The Island June 11, 2020
Veluppillai Thangavelu
General Election on August 05
June 10, 2020, 9:15 pm
By Ranil Dharmasena
A gazette announcing that the general election would be held on Aug. 5, 2020 was issued yesterday. It was signed by Chairman of the Election Commission (EC) Mahinda Deshapriya and its members N.J. Abeyesekera and Ratnajeevan Hoole.
Addressing the media, earlier in the day, Deshapriya said that the members of the Commission unanimously decided to hold the 2020 General Election on Aug 5.
The gazette indicating preferential vote numbers of the candidates and the designated polling stations was published on Tuesday.
The parliamentary election was to be held on April 25 but had to be postponed due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, which prompted the authorities to announce a nationwide lockdown from March 20.
Later, the EC postponed the election to June 20. Subsequently, it was further postponed.
The EC, this week held a mock poll, in the Galle District.
Deshapriya said there would be five more such mock polls soon to assess how long it would take to cast votes in keeping with the health guidelines.
President Gotabaya Rajapaksa under the provisions of the Constitution on March 2 called a parliamentary election six months ahead of the schedule after dissolving Parliament.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vital issues in democratic rule emerging in US
June 10, 2020, 12:00 pm
How many top heads would roll in US ruling circles in the wake of the current ethnicity-based unrest in that country? Given President Donald Trump’s notorious lack of patience with those in his administration who are seen by him as being at cross-purposes with him and his government, this question forces itself on the commentator.
There is the case of no less a person than Defence Secretary Mark Esper, for example, who is on record as having opposed the President on the latter’s decision to send in troops to US cities to quell the present civil unrest. It is reported that Trump was very close to sacking his fourth Defence Secretary but was counselled into not doing so. On the contrary, Trump went on to compliment Esper on his handling of law and order issues.
Considering the US President’s ‘short-fuse’ in handling dissent, such restraint is remarkable although Trump is unlikely to forget this veritable affront. Nevertheless, even the most severe critics of the US would need to admit that current autocracy-oriented governance in the US allows a degree of tolerance. That is, wise counsel could prevail.
However, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, described as a ‘moderate Republican’, may not be as fortunate Esper. Agreeing with former Defence Secretary Gen. Jim Mattis in his criticism of President Trump’s decision to send in troops, Murkowski said: ‘I thought General Mattis’ words were true and honest and necessary and overdue.’ Trump has vowed to campaign against Murkowski at the upcoming congressional elections to ensure her defeat.
Earlier, former Defence Secretary Mattis reportedly said of the decision to deploy troops in US cities: ‘Donald Trump is the first President in my lifetime who does not unite the American people – does not even pretend to try – instead he tries to divide us.’
Accordingly, informed dissent is possible in US governing circles, if even to a degree, and we have here more than a glimpse of what a democratic culture is essentially all about. Briefly, it is also about constructively criticizing even one’s foremost political leaders’ decisions in an open, frank and enlightened fashion. It is about standing up for one’s convictions even if it involves putting one’s top job on the firing line. In other words, conscience-based politics is possible in the US. The US may not be a consistent epitome of democratic and value-based governance but it needs to be asked: is such occasional informed dissent possible in some of those states that proclaim ‘democratic socialism’ and other forms of people-based rule?
As an important ‘aside’, it should be said that political systems need to be open to each other’s ‘positives’ and integrate such constructive features into one’s system, eschewing in the process dogmatic and mindless ideological opposition to systems that one has been taught to perceive as ‘enemy territory’.
Today, the international economy’s complexities are such that states need to fashion their external policies on a pragmatic foundation. Currently, it is most inadvisable to have ‘sworn enemy states’. It was such pragmatism that prompted China to open-up to the US in the early seventies and such openness has, of course, paid off for China. However, the US could do with some strong socialist principles in economic management in particular, but these are subjects by themselves and beyond the scope of this commentary.
What is noteworthy about the US at present is that criticism of President Trump’s policy decisions has been flowing in from both Democratic and Republican quarters. There is non-partisan opposition to what is seen as going against the US’ most vital interests. Some of these critics represent very significant sections of Republican opinion. Along with Mattis, former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Martin Dempsey, for instance, said of Trump’s pronouncements to use state coercion to put down the current unrest: ‘President Trump’s remarks are very troubling and dangerous.’
Besides these opinion trends, one of the most visible proofs of relative democratic vibrancy in the US, is the coming together of almost all ethnicities to protest the death at the hands of the police of George Floyd. The public could be said to be speaking in one voice for more democratic development and law and order reform in the US. In fact, ethnic violence in the US is becoming a matter of considerable international concern.
Public involvement of these proportions in the drive for multi-dimensional reform is tantamount to ‘democracy in action’. It is hoped that this campaign would not run out of steam. It will be in the interest of democratic development the world over for freedom-loving people everywhere to keep the campaign for reform alive and result-oriented.
It cannot be stressed enough that democratic development should be a worldwide concern. Broadly speaking, while the West’s most vibrant democracies embody a degree of economic freedom, it is the remaining couple of socialist countries that exemplify to some extent economic equality. As mentioned, we need a coming together in a single system of economic freedom and equality. This is a challenge for both North and South.
However, equality is multi-dimensional. Among other things, the US unrest establishes that democracy is also about respecting the multiple identities of people, including ethnicity, religion and language. Those countries of the South that consider themselves democratic need to take cognizance of these requirements.
Sri Lanka is heading for another parliamentary poll and one wonders to what extent the country’s political parties and the public are ready to take on the above issues. It would be a matter of prime interest to find out whether any Sri Lankans domiciled in the US are participating in the pro-reform protests currently sweeping the country. After all, white extremists consider persons of even Asian origin as ‘blacks’. Accordingly, all Sri Lankans in the West are conscience-bound to join the protests against racial and colour discrimination.
As another election day draws near for Sri Lankans they would do well to bear in mind that it just would not do to have only the trappings of democracy, such as ritualistically marking ballot papers. Democracy is also about value and conscience-based politics. A vital yardstick of democracy is the citizen’s ability to constructively criticize those seen as wielding power in the land on the basis of convictions and values. Sri Lanka must make the latter possible or be prepared to be seen as an aborted democratic experiment.