Can a democracy fail?

Nobel laureate Amartya Sen has changed the way economists think about such issues as collective decision-making, welfare economics and measuring poverty. He is famous for his assertion that famines do not occur in democracies. “No famine has ever taken place in the history of the world in a functioning democracy,” he wrote in his seminal work ‘Democracy as Freedom’. This, he explained, is because democratic Governments “have to win elections and face public criticism, and have strong incentive to undertake measures to avert famines and other catastrophes.”

Sen argues that Democracy is the best way to avoid famines partly because of its ability to use a free press, and he points to the Indian experience since independence to confirm this theory. India which had over 20 large scale famines during the 200 years under colonial administration has had none since independence in 1947. According to this school of thought famines and abject poverty are easy to prevent if there is a democratic Government, facing elections and criticisms from opposition parties and an independent media.

Sri Lanka’s current economic crisis has precipitated a warning by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe that there could be food shortages by August. While a large-scale famine may be avoided it does beg the question how Asia’s oldest continuous democracy ended up in such a sad state contradicting the assertions made by the likes of Amartya Sen. It cannot simply be coincidence that the worst deterioration of democracy in the country and its catastrophic economic collapse has occurred simultaneously and its economy collapsed within two years of enacting the most anti-democratic constitutional amendments. The 20th amendment to the constitution marks the lowest point of constitutional evolution in the country. This amendment removed many checks and balances that were placed on the executive and bestowed unprecedented power in an individual holding the office of President.

Parliament which by law has custody of the State’s finances was relegated to a rubber stamping institution that was void of any oversight authority. Neither the Governor of the Central Bank, Secretary to the Treasury or the numerous Ministers of Finance were subjected to any scrutiny by Parliament while they were making obvious policy mistakes. Had this been done there would have been opportunities for course correction and avoidance of the current calamity.   The fact that an executive presidential system locks in a term of office for the incumbent with little chance of impeachment removes much of the democratic incentives that Amartya Sen argues will guide policy makers in a multi-party system to make the right choices. The supposed stability of this fixed term ‘un impeachable’ presidency is the very reason there is agitation on the streets calling for President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to be held accountable for the economic catastrophe he has brought about.

A Parliamentary system instead would have provided the necessary stability through the strength of their democratic institutions rather than single individuals with unmitigated power. A Prime Minister can be changed often without the whole system collapsing as seen in the United Kingdom in recent years and in India in the late 1990s. Herein is the lesson for Sri Lanka as yet another Constitutional amendment is being discussed. It is imperative that the proposed 21st Amendment not only restores all the features of the repealed 19th amendment it should further strengthen the oversight role of Parliament and ensure the independence of the judiciary and the public service.

There will not be any economic recovery or political stability as long as we do not address the structural deficiencies in the governance system. Therefore, the 21st Amendment should be considered as a prerequisite to establishing a stable Government and a priority in moving forward.

Sri Lanka failed because it shunned its democratic institutions and principles and its recovery also lies through the acceptance of the same.