Could Party Politics Resolve Ongoing National Crisis in Sri Lanka?

It has been observed that divisive politics is one of the inborn deficiencies in party politics although political parties are considered as vital components of Parliamentary Democracy. It is not possible to activate representative democracy or parliamentary democracy without political parties.

Professor Von Beyme, Head of the Institute of Political Science at the University of Heidelberg, in his book titled “Political Parties in Western Democracies” has pointed out that “political parties are often defined as power oriented organizations aiming at governmental responsibilities without accepting a share in the burden of running a government which pursue the goal of placing their avowed representatives in governmental position”.

From the perspective of the above definition it may be noted that the prime effort of a political party in parliamentary democracy seems to be the capturing of governmental power. Running the government effectively for the benefit of the people in accordance with the vision of the people seems to be a secondary effort, and not so prominent when compared to the prime effort. Furthermore, it seems the political party or the coalition of political parties concerned tends to act irresponsibly after capturing of power without accepting a share in the burden of running the government.

An attempt has been made in this article to find out up to what extent this definition is applicable to the conduct and behaviour of political parties which represent the people of this country in Parliament within the present context of Parliamentary Democracy.

Article 4(a)(b) and (c) of Chapter 01 of the Constitution states inter alia that “the sovereignty of the people shall be exercised in the manner that the legislative power of the people shall be exercised by Parliament consisting of elected representatives of the people, the executive power of the people shall be exercised by the President elected by the people and the judicial power of the people shall be exercised by the Parliament through Courts, Tribunals and the Institutions created, established or recognized by the Constitution. 

However what is happening in reality is quite contrary to the above provisions set out in the Constitution. A political party or a coalition of parties which secures the majority of seats in Parliament through the election takes over the governmental power of the people into its hand and implements agendas of the political party concerned and individual agendas of the members of Parliament who are affiliated to the political parties which holds governmental power, disregarding national interest and election manifestoes endorsed by the people at the elections.

Although Members of Parliament who are affiliated to the political party or coalition of parties in governmental power have pretended that they implement the election manifesto endorsed by the people, it does not mean that they cater to national interests, due to the fact that election manifestoes are considered as strategic documents used by political parties at the election campaigns to influence people to use their franchise in favour of the political party or collective of political parties contesting at the election. In other words, election manifestos are not the “products” of the people. They are considered as an ‘exaggerated set of promises’ (which are far from reality) placed before the general public by political parties, to attract the attention of the voters. The need of the people is that the political party in governmental power should form national policies and implement the same instead of ad-hoc policies adopted from time to time based on their whims and fancies.

Although Article 03 of Chapter 01 of the Constitution states that “sovereignty includes the power of government, fundamental rights and franchise”, people have no alternative within Parliamentary Democracy but to surrender these powers to the political party or coalition of parties that holds governmental power after the election for a period of five years or a prescribed period given in the Constitution. There is no mechanism in Parliamentary Democracy for people to control effectively the conduct and behaviour of political parties which are detrimental to national interests within that period (except their power of franchise to be used at the next election). 

In addition to the major division as the ruling party and the Opposition, several multiple divisions could also emerge based on the individual agendas of Members of Parliament affiliated to those political parties. Multiple splits within the ruling party and in the Opposition, and crossovers from one side to the other are common features in Parliamentary Democracy in this country from its inception up to the current controversial situation in Parliament. It is IMPOSSIBLE to maintain stability and unity within Parliament due to this kind of divisive politics.

In party politics we have experienced that if no single political party is able to secure a majority of seats in Parliament, the formation of a coalition to establish the government would be the only alternative. This situation is the outcome of the multiplicity of political parties which contest the election. Multiplicity is in fact considered as an inborn deficiency in party politics where each and every politician prefers to be a leader of a political party as there is a possibility to secure at least a ministerial portfolio, if entry to Parliament is possible by any chance at the election, while being a leader of a political party. This tendency in party politics has paved way for a multiplicity of political parties on one hand, and disunity among parties on the other. As far as disunity exists in Parliament it is not possible to resolve any crisis.

Coalition governments are considered as collectives of several political parties together to share governmental power. It has been observed that they can’t secure long lasting unity and strength required for the effective implementation of government policies. The worst consequence of multi-party politics is that major shareholders of governmental power have to depend on mini-political parties to establish the majority required for the formation of a stable government. This situation has paved way for minorities to dictate terms to the majority on one hand, and it obstructs the unity and consensus needed between the majority and the minorities on the other, due to the fact that being a party representing the minorities in current politics in this country would be an advantage for that party to manipulate the majority party in order to implement hidden agendas of minority which would be detrimental to the formation of national unity. The demand agitated by the alliance of political parties representing the Tamil Community for an ‘Elam’ or a ‘separate state’ is one of the classic instances of corrupt politics which obstructs national unity.

Article 04(c) in chapter 01 of the Constitution states inter alia “The Judicial power of the people shall be exercised by Parliament through Courts, Tribunals and Institutions created and established or recognized by the Constitution or created and established by Law, except in regard to the matters relating to the privileges, immunities and powers of Parliament and of its members wherein judicial power of the people may be exercised directly by Parliament according to law”.

In the process of practicing party politics in Parliament it has been observed that some members of Parliament who are affiliated to some political parties have got accustomed to abusing parliamentary privileges granted under Article 04(c), to defend their misconducts and misbehaviours which would have been otherwise challenged, and are punishable under the common law of the country in an ordinary Court of Law. Some critics have pointed out that the majority of Members of Parliament could keep in abeyance some directives given by a Court of Law to the ruling party in Parliament, pretending the directives so given are detrimental to Parliamentary privileges. Further they have pointed out that the abuse of Parliamentary privileges in this manner is tantamount to the violation of one of the fundamental principles “equality before law”   under Rule of Law concept. 

What is the duty and responsibility of the ruling party and the Opposition in Parliament? “Duty is a conduct to which people ought to conform” (quoted from Jurisprudence by R.W.M. Dias). However, in stark contrast, the representatives elected by the people to Parliament implement agendas of the political parties that they are affiliated to, deviating from what people expected for them. 

Politicians who practice self-centric and divisive party politics in Parliament should hold responsibility for the political crisis that has emerged in this country at present. 

The writer is a 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