The need for a strong democratic Opposition

By Devaka Gunawardena

The next few months leading up to Parliamentary Elections are likely to be crucial for democracy in Sri Lanka. Although the current Government led by Gotabaya Rajapaksa scored a victory against a fractured Opposition, only a united stand will be able to prevent hard authoritarian consolidation. 

The competition between parties regarding who should be the Presidential Candidate is over. Now the question is whether parties across the Opposition spectrum can win enough seats collectively—or, more than a third of Parliament—to keep the space for minimally functioning democracy open. To achieve this, however, requires articulating a coherent political direction that can empower demoralised forces.

Whether or not a formal coalition is announced, the current priority is to explain from a broad perspective why a basic institution of democracy, Parliament, is itself necessary. Nothing can be taken for granted in this process. Moreover, to win over voters, fragmented Opposition forces don’t have much time to convince people of their respective programs. Instead, the role they play now depends on responding to what the current Government will do.  

Among some who voted for Gotabaya this may be self-explanatory: having won the election, his Government should be able to act without constraints, up to and including being able to change the constitution at will. But others who voted for Gotabaya to teach the previous Government a lesson, so to speak, may not necessarily endorse the entire range of intended authoritarian changes, such as repealing the 19th Amendment if the current Government wins a two thirds majority. The Opposition needs to distinguish among these voters and speak directly to people in the latter camp by acknowledging mistakes while highlighting the dangers of untrammelled power. On the other hand, if the previous Government couldn’t even carry out its basic pledges, from prosecuting corruption, to initiating a constitutional referendum—and its non-SLPP Opposition couldn’t offer a coherent alternative, for that matter—why should the same politicians be trusted in Parliament? The difference is that, rather than justifying why a given party or coalition should govern, the fragmented Opposition forces must now emphasise the role of Parliament as a democratic forum, period. This forum has a critical role to play in shaping the public’s understanding of the potential authoritarian consolidation of power. Theoretically, maintaining it would be a win-win for any Government and its Opposition, according to the basic parameters of liberal democracy. After all, if the new Government claims to be efficient, isn’t transparency a necessary component of a properly run administration?

More importantly, though, the overarching concept of accountability must be emphasised in political, not technocratic, terms. This is where the Opposition must acknowledge its own mistakes. Many people were understandably frustrated that the previous Government was not only ineffective but seemed to ignore democratic processes. It arrogantly chose to operate in the high-level world of international consultants and expert policy makers, including trying to push forward its agenda of trade liberalisation without attempting to win public support. 

The body blow, of course, was the lack of communication between agencies in the run up to the Easter attacks. The SLPP in Opposition identified the underlying ideological incoherence of the Coalition Government, but it used this weakness to impose its own nationalist framing of the issues.

From Government to Opposition

Still, despite the limitations of politicians, regardless of whether they were running the Coalition Government or were opposed to it, the same politicians opposed to the new Government led by Gotabaya must now use Parliament as a space for public critique. 

Some may argue that this will slow down new development projects and undermine coordination within the security apparatus. The Opposition, however, must make the case that if Gotabaya’s Government is truly effective at communicating its goals, it can still win support for structural reforms in parliament, if not by public referendum. The onus should not be suppressing dissent but leadership that can explain and justify the things it wants to do.

On the other hand, the Opposition must also explain why enabling authoritarian consolidation would be disastrous. While rich investors may not care as much because they can lobby the highest levels of the state, for example, there would be no need to include ordinary people in decision-making. 

The most obvious example of course was the tightening of networks of patronage during the previous administration run by Mahinda Rajapaksa. The Coalition Government that succeeded Rajapaksa may have enabled its own forms of corruption, but it should be obvious by now that shutting down oversight of the executive could prove far more consequential in the case of those who are much more experienced and effective at monopolising State resources for private gain. More worryingly, of course, is the potential for repression. If dissidence in the bureaucracy can be contained so easily, as demonstrated by recent high-profile arrests in the short period after the Presidential Election, then what chance do ordinary people have if they engage in protest? What if the army and police suppress the popular expression of grievances on any number of issues, such as price hikes or lack of jobs? 

Again, the previous Rajapaksa administration is an example, given not only its ferocious resistance to scrutiny about the way in which it won the civil war, but also the eventual spread of repression to the South in the form of crackdowns on various protests after the war. Parliament would be the most important space to inquire into and, if necessary, condemn the response to such events.

Accordingly, the upcoming Parliamentary Election should be framed not as a question of replacing “corrupt” politicians with the new regime’s desired personnel, so much as defending a space critical for raising public concerns and holding the executive accountable. 

Even though democratic institutions in their current form are far from adequate, or hardly as representative as they could or should be, the response shouldn’t be to dismantle them for the sake of sheer belief in an individual leader; the expression in form if not content of fascism. The struggle now is to rehearse these arguments for democracy again and again, while prioritising Parliament as the most crucial institution that must be defended in the current moment.

The media and Judiciary are also important institutions, but all roads ultimately lead through the legislature when a new regime is attempting to consolidate power. The fractured Opposition must make itself relevant again by focusing on keeping this institution open, and at the very least maintaining it as a platform to initiate public debate on critical issues. 

Simply put, the Opposition needs to find its backbone quick and work together. The current crop of politicians in Opposition ranks proved incapable, whether governing or offering an alternative program in the previous dispensation. They can still redeem themselves, however, by engaging in a full-throated defence of Parliament as a crucial space for public debate, regardless of who has since won the presidency.