Editorial

Security

Politics

World

Letters

Sports

Obituaries

Archives

Observations by Lakshman Gunasekera

'But when a king disregards the evil done in his kingdom,
and does not inflict just punishment on the criminal,
from his neglect of evil, unrighteousness grows apace,
and fraud and strife increase in the land.'

This quote from the Svarnaprabhaasottama Sutra (Sutra of the Excellent Golden Light), a circa fifth century AC Mahayana Buddhist treatise illustrates the concern for good governance in those ancient times that were once presumed, by the Occidentals, to be Orientally 'despotic'.

This theme of the royal responsibility, indeed of the duty of the rulers, to ensure justice in society, is a theme that runs through much of the 'high' classical dharma in all parts of the Sub-Continent and in most periods of its history. It is to be seen in Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina, and Moghul-Islamic political-philosophical thought.

In this tradition can be seen both the concept of a divine mandate for the rulers and also the concept of their accountability to the ruled. The Thirukkural, a South Indian philosophical work also of the same period, is quite clear about that social accountability: 'The king defends the whole world; and justice, when it is administered without defect, defends the king' (Kural Chap. 55) and, 'The king who, without reflecting (on its evil consequences) perverts justice, will lose at once both his wealth and his subjects' (Kural Chap. 56). This theme of justice and social accountability, of course, runs parallel to an equally powerful theme of divinely endorsed autocracy, elitism and social exploitation.

While some philosophical tendencies have endeavoured (unsuccessfully, in my view) to find a harmony between the two themes, it is simpler to see them as counterpoint, giving a rich complexity and holism to our South Asian tradition of politics.

This moral imperative in our political traditions, however, is seemingly itself in counterpoint to the structures of polity throughout much of our Sub-Continental history. They could be said to be the mellowing element in successive and widespread regimes of autocratic rule; mediating between exploiter and exploited.

Given the subaltern origins of some of the religio-philosophical schools from which this moral teaching derives, it is possible to argue that this moral discourse is the fruit of pre-existing polities that were not so autocratic but, rather, were democratic.

Democratic political communities

While not much historiographical or anthropological work seems to have been done to 'excavate' the ancient democratic forms of polity in the Sub-Continent, their existence has long been acknowledged. Remnants of tribal societies today have sometimes been pointed to as examples of such democratic political communities.

The emphasis has been to look for the popular participatory elements in government and social decision-making.

In this, the early tribal societies (as in many tribal societies in other regions of the world) have been regarded as being structurally less hierarchical, with their relatively small demographic character enabling inclusive, collective decision-making and governing processes. Hence the characteristic of 'direct democracy' attributed to some of these early political communities.

Not only was direct democracy practised at this small scale level of tribal or clan-based political communities, but larger scale political structures are seen to have emerged in the tribal federations or confederacies.

These were the result of inter-actions of various kinds - economic, social, cultural - between tribal or clan polities that were consolidated and formalised in loose political linkages based on mutually agreed terms aimed at avoiding inter-polity conflict and building collective regional strength against extra-regional aggression.

The Vajji confederation, referred by Lord Buddha himself in one of his better known teachings on governance (in a discussion with the Ven. Ananda on consensual decision-making processes), is an example of such clan or tribe-based federal systems long before the English word 'federal' was even coined.

In these types of political systems, the emphasis seems to have been in collective, consensual decision-making processes, with popular participation being critical to the process.

This did not necessarily mean a kind of 'pure' equality as posited by current modernist ideals of democracy (this 'ideal' itself is regarded as suspect). Rather, these tribal or clan polities were based on certain social and economic group identities, including early formations of castes between whom there were hierarchies of power of some sort.

Nevertheless, the participatory element in governance and some form of egalitarian justice seems to have been an important element of these early Sub-Continental political systems. The diffusion of power seemed to have been an important characteristic of these systems.

Indeed the original Buddha Sangha community seemed to have drawn on the ideals inherent in these systems and endeavoured to be a model of a non-hierarchical, egalitarian and non-exploitative socio-political system. Interestingly, very ancient tribal societies have not been the only polities taken as examples of this 'early democracy'.

In some recent political-anthropological work, 'State' type polities such as kingdoms and even empires have also been subjected to some dissection of their once-presumed monolithic and imperial structures. The model of the 'segmentary State' originally seen in some African tribal federations have recently been, somewhat experimentally, applied to South Indian principalities in the early medieval period.

The emphasis here has been to identify these polities as being far less monolithic and imperial than previously thought, with a strong element of a 'balance of power' between regions and between hierarchical layers of rule.

The supreme king or 'emperor' at certain points of Chola rule have been found to be less than 'supreme' and actually dependent on that balance of power between sub-kings and chiefs for their claim to imperial power.

This political scientific exploration has examined the lateral aspects of medieval States that were once thought to be quite hierarchically monolithic and rigidly centralised.

The concept of 'segmentary' State, then, posits a diffusion of power that was earlier seen in the small collectivised polities of the Magadha and pre-Magadha periods.

Although the segmentary State showed the diffusion at a different level between larger regions than small clan or tribe-based communities. The segmentary State model, thus, is somewhat closer to the modern concept of federacy or confederacy.

In Sri Lanka, there is ample evidence of this kind of segmentary State, although I am not aware of any attempt by historians or political scientists to apply this model here. Segmentary type of polity

This kind of segmentary type of polity can be seen from the times of Elara and Dutugemunu, in which Dutugemunu's kingdom was a kind of tributary polity of the Anuradhapura kingdom. I am not equipped to rigorously apply the model on the Sri Lankan political-historical scene, but the failure to more rigorously analyse indigenous political systems without depending too much on simplistic, Western and colonial-originated 'orientalist' models, is, I believe, a major contributory factor in the way Sri Lankan historiography has contributed to modern nationalist identity consciousness and ethnic conflict.

Even today popular modern history and semi-scholarly historiography often tends to presume modern-type State systems even in ancient times and depend heavily on a conception of the island as being a geographically singular polity in most of our history.

It is this faulty, inadequate modern historiography that is the basis of the popular consciousness of ethnic majoritarianism, ethnic singularity (of various ethnic kinds) and ethnic supremacy. The inorganic implanting of European-style 'nation-statism' has also contributed to the problem, while capitalist democracy's strong competitive dynamic has added fuel to the ethnic rivalry fires.

Today, based on such pseudo-modernist conceptions of State ('pseudo', because the models are simplistically dependent on Western models) are at the root of the fears about 'federalism' among the Sinhalas.

What is needed is more exploration of our own history and political-cultural legacy as well as a creative borrowing from other societies.

Archeology and innovation must go hand in hand if we are to discover our 'selves' in our own space and time and not live neo-colonial ideological limbo. It is only such a 'discovery of Sri Lanka' (to borrow from Nehruji) that will help us collectively build a new polity or a set of polities that will better express our sense of island political community.

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager