Sri Lanka: To Democracy or Not to Democracy?

What should Sri Lanka do?

“Chaos prevails in Sri Lankan Parliament as leaders hurl chilli powder, furniture”

For the first 2 millennia of our recorded history (~500 BCE to 1500 CE), Sri Lanka was an absolute monarchy. For the next ~450 years, it was ruled by European powers who were in turn absolute or (vaguely) constitutional monarchies.

We have been a democracy for a relatively insignificant 75 years. And when I say “been a democracy” — I do not imply things have been perfect. Our democracy has been marred by violence, corruption, and exclusion.

While the last couple of elections in Sri Lanka have been relatively free and fair, the politicians elected have been, with a few exceptions, abysmal. This begs the question — “What’s wrong with our democracy?”

And more significantly, “Is democracy the right way for Sri Lanka?”

Reading so far, you might assume that I am skeptical about democracy. You might even assume that I am opposed to democracy, and am directly or indirectly proposing an alternative.

If so, you misunderstand me. Let me summarize my feelings towards democracy.

Qualities of Democracy

1. Democracy is an emergent phenomenon caused by development, equity, enlightenment, and identity. In a nation with development, equity, enlightenment and identity, democracy emerges as a pragmatic and effective form of government. There is no special justification for that, other than it works.
2. The causal relationship is not true in reverse. I.e., democracy does not necessarily cause development, equity, enlightenment, and identity. There are plenty of nations which are democratic which do not have development, equity, enlightenment, and identity, nor have an increased chance of achieving these by adopting democracy.
3. Many nations (including some of the most successful democracies) took undemocratic paths to democracy. A “bad means doesn’t justify good ends” argument does not work in this case, because “no-democracy” in isolation is not necessarily bad.

So, what should Sri Lanka do?

As Sri Lankans we should not be overly obsessed by Democracy as a virtue by itself. Instead, we should focus on the causal factors out of which democracy will emerge.

• Development. While Sri Lanka has achieved significant development in the last couple of decades, the job is by no means complete. We should focus on continued development, particularly in terms of technology, product development and intellectual property.
• Equity. Sri Lanka is, to a substantial extent, controlled by a small elite of wealthy, influential people. Law and Order, and Institutions are, to a considerable extent, subservient to this elite. The most effective way to create an equitable society is to make institutions, and law and order, strong, and the elite weak. Again, technology might come to the rescue.
• Enlightenment. While Sri Lanka has a literate population, it is still somewhat backward in terms of intellectual freedom. Philosophy and thought are still very much grounded in religious texts and feudal identities. Technology and the internet have mostly made things worse. We need to find ways of turning this around, including finding more enlightening uses of technology.
• Identity. Last and most important. Sri Lanka has no national identity. We have various racial, religious, caste, class, and even “old-school” identities, but these always trump the national identity. Hence, everyone is more Sinhala, Hindu, Govigama, “English-Speaking” or “Old Royalist” than they are Sri Lankan. Our country needs a strong identity and a unifying story.

If we achieve progress in these dimensions, we will get democracy for free. If we just blindly focus on democracy (because it is the right thing), then we will probably end up like “Democratic” Republic of the Congo.