It is not possible to attribute one precise definition to the concept democracy due to the fact that it is being used in multiple contexts. The well known definition of democracy is that “democracy is governed by the people, for the people and of the people”. In that context it is presumed that democracy is a people centric mechanism for governance. Parliamentary democracy means representative democracy.
Parliamentary democracy in the Sri Lankan context consists of the following major components viz sovereignty of people. Representatives elected by the people, political parties, ruling party and Opposition, franchise vested with the people, legislature, executive, and judiciary derived and delegated from sovereignty of the people.
Article 03 of Chapter 01 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka states, “In the Republic of Sri Lanka sovereignty is with the people”. Article 04 of the same Chapter of the Constitution states, “The Sovereignty of the people shall be exercised and enjoyed in the following manner. Legislative power of the people shall be exercised by Parliament consisting of elected representatives of the people and by the people at a referendum, the executive power of the people including the defence of Sri Lanka shall be exercised by the President elected by the people, the judicial power of the people shall be exercised by Parliament through courts except in regard to matters relating to the privileges, immunities and powers of Parliament and of its members, wherein judicial powers of the people may be exercised directly by Parliament according to law.”
Sovereignty
What is sovereignty? It is a complicated concept as there is a vast literature which consists the complexity of analysis made by political scientists on sovereignty. In brief “it is the power of the people in a State which is inalienable, irresponsible and indivisible” as defined by eminent Political Scientist Disy.
Article 03 in Chapter 01 of the Constitution states, “In the Republic of Sri Lanka, sovereignty includes the powers of Government, fundamental rights and the franchise”. Strength and the status-quo of Parliamentary democracy are derived from sovereignty.
The common belief is that sovereignty is vested with Parliament exclusively and Parliament is supreme. It seems to be a misnomer, from the perspective of the contents of Article 03 in Chapter 01 of the Constitution as pointed out above. People have delegated their power of sovereignty to the legislature, executive and judiciary to exercise the responsibilities assigned to each of them under the Constitution.
Of these three components, (Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary), one cannot assume supremacy over the other two components due to the fact that, functions, responsibilities and areas of authority assigned to each of them have been prescribed in the Constitution.
Component
One component cannot dictate terms over the functions assigned to the other component and none of them cannot survive without the active co-operation and support of the other two components.
However, there is no specific mechanism within Parliamentary democracy other than conventional practice to maintain balance of power among these three components in the process of exercising their functions and responsibilities which is considered a serious deficiency in smooth functioning of the system.
If sovereignty is inalienable and indivisible how has it been alienated to three components of Parliamentary democracy legislature, executive and judiciary? In the above context, the concept of sovereignty in Parliamentary democracy is to be considered as an impracticable ideology which is being used by parliamentarians as and when required to defend themselves to overcome challenges levelled against them and to promote their own agendas.
Representatives elected by the people are considered another significant feature of Parliamentary democracy. They ought to represent people and their aspirations that elected them to Parliament.
Performance
Do representatives elected by the people truly represent people or aspirations of people in Parliament? Based on the performance and behavior of these representatives in Parliament it is a fact that they represent their personal agendas or agendas of political parties they are affiliated to.
The election manifesto presented by political parties and ratified by the people at the elections seems to be twisted very often to accommodate personal agendas of representatives and political parties.
Election manifestos are based on the line of thinking of politicians and political parties who contest elections.
Those manifestos are like sugar coated pills with high sounding terminologies such as Dharmista Palanaya and Yahapalanaya, and so on in order to market them to the masses at the elections.
There is a lack of empathy between political parties who presented election manifestoes and the masses in the process of implementing the concepts set out therein after the election.
It is also a common fact that those representatives once elected by the people to Parliament are in the practice of ignoring the aspirations of the masses and they act in Parliament based on their own agendas irresponsibly. Their irresponsible behaviour are protected under Parliamentary Privileges and Immunities Act and Article 04 of Chapter 01 of the Constitution.
Some unruly conduct of the members of legislature are hidden under the carpet of Parliamentary privileges, although the ordinary masses are eligible to be aware of such misconduct under the law of the land.
Equality before the law which is one of the cordial principles of democracy seems inapplicable to Parliamentarians as a result.
In short there seems to be a vast deficiency between what actually is represented by representatives of people and what ought to be represented in Parliament.
In a Parliamentary democracy, the political parties, ruling party and Opposition in Parliament are considered very vital components. Political parties are often defined as “power- oriented organisations aiming at governmental responsibility without accepting a share in the burden of running a Government”. (Quoted from “Political parties from Western democracies” Klaus Von Beyme – Director Political Science – University of Heidelberg).
Do parties matter? The mechanism of Parliamentary democracy cannot be activated without political parties. However it is doubtful whether they contribute to foster democracy in Parliament.
Although political parties are considered an essential component of Parliamentary democracy to activate the franchise of the people, freedom of choice which is considered sine-quo-non of democracy has been suppressed to a great extent by political parties, due to the fact that people have no choice to cast their vote other than political parties who contest the elections.
Multiparty
Although people have a wider choice in multiparty system to cast their vote it is not possible to form a stable Government within a multiparty frame work.
The political party system more precisely multiparty system is considered an unavoidable obstacle to maintain cohesion within the Legislature and Executive due to diversity of opinions each of them hold in their politics. Lack of cohesion has caused deficiency in performance, both in Legislature as well as in the Executive.
Partisan politics enhances wild competition among political parties within and outside Parliament. The ways and means they use in this competition to achieve Governmental power seems to be extremely detrimental to the development of the country at large.
The Opposition in Parliament is considered a vital component in Parliamentary democracy.
Duties and responsibilities of the Opposition in Parliament are not defined in the Constitution or any other document. “Duty prescribes person’s behavior primarily for some purpose other than his/her own interest.
It is the regulation of his/her conduct in the interest of another or others. It is in most abstracted form the idea of duty may be stated simply as a prescriptive pattern of conduct that is legally recognised” (Quoted from Jurisprudence by Dias).
When there is no duty there is a tendency the conduct of that person or group of persons cannot be regularised. The conduct and behaviour of members of Opposition and its leader could be cited as a classic example for that kind of irregular behavior.
Mandate
The duty ought to be of the Opposition in Parliamentary democracy could be cited in brief as follows. “Support the Government to give effect to the mandate given by the people at the General Election. Demonstrate the capacity of the Opposition to takeover Governmental responsibility being an alternative to the ruling party in Parliament. Convincing the people that the Opposition has more effective alternative solutions for the challenges confronted by Government” and so on.
Although the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to air the voice of his supporters he has no right to use undemocratic ways and means to misdirect people against a democratically elected Government. What exactly the Leader of Opposition and some of his allies in Parliament are doing at present seemed to be quite contrary to the duties ought to be of the Opposition.
Irregular and irresponsible behaviour of the Opposition in Parliament is considered the biggest obstacle for overall development of this country.
The pathetic situation is that there is no effective mechanism in traditional Parliamentary democracy to control this kind of behaviour. Hiding behind Parliamentary Privileges, the Opposition takes mean advantage to sabotage the performance of the President and the Government.
Predicts
He obstructs whatever progressive measures taken by Government for no valid reasons. He predicts in advance adverse consequences of each and every development project launched by the Government even much prior to the commercial operation of projects concerned has commenced.
He makes open declarations to the general public and to the prospective investors all over the world that he would revoke restructure or cancel some selected development projects whether FDI or otherwise when he comes to power (for an example Port City Development Project). He organises and activates pseudonymous protests, rallies against the Government camouflaging trivial issues as mega issues using hired labour (for an example protest rallies over fertilisers issue and the gas issue).
His reaction over the effort made by Government to control the pandemic situation seems to be an act of sabotage although the Government has controlled the pandemic situation successfully. He has no courtesy to appreciate the achievement of the Government in controlling of the pandemic situation.
It has been observed that the sole intention behind his behavior seems to be nothing but to sabotage progressive measures taken by the Government and to antagonise the people against the President and Government.
He has challenged to topple the Government. After toppling the Government, has he got any alternative plan to sort out challenges confronted by Government at present? If that kind of plan is available with him why can’t he stretch it out for the information of general public? Otherwise his statement on toppling the Government is considered as a sheer hoax and lack of credibility.
Appropriate
Franchise vested with the people is also considered a very important component of Parliamentary democracy. Although universal franchise was introduced to this country since 1931, appropriate literacy for using it effectively is yet to be improved among illiterate constituents.
It is a fact that some considerable number of voters do not exercise proper care to use their vote effectively and as a result thousands of ballot papers would be spoiled in each and every election.
Voters would become prey to the undue influence caused by corrupt politicians and their henchmen at the election campaign. Voters are not in a position to take an independent decision as to whom they should cast their vote due to the aggressive campaign carried out by media together with partisan politicians who promote their agendas through such a campaign on the one hand and lack of strength to refuse political bribes offered at the election campaigns due to poverty on the other.
Election laws are not sharp enough on the one hand and the lethargic approach of the authorities concerned to implement the laws to arrest this situation on the other hand, paved the way to turn franchise in Parliamentary democracy as faded and ineffective.
Slow movement in the process of decision making and implementation of decisions seemed to be a common deficiency in Parliamentary democracy, due to the fact that the Legislature and Executive have to satisfy the interests of various political parties who are considered stake holders of the ruling party.
The Executive Presidency seems to be an effective solution for certain deficiencies in a Parliamentary democracy in Sri Lanka. Having experienced those deficiencies throughout his career in Parliamentary politics, President J. R. Jayawardena had defended the Executive Presidency as follows:
Existence
“Executive Presidency is chosen directly by the people and is not dependent on the legislature during the period of its existence. Such an Executive is a strong Executive, not subjected to the whims and fancies of an elected legislature, not afraid to take correct but unpopular decisions because of censure from its Parliamentary party. This seems to be a very necessary requirement in a developing country faced with grave problems such as we are faced today ” (extract from the Biography of President J. R. Jayewardene).
On the observation of performance of past Parliaments from 1978 with that of the performance of contemporary Executive Presidents, it has been observed that Executive Presidents who had commanded the support of the required majority of members of legislature had become more effective and efficient in the process of decision making, converting of decisions to actions and achieving set targets.
Converting of a closed economy of this country to a liberalised economy, the establishment of export processing zones, completion and implementation of the accelerated Mahaweli Project by President Jayewardene, eradication of the LTTE outfit which had devastated this country over a period of 30 years, implementation and successfully completion of several mega projects such as express highways, international habours, airport, stadiums, Port City, and so on by President Mahinda Rajapaksa and managing of the Covid-19 pandemic first, second and third waves successfully by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa could be cited as clear-cut instances for effective decision making and implementation of same effectively by Executive Presidents’ whereas contemporary legislature sans Executive Presidency wouldn’t have been capable to make such decisions and implementation of same so effectively.
However, the continuous conflict between Parliamentarians and the Executive Presidency is considered a grave deficiency in efficient and effective functioning of the Government and the Executive in the Sri Lankan context of Parliamentary democracy.
Election
The present system does not warrant Parliamentarians to impose supremacy over the Executive President due to the fact that the President is elected by the people through an election and he represents the whole nation, whereas each Parliamentarian represents his or her constituency.
It has become absolutely necessary to eliminate deficiencies referred above to in Parliamentary democracy in this country in the process of drafting a new Constitution, instead of making patch work to the existing system which is considered virtually an ineffective mechanism.
The writer holds a BA Spl Degree, University of Ceylon 1967, MBA – SJU, Retired Executive Director – BOI, HRM Consultant on Fiscal Reform Program -ADB Inland Revenue Department 2005, Lecturer in HRM and HRD – American College of Higher Studies, (2002/2003) Management Consultant since 2006 up to date – Multinational Group of FDI Companies