Is it one man one vote that determines what happens in a democracy or is it intra-part shenanigans? That seems too direct a question to begin an op-ed article with.
But it’s not politics as usual anyway in most countries these days, and therefore it doesn’t have to be journalism as usual either. Political parties probably play a bigger role in determining outcomes in democratic countries, than entire democratic processes do.
It’s the parties that enthrone the nominees, and when it comes to the point of voting, people have a choice between two sets of candidates they had hardly any choice nominating.
This is where convention it seems, starts playing a greater role than choice or democratic preference, in the current form of electoral politics. How are party choices determined? Most often it is by process of convention.
At least in the United States elections are held before the party candidates are chosen, and these happen in a process involving primaries and caucuses. At the end of a lengthy process of weaning away candidates through successive primaries, the presidential candidate of a party is chosen formally at a party Convention.
But it’s not quite the process of ‘convention’ we are used to in these parts. We are used to convention as in ‘by convention.’ It means each party has its own traditions and modalities for electing their leaders and nominees.
This process of deciding party leadership through recourse to tradition and convention (with a simple c) is often not very democratic, but is nevertheless defined as democratic. But for years it has made do in countries such as ours and in some so called advanced democracies.
ICONIC
But in most countries party elections are held for picking candidates for parliamentary elections and other democratic contests. Though there is no process of primaries and caucuses in most democracies as in the U.S.A, there are party polls which happen after a lengthy process of campaigning within party confines. This intra-party process, includes debates and other jousts between prospective candidates.
But even so, convention (again, with a simple ‘c’) plays a major part. It could be said that convention plays a major part in the process of picking candidates for presidential elections, even in the U.S.
For example, the incumbent President is rarely seriously challenged within the party if he (there have not been any she’s yet) decides to run for a second term. This happens in both parties and both Trump and Biden from the Republican and Democratic parties did not have any serious challengers when they were incumbent and ran/are running for a second term in office.
It doesn’t mean that this convention of sorts is never challenged. There was a serious challenge to then incumbent President Jimmy Carter by Edward Kennedy a Senator who happened to be a brother of an iconic former U.S. President.
However, this challenge though rather aggressive didn’t succeed in snatching the Democratic Party nomination for President from incumbent Carter, who however having contested and held onto the Democratic ticket, went on to lose the Presidential election eventually to Republican Ronald Reagan.
Party traditions and unspoken agreements between the party elite therefore can be seen to go a long way in determining who is nominated by the party for key electoral battles. Though this situation is more pronounced in some democracies than others, Party convention always plays a part.
Therefore, democracy is seen to be equally a consensus form of governance as it is a form of allowing for choice through one man one vote.
This form of ‘convention’ however, depending on the degree of intra-party democracy in evidence, may be one facet of democracy that needs to be revisited. We don’t have primaries and caucuses here in this country, and neither do we have intra-party elections of any consistent or substantial from.
It means that we are governed to a great extent by the quirks of long held forms of ‘convention.’ Of course there is electoral democracy at the national level, but what real, tangible say do people have in picking party candidates? Most times, the answer to this would be ‘none whatsoever.’
If we have conventions, what sort of outcomes do they result in? Sometimes convention dictates that the most senior leader of the party is anointed presidential or prime ministerial candidate as the case may be.
Is this a good enough convention that does justice to democracy? Hardly. But this type of consensual politics is rarely questioned in this country. There seems to be an almost smug elitism that rules party politics, and that’s the norm in all political parties, which means that the political elite that run the country have a disproportionate say in the affairs of our democracy.
But what if the conventions that govern these matters are strong enough that this style of democracy succeeds? Many democracies in South and South East Asia govern themselves while heavily reliant on this type of convention based arrangement.
Some may call this style of democracy true consensus politics. Bitter contests are avoided at party level, and party politicians get used to uniting under the banner of one candidate so early in the proceedings, that personal ambitions if any have to be subsumed for the greater good.
But it can be argued that the same happens in democracies that have regular contests for party leadership. Though bitter battles are fought, hatchets are buried at the party Convention and the word convention acquires a new and wholesome meaning.
This brings up the rather aged debate about the politics of Asia being of a different brand tempered by Eastern philosophical underpinnings that defer to hierarchical systems that are accepted through friendly consensus.
But does that satisfy modern democratic expectations? Politicians have to deal with much more than they did centuries ago and among these are ideological influences, and the gargantuan expectations of modern democratic praxis.
Are things poised to change in Sri Lanka? The pace of change can never be accurately predicted, but as things stand conventional arrangements that settle party political stakes in the confines of party boardrooms sans major political jousting, seems to be the way things would be decided at party level in the future, as they have always been in the past.
Perhaps change would have to be forced. There has been much clamour for change, but strangely it has never been about engineering transformation at intra-party level.
People have big ideas about changing the game at the constitutional tier — by getting rid of the executive presidency for instance — but everybody is content with letting the party structures remain as they are, with the grandees often deciding who leads the party and who calls the shots within the party apparatus.
Sri Lankans seem to bow easily to hierarchical structures. All parties, including the new as well as the tried and tested, seem to swear by these arrangements, and therefore none can claim any sort of real primacy over the other in terms of upholding more democratic practice.
DYNAMIC
Perhaps they’d all say the current system is more culturally conducive and suited to our way of doing things, and they’d sometimes perhaps go a step further and say true democracy is by consensus.
But the young may beg to differ. They know the weight of expectations in the midst of the current situation of economic angst and uncertain and volatile transformations taking place, may threaten conventional political structures.
But yet, old systems die hard. Old grandees are replaced by new and more ambitious ones, and politics always comes a full circle despite generational transformations.
But an undercurrent of dissatisfaction may always be present among those who find the party structures too rigid. Those who want a greater say in party affairs — of any party — may find the current consensus by convention too stifling a way to conduct party affairs.
Sometimes, change comes in quantum leaps, though. Party grandees may themselves feel the need to shake things up with or without pressure from those outside of that comfortable grandee loop. Change, always, has a rather strange dynamic.
