SL: ROLE OF MINORITY PARTIES AND VOTERS!!!

Minority parties and the role of minority voters in Sri Lanka’s political landscape


By Suraj Deen
According to people in the know, dissolution of parliament is imminent, perhaps a few months away. While the merits and demerits of dissolution are debatable, one fact remains unassailable; that elections put the minority parties in a quandary. In a covertly racial society, the legacy of minority parties is unenviable, because they symbolize the complexities of a racially divided nation and a belligerent ethno-majoritarian politics practised without purpose or vision in our country.

This lack of purpose is evidenced by today’s political rhetoric. The governing collective will beseech the electorate to return them to power to finish off the war. While a political solution will remain a distant dream, issues such as good governance and development will take a back seat. It is well known that Sri Lanka’s divided polity votes on racial and religious lines, returning a divided parliament. The elected will jostle for position and perks disregarding the will of their electors. Various incentives will be dangled in front of potential cross over candidates. Without resorting to horse trading mainstream parties will not stand the remotest chance at regaining power. Trial balloons have already been floated to test the air. In the well of parliament both sides promote the need for an all encompassing grand alliance. The minority parties would capitulate eventually being forced to form alliances with the mainstream political parties, ostensibly to “serve the people”. Thus unfolds our shameless litany of political failure.

A new election is another occasion for the minorities to feel let down again, and rue their inability to contribute to a lasting solution to the problems afflicting our country. As a dream recedes, so does the dignity and the fight to live with equality and respect.

The minority electorate must reflect on the value of fringe parties as they become increasingly disillusioned with their inability to play a constructive role in policy making at the centre. Minority parties too realize that they are getting progressively marginalized; yet will remain captive within the present system. This is particularly true of those parties operating outside the northern theater of war. Today, an election is no contest at all for the minority parties as it is actually a battle for self preservation of the minority party politicians. The voter on the other hand is disinterested because the political system does not provide a window to present their viewpoint, leading to widening of the chasm between the voter and their party.

This is one challenge that the minority parties know well. That challenge encompasses finding meaningful ways to get electors engaged. Voter apathy is not the only challenge; the other is to keep their membership from falling prey to political deception. All minority parties have had to bear the ignominy of defection by elected members to the ruling coalition.

A strategy that minority parties have adopted is to align themselves to the major political parties. Thus they concede albeit indirectly, that they cannot garner enough voter interest on their own.

The minority parties face a common dilemma because they appeal to a narrow polity based on communal lines. Their core claim is that they are the voice of the aggrieved minority dedicated to upholding minority rights. They would argue that in a country where the majority votes on party lines aligned to race-based politics, the small minorities are not left with much choice but organize themselves along racial lines to combat ingrained mistrust and lack of equality. The argument is that asking the voter of one minority community to vote along racial lines could boost the chances of equity for the minorities. Strategically, is this the route the minority parties should follow?

While the intention of the writer is not to dwell too much into the history of the politics of this country, it is thought suffice to make one or two salient points. Firstly, unlike most democracies, Sri Lankan politics is based on ethno-racial lines. The birth of the precursor to the SLFP, the SMS and the Tamil Congress, the countervailing Tamil party were all clearly based on racial and religious lines. The UNP too has always had ultra-conservative racial underpinnings, colouring their ideology. Even to this day we do not have a truly secular party.

Secondly, our country’s lack of a sustainable economic policy framework, compounded by opposing economic policies of the two main political parties led to inconsistent economic development. The SLFP advocated social distribution as an ideology, while the UNP has clearly followed the capitalist path of free enterprise. The only common ground was that the two political parties fundamentally identified themselves with the majority Sinhala Buddhists on language and religion. The minorities were aligned to the UNP because the market economic policies of the UNP afforded opportunities for free enterprise. As long as there was no threat to their basic rights, the minorities were willing to go along with policies that were to the advantage of majority race. Thus minorities, who were under-represented in the government and other institutions, needed the UNP to further their livelihood through private enterprise and the informal sector.

Clearly the policies of both these parties sought to limit the mobility of the minorities, on lines of language. Separate Muslim and Tamil schools were created. Existing popular schools became Buddhist schools overnight. Politicization of the state led to employment opportunities being dished out on party lines and therefore by default on racial lines. While the minorities make nearly 25 per cent of the population, their representation in government is well below par. The minorities therefore were kept away from matters of the state by the unstated policy of majoritarian appeasement.

The enactment of the 1978 constitutional changes institutionalized some of the fears of the minorities. The new constitution however created a window of opportunity for the representation of the minority voice in parliament. This was a voice in the wilderness as over the years, the majority party leaders failed to take cognizance of the aspirations of the minorities. For the first time, those disillusioned with the centre had a choice. A significant number of minority voters flocked to these parties and embraced the new reality with boundless enthusiasm. However the inability of these parties to articulate minority concerns has resulted in further disenchantment, and in the case of Tamils, militancy.

The 1978 Constitution also paved the way for other fringe parties with extremist views. These parties saw their opportunity and aligned themselves with majoritarian politics.

The SLMC and TNA are ramifications of half a century of ethnocentric mainstream politics and seek to win their due rights (meaning the minorities) based on race. The CWC may perhaps be the exception. These three parties face the same challenges. One such challenge faced by the minorities is gaining acceptance as serious entities that protect the rights of minorities, instead of being perceived as racist, communal minded parties.

Internal squabbles apart; the SLMC is perhaps the most desecrated minority party because of its commitment to pursue the rights of the Muslim minority.

The Muslims, wherever they live, have over the years sought to integrate with the Sinhala and Tamil communities. The Tamils believe a common identity based on “language” binds the Muslims with them. While Tamil may be a shared language the Muslims remain a distinct ethno –religious minority. Despite a few cultural commonalities across the two communities, ideologically the Muslims have always looked to inclusion and accommodation within the mainstream political parties. They are also an economically active enterprising group and need unfettered access to opportunities for growth. That in essence is Muslim politics.

To be cont.,
dailymirror.lk