These are my thoughts on Democracy.

 

I like to separate the problem of ethical and moral behaviour in humanity from the dilemma of how best to select a system to decide how a Country should be “ruled” or managed or “run”. It is sometimes stated that religious faiths of all kinds, if genuinely interpreted, will be a sound basis for a moral and ethical system of governance. True, but…organised religion is very powerful and can produce many deleterious effects, and that is my worry about religion.

 

Whatever system is chosen, the problem of finding how to ensure that those in the system adopt universal moral laws and implement them justly remains a problem. Many have shown how the major Religions are used, and abused not only in Sri Lanka but throughout the world. Being religious has many meanings. A person could label himself/herself as a follower of a particular faith for multiple reasons, and sadly, all too often, the reason does not arise from a proper understanding leading to a true change in behaviour which will benefit that person and also the wider community. We must face the fact that there will always be people who either believe but do not practice or those who do not believe but use it as a tool for selfish gains. That is a fact and has always been so. This must not stop sincere religious leaders from doing their best to spread the message that labels don’t matter but sincerity matters; deeds , not just words.

 

Democracy has many problems. Some have a narrow view of it as a way of ensuring that a majority group in a heterogeneous population are chosen in a fair and open manner to act as representatives of the people. It is implicit that the minority will have to accept that the majority will now act in a way that primarily suits them. This is a problem, as not heeding minority views is highly ethically questionable. In a non-ideal society, this majority may not pay heed to any minority views as they “have been elected by the people through a fair and just process” and their duty is to satisfy their voters. In an ideal society, the majority will do their best to listen, take into account and modify plans where the basic ethos is maintained with some modifications to be fair and “democratic”. They will need to compromise, not dictate, not discard. Various methods have been tried. Proportional representation, a second House, referenda on some key issues etc,

 

But I don’t know of any system that can totally and successfully overcome negative human aspects such as greed (for power and material gain), money, position and nepotism. Voters are often faced with choosing the lesser evil. Voters are also not infallible. Many of them will vote for personal gain, and any expectation that they should think of morality, equality, and fraternity will remain a goal that would probably never be attained. Immoral rulers arise from an immoral society.

 

Setting up an independent judiciary sounds very attractive. It presupposes that this is possible. Do independent, fair, honest, principled people exist? They probably do, but finding them is difficult, especially when their appointment is influenced by those lacking these characteristics.

 

Democracy depends on the majority vote, and many believe that the most able and honest are a minority in society, implying that the system does not allow for them to surface. Plato’s solution was to restrict parliament to those with a certain level of education and ability. This is “undemocratic”! There was a time when a registered voter needed to have a minimum level of education. This, too, makes the mistake that morality and high principles are correlated with age and maturity. Age is taken into account to be more inclusive, suggesting that you are necessarily wiser when you are older. There was a time (in the bad old days) when women were not allowed to vote because they were “inferior”. In the UK long ago, only the rich and elite could vote.

 

A person or a group of people could conclude that they know best, and Dictatorships are born. But it is the principle that matters. No one can take on the mantel of a self-appointed saviour. Theoretically, a benevolent, clever, and honest dictator could be a saviour, quite the opposite of the possibility of a psychopathic, dishonourable one.

Fairness is promoted (so some like to think) by limiting the period of rule, and it does work in some ways but leads to difficulties in implementing plans and short-termism. In a classic 5 year rule, the first year or so is spent undoing the “damage” done by the previous government and the last 2 are spent preparing to maintain power in the next elections.

 

I don’t know what the ideal system is, but until such is found, I favour democracy in a manner that is adapted for each country. I think a second House with minority representatives, religious representatives, and eminent, well-respected people in society is a good thing. I would favour keeping priests of any denomination in their temples, churches, and mosques without political prominence. Providing support to them in community activities that lead to justice, equity, and a more balanced society is reasonable.

 

Most importantly, the justice system has to be robust so that nobody with power, privilege, connections, or influence can escape the rule of law. Punishment in the next birth as a suitable deterrent may work for a few but not for most. Reward and punishment from a Deity have a similar appeal.