By Rohan Samarajiva/Daily Mirror

Colombo, February 6 (Daily Mirror): Sri Lanka is a country emerging from the worst economic crisis since the time of the Great Depression (1929-1939). Falling back into a time of shortages and immiseration is all too easy. Reforms are needed to control, if not remove, the causes of our despair. That places a premium on effective governing.

Yet, it appears that our elected rulers keep falling back into what they are good at, campaigning. The multiplicity of staggered elections that our country is afflicted by is a contributory cause. In this context, it is worrisome that those in authority, both in the ruling party and in the opposition, appear to be enamoured with the idea of introducing provisions to recall elected officials, among others. Do we need more election campaigns? Or do we need to hold elections according to a timetable (where possible simultaneously as in the US) that maximizes time between elections?

Experience of Others

When the state of California faced a crisis of legitimacy in the early part of the 20th Century, a series of measures associated with direct democracy such as recall elections and propositions were adopted.

Since 1913 there have been 179 attempts to recall elected officials. Twelve recall efforts collected enough signatures to require the holding of recall elections; in six, the official was recalled and replaced. An example was the replacement of Governor Gray Davis by the actor and politician Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The asset-declaration provisions enacted in the Anti-Corruption Act, No. 9 of 2023, have made a start on this problem, but the full results can only be assessed after prosecutions have been conducted and convictions obtained

There were two attempts to recall the current Governor of California, Gavin Newsom. He was elected in 2018 with 61.9 percent of the vote. There was an attempt to recall Newsom in 2021 but he beat back the challenge and was re-elected in 2022 garnering 59.2 percent of the vote. There was an unsuccessful attempt to gather signatures for a recall in 2024. What this means is that he has conducted four campaigns to get elected and to retain his job since in the past seven years.

When faced with recall, the elected official has no alternative but to raise funds and campaign to save his or her job. This distracts from governing and makes the official beholden to those who supply funds for the campaigns.

It is a pity that politicians and opinion leaders promote measures such as recall elections without looking at actual practice. Even now, we have politicians who give priority to getting re-elected over governing. Even now, our political processes are corrupted by the excessive costs of campaigns. Why would we want to reinforce these bad aspects in the name of enhancing democracy?

Beyond Representative Democracy?

There is little debate about the dysfunctions of the current model of political-party-based representative democracy. There is no internal democracy within parties, resulting in the offering up of flawed candidates, mostly men, and the exclusion of better ones. Unregulated campaign financing led to massive advantages for incumbents and for corruption, or at least privileged access to law-making and executive processes by the moneyed few. The asset-declaration provisions enacted in the Anti-Corruption Act, No. 9 of 2023, have made a start on this problem, but the full results can only be assessed after prosecutions have been conducted and convictions obtained.

We must, therefore, strive to remedy the existing systems. We must overcome the belief that democracy begins with the commencement of election campaigns and ends with the announcement of results.

It is true that citizens must make a living, support their families, and engage in a multitude of social and civic activities and that they lack the resources for full-time engagement in politics and policy making. But it is still possible to engage them in governance while taking into account the above constraints. One solution is to further develop public consultation processes, for example by compensating those who participate for the resulting loss of income.

Reforms are needed to control, if not remove, the causes of our despair. That places a premium on effective governing

The Sectoral Oversight Committees that were established during the Yahapalana government, suspended by the Gotabaya government, and reactivated in 2022 offer an easier path. This combines features of representative democracy and people’s participation. It is puzzling that a government that talks so much about people’s participation has so far not activated this mechanism.

This conversation must continue parallel to the big issues of constitution making. But it is vitally important to fully assess all proposed remedies to ensure that they are no worse than the malady. Campaigning cannot be a substitute for effective governing.

https://www.dailymirror.lk/opinion/The-fine-line-between-campaigning-and-governing/231-301760

END