brand logo

Are We Really Free?

08 Feb 2022

  • Former Election Commissioner weighs in on the collective responsibilities of maintaining a democratic State
BY Sumudu Chamara What Sri Lankans identify as freedom and how far Sri Lankans can enjoy that so-called freedom are topics that emerge from time to time in various discourses on economic and cultural independence, fundamental rights, reforms in laws and policies, governance, and changing people’s attitudes. While the said topics remain largely subjective matters, the people have their own interpretations and experiences regarding what freedom means to them, and the people’s opinions are a good start to discussing whether Sri Lanka is free in actuality. These matters were the central topics of a discussion held on 5 February under the theme “Are We Really Free?”, which was organised by a youth group named The Youth Café. Former Election Commission Chairman and incumbent Delimitation Commission Chairman Mahinda Deshapriya was the keynote speaker. It was held to coincide with the 74th Independence Day. The discussion on whether Sri Lanka is actually free, according to Deshapriya, first emerged in the 1967-1968 era. That was, however, in a political context, created by a group which came to be known as the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), where the JVP argued that the country was not free.  He explained: “One of the arguments that were presented was that Sri Lanka never really fought for and won freedom from the British colonisers, and that freedom was something that was given. They pointed out that control was transferred to aristocrats, while the Queen of England continued to act as the Head of the Government. At the same time, when independence was given, camps in Trincomalee and Katunayake were not removed. Also, after the 1971 insurgency, it is for waging war against the Queen that cases were filed against the culprits.” He added that the said events further reinforced the notion that Sri Lanka was not a free nation despite having been given independence. He further added: “Through the 1972 first Republican Constitution, which did away with the Soulbury Constitution, some kind of solutions to the said issues were introduced. However, we still say that the country is not economically independent, while earlier, it was also argued that the country was not culturally independent.” Deshapriya also spoke of an opinion popular in the society and on social media platforms; the country’s situation, especially as far as the economy is concerned, would have been better if the colonisers had stayed in the country instead of giving independence. However, Deshapriya said that he wishes to disagree.  He added: “We have to accept that in 1948, we received some form of independence. That is how we got the opportunity to elect our leaders and appoint our own Cabinet of Ministers instead of the Queen being the Head of the State. Although we received voting rights in 1931, the Legislature could not perform as it wanted. However, in 1948, we received the powers to form laws as we wanted. We have to accept that we received a certain freedom.” Pointing out the importance of collective action by the people, he said that the people should gather to demand justice and discuss issues and possible solutions. “Until a strong civil society is created, we will not be able to create an independent country such as in what we identify in the developed world,” he added. At the same time, according to Deshapriya, it is of great importance to identify and address the small elements of the issue, instead of trying to decipher whether Sri Lanka has freedom or not as one big issue; these small elements include how Sri Lankans enjoy and understand freedom, and how they respect others’ freedoms in their day-to-day life. Deshapriya elaborated on the people’s role, noting: “To achieve economic independence and to rise as an independent country, Sri Lanka needs to address the small elements of the larger topic of independence. One thing the independence we got did not do was build good attitudes about living as citizens that do not disturb others, others’ rights, and freedoms. This situation can be seen in other Asian countries that got freedom from the British colonisers such as India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Identifying with a certain community has made people not appreciate diversity.  “In fact, we have lost our freedom because we think that we should work only for our community, and this situation has extended to various aspects of our lifestyle such as religion, language, nation, educational institutes, and profession. We do not have a sense of equality and social justice in a common community, and we have lost the quality of supporting each other. After independence, until around 1970, we upheld those values to some extent. However, later, people were separated and distanced from common communities, and more focus was given to building individual families, which also caused the loss of freedom. Also, it is the competition between each other that caused the loss of freedom of the youth, women, and culture.” It was also noted during the discussion that freedom is something that is interpreted in various ways, and that it often pertains to matters such as democracy and voting rights, which were discussed in the initial era of independence. In addition, with regard to political choices the people have to make in order to ultimately ensure freedom in the country, evaluating politicians’ qualifications, including the education level and skills, when electing them, were also discussed. Deshapriya noted that although requiring politicians and candidates to fulfil certain educational qualifications is a popular discussion, there are concerns about how practical and beneficial it will be. “What exact qualifications should we require politicians to have – the General Certificate of Education Ordinary Level (O/L) or Advanced Level (A/L) qualifications, or a degree?” he queried, adding that when Pakistan required politicians to have degrees, private universities that give degrees in six months came into existence. He explained: “That is not my recommendation. Politicians should have honesty, dedication, and the ability to choose the best option out of a number of options when resolving an issue. Regardless of the level of education, a politician may be able to give the best solution. What is necessary is practical knowledge, not academic knowledge. In fact, when we look at how those who hold professor titles and those who do not even have the O/L qualification behave in the same place, a question arises about the level of their education. The people’s willingness in this regard also needs to be discussed. We talk about education. But how lethargic are we to study the mother tongue of the fellow communities we live with. Once, when public sector officials were asked to follow a 90-hour course to learn such a language, they were reluctant. If we cannot live as one nation, how can we move forward as one nation?” Emphasising that embracing such identities between communities is crucial, Deshapriya quoted a statement made by former Indian President Dr. Abdul Kalam where the latter had stated that firstly, he was an Indian; secondly, he was a citizen whose mother tongue was Tamil; and thirdly, he was a Muslim. With regard to the people’s attitudes, he further said that it is of great importance to talk about people of all social strata and include everyone in missions to change the status quo. Deshapriya is of the opinion that if people unite properly, they can influence politicians, and that unless this is done, true freedom will never come.  “Whether it is the freedom of education, health, movement, religion, or conscience, all freedoms depend on our behaviour, and it is also our behaviour that decides whether we get good politicians. Thieves cannot appoint a person other than a thief as their leader, and in that context, there is no point in blaming that rulers are thieves. We blame only them, but how many of us take the wrong path to get our work done? In order to save the country from the crisis it is in, the youth have a responsibility. Not only the rulers, the entire society has a role in this endeavour.” Another matter that was raised with regard to Sri Lanka’s political culture is whether the right to vote, which is available for all citizens, is an ideal way to choose leaders in a context where the right to vote is not always used the way it is expected to be used. The people exercising their franchise under the influence of various external factors, such as bribes, was also pointed out as part of this discussion. In response, Deshapriya said that the right to vote being available for all citizens irrespective of their differences is absolutely necessary, and that it is one of the very few such rights that do not get affected by people’s differences. Deshapriya also pointed out a statement made by South African anti-apartheid activist Steve Biko, where the latter had stated that it is the duty of the educated to teach the uneducated about things that matter when voting, and that depriving the uneducated of their right to vote is not an option. The right of every citizen to contribute to decisions that matter to them, was also stressed. While the matter of freedom is everyone’s concern, there is a certain lethargy or unwillingness with regard to the people actively taking part in endeavours that affect their freedom positively. However, great changes come only with great contributions. As Deshapriya noted, everyone understanding and fulfilling their responsibilities to the best of their abilities is what will result in actual change, not blaming politicians.


More News..