrest''. It looked as if the military were still playing games. Since then, however, things seem to have changed.

Abubakar keeps his promises
Now, less than nine months after Abubakar assumed office, everything seems to be going well for Nigerians. Human rights have been restored. So, is the rule of law. The country is again vibrant and healthy, thought sometimes boisterous, dialogue does take place, where fear once polluted the air. Nigeria is moving again to becoming a healthy democracy.

The timetable for Abubakar's transition programmes to civil rule has moved along with precision. Nigerians, now grouped in political parties, provide clear evidence of the wide acclaim which the government enjoys at home. Abubakar's administration has done more in eight months to uplift the quality of life of the people, and the fortunes of the country, than previous governments have been able to achieve over longer periods.

A constitution debating committee has thrashed out sore points in the 1995 draft constitution. Above all, arrangements are being made for military men to disengage - gradually - from the administration. Abubakar is grappling, appropriately and openly, with corruption and treasury looters, notoriously prevalent in the past.

Investor confidence restored
Investor confidence in Nigeria has been regenerated. Foreign investors are returning in a big way. Foreign investments in the country have grown, from five to twelve per cent in months since General Abubakar arrived on the scene. The Americans, the European Com-munity and the G7, who had all shut out their lifeline to Nigeria, are opening up, one after the other, because the administration has created a climate conducive to their operations. Both IMF and the World Bank have returned to the country to assess and determine what further assistance they can render, for the progress of the country's economic development.

Encouraged by their country's return to democracy, Nigerian exiles are racing back to their homeland. General Abubakar had reached out to them in humility, instead of haughtily, in appeals to come home and join in the task of nation building. He did not mind what they were said to have done. He freed them from fear in a virtual blanket grant of amnesty.

The goal - civilian rule
Steady progress has been made towards the goal of civilian rule. Three rounds of elections have been conducted under the watchful eye of the Independent National Elections Com-mission (INEC). In the first of these, elections to local bodies in December 1998, nine political parties contested. Sixty percent of the local councils were won by the centrist Peoples' Democratic Party (PDP).

Another peaceful election took place in January this year, when the state assemblies and the governors of the 36 states were chosen. Only three parties were eligible to contest on the basis of their performance in the earlier local government elections: the centrist Peoples' Democratic Party (PDP), the right of centre All Peoples' Party (APP), and the left-leaning Alliance for Democracy (AD).

Both elections were declared to be "free and fair'' by the numerous international observers from the United Nations and other foreign agencies as well as local observers. While credit was due to the Independence National Electoral Commission (INEC), Nigerians also believe that their march towards democratic civilian rule has proceeded smoothly so far not only because the INEC has been "independent'' but because the umpire, president Abubakar, has been sincere in his resolve that the military should quit the political arena by 27 May 1999.

Parliamentary elections
Parliamentary elections, the third step towards the goal of civilian rule, which took place on 20 January 1999 resulted in a low voter turnout of under 20 percent. Chairman of INEC, Justice Epjraim Akpata, said that the elections to a 360 member Federal House of Representatives and a 109 member Senate had been generally fair although certain irregularities, like intimidation of voters and ballot box stuffing, had been reported from certain areas.

In the national legislature elections, the People's Democratic Party (PDP) of presidential front-runner, Olusegun Obasango, had an unassailable lead over its rivals the All People's Party and the Alliance for Democracy. To oppose Obasango, "the military candidate'', on 27 February with a common "civilian'' presidential candidate, the APP and AD have chosen Olu Falae, former finance minister and leader of the APP. Ironically, the APP is composed largely of the supporters of the late Sani Abacha while the AD includes many who were loyal to his rival, the late Moshood Abiola.

Aspirants for presidential power
After a bitter primary contest, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has chosen as its presidential candidate former Head of State General Olusegun Obasanjo in preference to former Vice President Alex Ekwueme. Obasango, a retired general himself, is popular with the military and, though a member of the Yoruba tribe claims to have the support of influential Nigerians in the Hausa-Fulani north.

The greatest threat to his ambition, however, is his unpopularity among his own Yoruba tribesmen who humiliated him in the local council as well as the gubernatorial elections when the Alliance for democracy (AD) swept the polls in Yorubaland.

Obasanjo's detractors say that the only positive contribution by Obasanjo to his party is the much talked about donation of N130 million naira to boost the parry's fortunes. But many, Nigerians question the source of such immense wealth by an ordinary farmer who retired from the army two decades ago.

With Chief Alex Ekwueme being sidelined by the PDP, the people in the south west would harbour a grievance and PDP supporters in this important region could well cross over to the APP. Ekwueme was strongly backed by his powerful Ibo kinsmen in the south.

The victory of the PDP at the parliamentary elections of 20 February indicate that its leader Olusegun Obasanjo will win the presidential race on 27 February. But he has the disadvantage of being the favourite of the military establishment, and it is not certain that he can design and implement the necessary policies and programmes that would enable him to solve the many problems his country faces. Moreover, he will have to win the confidence of the Yoruba of the south and the Ibo of the south-east who feel resentful at the dominance, since Independence, of the Hansa-Fulani north.

The end of transition and the beginning of civilian rule on 29 May 1999 may not necessarily mean the transformation of Nigeria.

President meets the Leader of the Opposition
Cordiality at conflict resolution for free and fair polls

by Shan Wijetunga
President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga last week wrote to the Leader of the Opposition, Ranil Wickramasinghe for a discussion on the conduct of free and fair elections at the forthcoming provincial polls.

Although it was to be an all party conference only the Leader of the Opposition was invited. May be the President would first consider the proposals of the Leader of the Opposition before inviting the other parties.

The Opposition Leader, sought the advice of the most senior UNP member Mr. A. C. S. Hameed on the President's invitation and later faxed the letter from the President to MP Hameed was asked to draft a suitable reply.

The next day Mr. Ranil Wickramasinghe met party President, Karu Jayasuriya, Secretary General, Gamini Athukorale and Mr. K. N. Choksy and discussed the subject.

Secretary General of Parliament
The Opposition Leader requested W. J. M. Loku Bandara MP last Tuesday to make a formal protest to the Speaker of the presence of a stranger in the Parliament, Mr. Lokubandara requested Mr. Harim Corea, MP to raise the issue.

Accordingly when the Speaker tabled the letter of appointment of the Secretary-General of Parliament in the Chambers, MP Harendra Corea made his formal protest stating that the appointment was not in keeping with Parliamentary Standing Orders.

He informed the Speaker that the correct procedure would have been to appoint Deputy Secretary General of Parliament as the Secretary General.

But the Speaker rejected the argument and pandemonium prevailed in the chambers and the speaker put off sitting. For the next day but later changed the order to suspended sitting for 15 minutes.

Mr. Palliyaguru, the bearer of the mace in the house who did not hear the Speaker's change of order due to the din inside the Chamber proceeded to take away the Mace from the chamber when the Deputy Secretary General of Parliament intimated to Palliyaguru that sitting were not postponed but only suspended.

When Mr. Palliyaguru attempted to return the Mace to the table UNP MPs Nanda Mattew, John Amaratunga, Gamini Athukorale and some other MPs obstructed Palliyaguru and tried to pull him towards the Opposition benches despite his pleadings.

Government MPs, Tissa Karaliyadde, T. B. Maha Lekamge and some others intervened and rescued Mr. Palliyaguru from the UNP MPs.

When Mr. Palliyaguru was then taken towards the table where the mace was to be kept some UNP MPs surrounded the table shouting that parliament had been postponed and they would not allow the Mace to be replaced.

Mr. Palliyaguru then entrusted the Mace to his deputy, Mr. Anil Samarasekera and met the Speaker in his official chambers.

He said "Sir, I heard your honour declaring the postponement of Parliament."

The Speaker replying said "Yes, Palli, it was my mistake. What I really wanted to say was that Parliament was suspended but made the wrong order."

Later Mr. Ranil Wickramasinghe and Ratnasiri Wikramanayake met the speaker who after discussions with them postponed sitting for the next day.

All Party Conference
All leaders of political parties invited for the discussion along with their representatives met at 'Temple Trees'.

M/s. Tilvin Silva, Wimal Weerawansa, and Nandana Gunatilake represented the JVP, Dinesh Gunawardena, represented the MEP, Mr. Thondaman and Arumugam Thondaman represented the CWC. Mr. M. H. M. Ashraff represented the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress, Mr. Batty Weerakoon the LSSP, Mr. Raja Collure the Communist Party, Mr. Chandrasekeran the Kandurata Peramuna, Mr. Podi Appuhamy, The Desha Vimukthi Janatha Pakshaya and Mr. Wickramabahu Karunaratne, New Left Front.

Opposition and UNP Leader, Ranil Wickramasinghe, A. C. S. Hameed, Karu Jayasuriya and K. N. Choksy, represented the United National Party.

The government party was led by President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga and comprised Ratnasiri Wickramanayake, Dharmasiri Senanayake and Lakshman Kadirgamar.

The President stated the North Western provincial election was a complete mess. I have always instructed our party people to be law abiding. But nobody seem to have given me an ear. Unfortunately all the allegations are levelled against me. UNP member, Gamini Athukorale criticised me in Parliament. I am prepared to face all these accusations.

Continuing the President said: "The Leader of the Opposition has admitted that there had been election malpractices during the former UNP regime. He has accepted responsibility for such malpractices. It is a very honourable action. I am also prepared to accept responsibility for election malpractices".

She further stated that repetitions of such conduct would never be allowed in future elections and that no person found guilty of such malpractices would be allowed to go scot free.

The President then said: "As leaders we should come to a common agreement to hold free and fair elections. That is why this meeting was convened".

Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremasinghe said that the escalation of political violence and election malpractices in the North Western Provincial election was primarily due to police inaction and insufficient authority vested in the Commissioner of Elections.

He said a proposal has been submitted to the Parliament to increase the authority of the Commissioner of Elections and that the proposal be passed in the parliament as soon as possible.

Deputy Minister P. Chandrasekeran said most of these malpractices was due to the preferential voting system and proposed that all persons found guilty of such malpractices should be severely punished as the present punishment for such wrongdoers was not sufficient.

Mr. Arumugam Thondaman stated that as hoisting banners and putting up posters was illegal all candidates should be asked to avoid doing them.

Tilvin Silva of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna pointed out that the reason for convening the meeting was that there had been proven political violence and election malpractices in the North Western Provincial Elections and that the remedy was to hold fresh provincial elections for the north western province.

Mr. Wickramabahu Karunaratne stated that he was one of the victims of political violence at the north western provincial elections. "I am still being treated for my injuries".

President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga promised Mr. Wickramabahu Karunaratne that a detailed investigation would be instituted regarding the incident and the guilty brought to book.

Minister Ashraff provided examples of malpractices at the elections.

Minister Batty Weerakoon accused the media of blowing up even a minor incident of violence at the elections.

He alleged that media such as the TNL TV channels was very partial towards certain political parties.

He proposed censorship be introduced in use of such media propaganda.

He also proposed that the constitution should not only be amended to increase the powers vested in the Commissioner of Elections be completely amended.

Mr. Dinesh Gunawardena, MEP accused the People's Alliance government for all the political violence and election malpractices at the north western provincial elections.

He accused the government party of misuing government vehicles for election campaigning and wanted it should be stopped at future elections.

Mr. Gamini Athukorale, General Secretary, UNP stated that the President had referred to a speech by him in Parliament accusing the President.

He said he stood by every word he spoke in the parliament regarding the President.

He proposed that a system be evolved for postal voting without voters being investigated.

He also pointed out that due to dearth of transport facilities there was the possibility of vote rigging while the poll boxes were being transported en masse.

He suggested that each polling booth should be given at least one vehicle.

Finally, the President promised all participants that their proposals would be given due attention and that action would be initiated to carry out free and fair elections in the future.

Minister Ratnasiri Wickramanayake proposed that an action committee comprising representatives of all contesting political parties be formed to eradicate possible election malpractices.

Opposition Leader Ranil Wickramasinghe spoke in favour of forming such a committee.

It was therefore decided to nominate party representatives to the action committee and to propose the powers that should be vested in the committee.

Mulberry Group
While the All Party Conference was in progress at 'Temple Trees' Mr. Dallas Alahapperuma, T. B. Ekanayake, Heen Mahaththaya Liyanage, Mahinda Amaraweera and E. A. Samarasinghe of the Mulberry Group met the Commissioner of Elections, Mr. Dayananda Dissanayake to present him the draft proposals of the group for a new electoral system.

The group also wished to gain knowledge of the shortcomings experienced by Commissioner of Elections in conducting elections.

The Commissioner explained that the powers exercised by him were those that had been vested in Commissioners of Elections from the year 1957. These powers had not been increased since then, explained the commissioner.

The use of identity cards by voters and the necessity to make it compulsory at elections was also explained.

The Mulberry Group also discussed the shortcomings in the preferential voting system.

The Group told the commissioner that it proposes the election of 160 members at electorate level and another 65 according to proportional system to maintain the present number of 225 seats in the parliament.

The Commissioner of Elections promised the group that he would study its electoral proposals and give his comments on the proposals in due course.

Democracy and the sovereignty of the political consumer

A democratic regime has intrinsic values, because its political norms celebrate the active participation of the people in government. Furthermore, democratic government meet certain criteria of political decency, such as the institutionalization of human rights, the obligation to hold free & fair elections, the concept of equal political rights to all citizens of the state and the rights to contest an election by any law obeying citizen of the state regardless of his/her political believes or gender. Therefore a democratic regime will amalgamate as the best political regime if her citizens are both treated with respect or dignity and have some say in political decision making.

All societies facing construction or sustaining democracy face three generic issues: "Substance versus Procedure", "Agreement versus Competition" and "Majoritarianism versus Constitution''. Should the democratic institutions unambiguously categorize to facilitate achieving some normative objections such as Social Justice or promote only Political Equality and Liberty, establish only procedures and leave substantive outcomes to the democratic process? Should democratic government be imbued or filled with feelings of moral obligation or should they be just a system of laws administrating conflicts? Then one could also question which decisions should be implemented by agreement and which by competition?

A fundamental manifest of democratic governments is to counteract increasing returns to power. As Fredric C. Lane (Political analyst) 1979, emphasized, power is a natural monopoly since it exhibits increasing returns to scale: directly, to the extent that incumbency gives advantage and indirectly, to the extent that Political Power can be used to acquire Economic Power or to acquire Constitutional Power which can be utilized to gain more Political Power. Hence, if democracy is not to be evolved into a de facto - one party dictatorship or totalitarian regime, the current government of Sri Lanka must furnish all the legitimate competitors with instruments to counteract these effects in the coming elections. In other words, the government must protect the power of the competitors.

However, the present government of Sri Lanka did not take any steps to initiate or to implement their own 1994 political manifesto pledge to protect the power of the competitors in North Western Province local government election. The 1994 P.A Political manifesto stated that:

" ........There must be no subversion of the democratic process and the inalienable right and privilege of our people to enjoy free and fair elections and to exercise their franchise without fear or favour, .........."

This leaves me to conclude:

That this government of Sri Lanka truly did not understand at least the minimal definition of democracy and the 1994 P. A Political manifesto is simply an illusion created by the P A leaders to deceive the general public, hence yet another broken promise to achieve power. Since only under an authoritarianism's of various kinds, will the state provide benefits to selected groups in a discretionary manner to gain political power in an election abusing the sovereignty of the political consumer.

The sovereignty of the political consumer

One of the constitutive axioms of the Neo-Classical Doctrine of democracy is pluralism and the competition between political elite for leadership. This indeed is the sovereignty of the political consumer. Political competition, according to J. Schumpeter and J. Plamenatz (Political Theorists) can call itself democratic only if there is a "free competition for a free vote' Further extent of this definition points out that:

* Individual voters should be free to vote according to their own intentional judgement formed as freely as possible in the context of open competition between rival political groups

* Political elections should take place with equal suffrage and recur with a reasonable degree of periodicity

* " Real alternatives' should be clearly defined and put before the voters in order to give them a choice between genuinely different political solutions

* Political parties should not use violence or any other method to intimidate voters or political candidates.

Therefore in democratic society all citizens should be free to participate in the political competition, either as candidates or as voters and should be able to give public expression to their opinions, including their dissent, without this laying them open to any serious personal risk. Furthermore the freedom of speech for all and freedom of the press should be given to all political parties to engage in free competition for a free vote in order to create a will of the people. However political parties will indeed try to manipulate citizens by using propagandist techniques but there should be a political or legal reaction or at least some critical resistance to the new techniques and methods of persuasion operated by both economic and political entrepreneurs. Schumpeter point out that:

'Consumers whether they are buyers of economic or of political products are so amenable to the influences of advertising and methods of persuasion that producers often seem to dictate to them instead of being directed by them. The technique of successful advertising is particularly instructive. There is indeed nearly always some appeal to the reason....."

One could argue that publicity to persuade or convince people is an essential part of the democratic process. Of course propaganda will illustrate a notion of "popular will" and can contribute some limitations to the political competence and psychological autonomy of the average citizen. What counts is that the voter should be able to freely express his/her political preferences in the context of a free competition between a plurality of parties. Whether or not the political preferences of an individual voter is acquired with freedom is not a relevant issue what is of paramount importance is as John Plamentz once said:

"Whether his vote is free or not does not depend on how he acquired his preferences; it depend on how elections are conducted and being aware of what he is doing when he votes', .

According to the theorists of democratic pluralism, the citizens are sovereign in the sense that they freely exercise their function as political consumers. They are like buyers of goods in a supper market who possess the ability over the long term, to contribute to the success or failure of a producer or of a product. In a pluralistic democracy the citizens are effective in fulfilling the role of judges of the electoral contest between political elite because it is ' electoral consensus", i.e. an acceptance which is explicit and formalized (not tacit or plebiscitarian), which gives legitimacy to the governing elite.

The procedure requiring the political elite to subordinate its "will to power" to the outcome of an electoral competition is democratic because it is through this free competition that the electorate succeeds, albeit within the bounds of the reduction of choices already effected by the competitors, in expressing a wish of its own and in having it taken up as one of the elements of the democratic game. Therefore the voter's political judgment is substantially autonomous and endowed with rationality, because the voters consider all available information's in making political decisions and continually update their expectations of the political ideology. Ironically, the present government of Sri-Lanka not only clearly over kill the sovereignty of the political consumers of the North- Western province by unethically grabbing the power but also damaged the democratic institutional norms and incorporated an unconventional, pathetic, ungainly and inhuman set of election norms into our democracy to be passed on to our younger generations.

My normative assumption of the North-Western province's election outcome subject to North- Western province's postal votes results:

Is that in the North-Western province local government election's the winner is not the one with the popular will of the North-Western Province's political consumers, but the one who had more physical force, the one who by force manipulated election results, used violence to intimidate voters, violated election laws and committed fraud, that succeeded in winning the majority of the votes at polling stations.

Hence I conclude that there is a serious breach to the democratic process in Sri Lanka and the sovereignty of the political consumer is under serious threat of extinction.

Sinhala Race and Tamil Race

by Kamalika Pieris
Sri Lankans are silently asking themselves how this tug-of-war between the Sinhalese and Tamils began. The ancient records indicate that the single word 'Sinhala' was used to describe the island, its people and its language. This island was called many different names, but the majority of them are derived from the words 'Sinhala' or 'Sinhaladvipa'. These words occur in the Dipavamsa and the Samantapasadika. The early Tamil word for Sinhala was 'Ila'. 'Eelam' is the Tamilised version of 'Sinhaladvipa'. There was also 'Cinkalam'. In the vedic literature the island was called 'Simhaladipa' or 'Sihaladipa'.

Chinese referred to 'Sihaladipa' and 'Sihadipa'. Burma and Thailand called it 'Sihaladeepa'. The Greeks noted that the island was called 'Sieladiva'. Arab traders called it 'Siyalan', 'Singaldib' 'Serendib' and 'Saheelan'. 'Saheelan' was the Persianised'form of 'Sinhaladvipa'. Then came the Portuguese 'Ceilom', Dutch 'Zeylan' and British 'Ceylon'. However, during the British period, the Kandyan Kingdom was known as 'Sinhale' and the King in Kandy saw himself as the ruler of the whole island. The term 'Sinhale' was in use up to the 1940's. In Martin Wickramasinghe's novel 'Gam Peraliya', Jinadasa goes in search of his fortune to Sinhale.

There is evidence to indicate that at least by the 1st or 2nd century AD, the term Sinhala also denoted the people of Sri Lanka. Paranavitana pointed out that in the classical Sanskrit literature, such as the Mahabharatha, the people of Sri Lanka were called 'Sinhala'. A 3rd century inscription of King Samudragupta in North India refers to the Sinhala people, as "Simhalaka''. There is also a Javanese inscription in Indonesia, dated 8th century AD. We are familiar with the Vijaya legend. There is also a less well known one which says that the name derives from a tribe of settlers whose leader's name was Simhala.

The earliest recorded Sinhala letters are in cave inscriptions of the 3rd century BC. Sinhala was originally known as "Elu''. It first showed the influence of Prakrit, but from the 4th or 5th century AD it started developing as a distinctive language. By the 8th century AD it had evolved into Sinhala proper. By the 5th century it had developed a substantial literature. Buddhaghosa who lived in Anuradhapura in the 5th century called the Sihala bhasa a 'manorama bhasa' - a delightful language. Putting all this together, we could argue that by the 4th century A.D. the island had developed into a sophisticated kingdom called Sinhaladvipa with the Sinhala people and the Sinhala language. That is why, today, there is only one word to denote the country, its people and its language - "Sinhala rata, Sinhala jathiya and Sinhala bhashava.

The nationals of Sri Lanka (Sinhaladvipa) included a variety of immigrants. It was a very centrally placed island, accessible on all sides and in the centre of the trade routes from the East to West. The Muslims came to Sri Lanka without their womenfolk. They married Sri Lankans and thus assimilated into the country. President J. R. Jayewardene had a Muslim ancestor. The Tamils came into Sri Lanka as traders, soldiers, immigrants and invaders. The immigrants would have assimilated as soon as possible, since that was their purpose in coming. The soldiers and traders came at the pleasure of the king. Invaders either left or assimilated. Therefore when did this highly assimilative Sinhala community bifurcate into separate 'races'?

In order to answer that question, we need to go back to the period when the British ruled Sri Lanka. The British were everywhere anxious to break up homogeneous groups into opposing factions. This was known as 'divide and rule'. However, up to 1824, the Sinhalese and Tamils were not perceived as clear cut ethnic groups. They were seen primarily as members of caste groups. (Nira Wickramasinghe. "Ethnic politics in Colonial Sri Lanka 1927-1947'' p 5-6). But this was abandoned in favour of ethnic groups when the Legislative Council was set up in 1833. Representation was in terms of Sinhala, Tamil, Burgher.

A good starting point for tracing the development and emergence of the 'Sinhala' and 'Tamil' race would be the population census conducted by the British, periodically. The first census of which there is a record is that of 1824. But the first official census was that of 1871. Wickramasinghe states that 'race' occurred as a category for the first time in the 1871 census. In this census there was an overlap between the categories of 'nationality' and 'race'. Sinhalese and Tamils were 'races' as well as 'nationalities'. In the 1881 census there were 7 races in Ceylon. Europeans, Sinhalese, Tamils, Moors, Malays, Veddhas and 'others'. From thereon, 'race' became the main category of classification in the ten-yearly Census of Ceylon. (Wickramasinghe p 6-7).

The concept of 'race' used by the British, was a concoction of the West. This should be kept in mind at all times. The word 'race' dates only from the 16th century in Europe. It was given a variety of meanings. It was used to refer to cultural, religious, national, linguistic, ethnic and geographical groups. In the 19th century, 'race' started to involve physical appearance and colour as well. Racial theories came up in Europe around 1819. They jumbled it up with language groups. And said that all those who spoke a Dravidian language were Dravidian and all those who spoke an Indo-Aryan language were Aryan race. The idea of the Sinhalese as an Aryan race and the Tamils as a Dravidian race is yet another piece of ignorant European nonsense foisted on Sri Lanka.

In 1872, the International Statistical Institute decided that the minimum data for a census should include language, religion, birth place and nationality. (Census of Ceylon 1946. Vol 1 Pt 1 p 42). The census reports of British Ceylon did not merely enumerate the population distribution of Ceylon. They created Ceylon's 'races' as well. The 'Sinhala' and 'Tamil' races were constructed by the British in several ways. Firstly, the Sinhalese and Tamils were presented as two distinct physical groups. The Census of 1911 stated "It is clear to the most superficial observer that there are very marked physical differences between the Sinhalese and Tamils. (Denham. 'Census of Ceylon 1911' P 209). However the Census of 1921 had on its first page, a series of photographs of these different 'races'. They all looked alike. They were all equally dark, with black hair, thick lips, pug noses and they all glared unsmilingly at the camera. The difference was in their costumes not in facial appearance or physical characteristics.

They quoted history and ethnology to justify the racial divisions. The Census of 1911 declared 'Races in Ceylon are clearly differentiated. They have different religions and speak different languages. In spite of the closest political connection, the two races are as distinct today is Ceylon as the limits of the settlements are clearly defined.'' (Census of Ceylon' 1911, p 194, 196). The Sinhala nation thus became a truncated race of 'Sinhalese' plus 'Tamils' and 'Moors'.

E. B. Denham, Superintendent of Census, 1911 propogated the Aryan theory of origin for the newly formed Sinhala 'race'. "The most generally accepted theory of the origin of the Sinhalese is that their progenitors were Aryan settlers from Magadha.'' However he said that the North Indians were a mixture of Indo-Aryan and Dravidian and 'to this type the Sinhalese are said to belong.'' (p 205) So he did get something right. The Sinhalese were viewed by Denham, in 1911 as a people who lived in the hills. They were never, he declared, erroneously, a maritime people. However he did point out that of the races of Ceylon, only the Sinhalese could 'regard Ceylon as the home of the nation and the shrine of its national taditions'. (p. 194)

Sometime after the 'Sinhala race' was invented by the British, it got bisected. The Census of 1901 was conducted by Ponnambalam Arunachalam. He divided the Sinhalese into two categories, the Kandyan Sinhalese and the Low-country Sinhalese. (Census of 1911, p 12). And then he said that the Tamils were equal to the Low-country Sinhalese and the Kandyan Sinhalese, when they were taken separately! Thereafter other census reports elaborated on this fiction of two separate Sinhala races. The Census of 1921 stated that the Kandyan Sinhalese differed from the Low-country Sinhalese in all respects except those of colour, religion and language. Kandyan villagers saw the Low country Sinhalese as a 'separate race', pahata-rata-minissu. It was suggested that the Low-country Sinhalese had to be different due to the impact of Portuguese, Dutch, British, Malay and Chinese influence. (Census of Ceylon 1921, p 195-196).

The British demarcated certain districts as 'Kandyan' districts and the Kandyan Law operated there. Those who came from Central, North Central, Uva, Sabaragamuwa Provinces, the Kurunegala and Puttalam districts, and the 'Sinhalese divisions of the districts of Batticaloa. Trincomalee, and Vavuniya' were Kandyan Sinhalese.

Those who came from the Western, Southern Provinces and the Chilaw and Puttalam districts were Low-country. However Arthur Ranasingha, Superintendent of Census for 1946 pointed out that the differentiation of Sinhalese into low country and Kandyan was of no ethnic significance. (Census of 1946. Pt 1 Vol 1 p 151).

Even in British times it was difficult to maintain this idiotic distinction. The Census of 1911 stated: "The distinction between Kandyan and Low-country Sinhalese is every year lessened. Inter-marriages are on the increase and in many parts of the 'Up country' the home of the Kandyan race, it is difficult to distinguish today between Kandyans and low country men and women." (Census of Ceylon 1911, p 213) We note here the reference to the 'Kandyan race'. It could also be mentioned that the Census reports had similar difficulty in maintaining the fiction of separate Sinhala and Tamil races. They admitted that there was considerable intermarriage between the Sinhala and Tamil races. The natives would have been unaware that they had now been placed in separate categories!

A very important function of these Census reports was that it created geographically contiguous 'Tamil areas' and 'Sinhalese areas' in the map of Ceylon. The population distribution was analysed in terms of the strength of each 'race' in each district. The main unit of analysis was race and district. According to the racial percentage, each district was symbolically designated 'Tamil area' or 'Sinhala area'.

The Census of Ceylon, 1891 has three separate maps, indicating the 'relative proportion of races' for Tamils, Sinhala and Moors. Jaffna, Vanni, Mannar, Trincomalee and Batticaloa districts were assigned in bright pink to the Tamils. Jaffna, Mannar and Vanni were designated as having only 5% or less Sinhalese. Trincomalee and Batticaloa had 10% or less Sinhalese. Indicating a 'Sinhala' presence in North and East even then. We see in this census the origin of the idea of 'Tamil lands'.

This interpretation of population growth and distribution is both peculiar and unscientific. There are several weaknesses in this approach. Firstly, population statistics only indicate residence. They did not indicate historic lands. Secondly the districts and provinces used for the Census were administrative units drawn up by the British. They had no historical or even geographical meaning. They meant nothing ethnologically. Lastly these Census figures totally ignored the important factor of population density.

And so, the "Sri Lankan Tamil race'' came into existence. Laughing critics ask - Is there any other ethnic group which has two homelands, one in India and another in Sri Lanka.

Electoral reforms

by Lal de Mel
The Minister of Justice, Constitutional Affairs, Ethnic Affairs and National Integration, Professor G. L. Peiris should be complemented for creating public awareness of the various proposals considered to remove the weaknesses of the preferential voting system which is blamed for the violence which erupted during the Wayamba elections. Electoral reforms are a matter of concern to the business community as stable Governments elected through a free & fair electoral system are essential to create investor confidence.

The purpose of this letter is to support the suggestion made by Mr. Cecil Abeysuriya for an electoral system which is a simple mixture of both first past the post (FPP) system and the proportional representation (PR) system, published in the Sunday Observer & Sunday Island of 21 February. It is based on one third of the seats being allocated on proportional representation basis, to eliminate the dis-proportionality caused by the first past the post system. Seats allocated on P.R. basis are given to the best losers who fail to win their seats on the FPP system. This appears to satisfy the following issues outlined by Hon. G. L. Peiris in the Sunday Island of 21 February 1999.

* Retaining the advantage of fair representation provided by the proportional representation.
* Eliminating the intra party & inter party rivalry caused by preferential voting.
* Re-establishing the nexus between a constituency and the elected representative.
* A single vote system which is easily comprehensible to any voter.

* Give the preferred national party a better majority in the parliament, provincial council or local body than the present PR system, while not giving too much, which can result in injustices to the minorities.

It has the following additional advantages.

* Canvassing will be restricted to the territorial constituency.
* The poster wars which irritate the environment conscious voters will be reduced, if not eliminated.* The steep reduction in campaign costs makes it possible for honest high calibre people to come forward, without depending on the financial support of Kassippu mudalalis and other undesirable people who support the politicians, with the intention of getting protection from police prosecution when their candidate comes into power. Perhaps the increasing criminalisation of politics is a result of the high campaign costs.

* The elected representatives will once more add value to their voters by acting as their champions, to get the wheels of Public Service turning, without the need to use palm oil.

Mr. Abeysuriya has suggested the use of ignored fractions to allocate one or two seats which cannot be allocated in a straight forward manner. Alternatively such seats can be allocated on a national basis during parliamentary elections and on a provincial basis during Provincial Council elections, to deserving candidates, such as one seat for each minor party that did not win any seats, even though they received over 0.5% of the overall votes.

I strongly recommend that the balance should be allocated to eminent people who can make a contribution to the country, for without this provision the country would not have benefited from the contributions of Messrs G. L. Peiris & Lakshman Kadirgamar. I hope the Minister of Constitutional Affairs will consider the proposal of Mr. Cecil Abeysuriya, before announcing electoral reforms.

Electoral reforms alone cannot restore the loss of confidence in the impartiality of the police force and the power of the Commissioner of Elections to conduct free and fair elections. Opposition parties always make sound proposals to strengthen the Public Service, but conveniently forget their proposals when they come into power. A non-partisan approach should be taken to learn from the mistakes made at the Wayamba elections and ensure that all elections in the future are conducted in fair manner, free of violence.

(The writer is the President of the Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry of Sri Lanka)

  | NEWS | PROVINCIAL | EDITORIAL | DEFENCE | FEATURES | LEISURE | BUSINESS | SPORTS | ADS |