By: punitham

punitham — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 18:29:11 +0000

I am perturbed to find that there is no mention of the several thousands of Tamils from the estates who could not vote for various reasons: i. some could not get the NIDs, ii. some NIDs were snatched from voters iiisome with NIDs did not go out to vote because hwy feared that their NIDs would br snatched. Some form of disenfranchisement?

By: wijayapala

wijayapala — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:02:07 +0000

On the one hand I support all efforts to highlight election violence and disruption of the electoral process. Sri Lankan democracy cannot survive without watchdogs like PAFFREL and CMEV to keep the corrupt politicians in check.

The important role of NGOs in keeping the govt. in check begs the questions why these organizations are not taken very seriously by the Sri Lankan masses? The standard answer given by representatives of the NGOs to this question goes something to the effect that the masses are ignorant, uneducated, foolish, easily-deceived/manipulated by politicians. Because if the masses were not so ignorant and had an ounce of brain cells, they would whole-heartedly embrace the peace/conflict resolution NGOs.

This article provides some evidence of this line of thinking among the NGOs:

Elections and citizen participation

A friend of mine once shared an interesting personal experience that he had had as a returning officer of a polling booth in a Colombo suburb. He had found six people standing at the gate of the school where the polling booth was located two hours before the booth was opened. My friend had asked them to leave the place and come back once the booth opened especially since some of the officials were still not out of their beds at that time. Interestingly, an angry old man from the crowd refused to leave the place, because he though that it was a ploy to break his un broken record of casting the first vote in that village. This signifies how, for some, voting is more of a ritual and civic responsibility than a democratic right and means of holding politicians accountable. Places like schools and temples where polling booths are usually located also may have contributed to the cultivation of this notion amongst the people.

In a representative democracy, elections provide a means through which citizens can choose their representatives to the office and more importantly it provides an opportunity to evaluate the performance of their representative. Therefore, regular elections are a good indication of strong democracies. However, it is doubtful that everyone who participates in an election has this objective in mind when casting their vote.

The author does not distinguish whether this phenomenon of the electorate participating for reasons other than “democratic accountability” is found within 1) all or almost all democracies, or 2) within just Sri Lanka or perhaps a few other “failed states.” If the author’s intent was 1), then he is simply making an academic observation which really does not have any real relevance. If he is arguing that only Sri Lanka faces this situation, then he should have made this more clear.

Voter turnout in “advanced” western democracies is notoriously low, so much so that Western academics contend whether the result of elections really represent a mandate of the people. NGOs within the US often argue that voting is a “civic responsibility” when attempting to increase the turnout.

I think that before I continue, we should receive an answer to the question whether or not the intent of the above section was to reveal the “quality” of the Sri Lankan electorate, implicitly or otherwise.

Comments on: Understanding electoral results in Sri Lanka: Beyond winners and losers

By: punitham

By: wijayapala