Another election has been called -- this time something unusual for this country - an early poll. It is a welcome change from the recent past when Governments and their leaders tinkered with the Constitution and some tried their version of New Maths to hang on to office.

That said, this election - is quite uncalled for. Nobody wanted it, other than the incumbent; and the entire nation is now in the throes of yet another election having seen election after election throughout the country all year long.

If democracy is to be judged by elections alone, then surely Sri Lanka must rank not just as a 5-star democracy, but as a 7-star democracy.

No doubt, elections are the time when rulers must go on bended knee to the people asking them for their vote. That exercise alone is a positive aspect of freedom because in countries ruled by dictators and under one-party rule, there is no such thing. The people must grin and bear. Such rule is worse than colonial rule because having freed themselves from the yoke of colonial oppression there is nothing worse than being kept under the jackboot of the military of your own country.

This is the time when each citizen of voting age is treated as a 'king' or 'queen' by the rulers and those who wish to rule. One can see the virtual charade of the 'king' himself or 'king wannabes' going after each of these so-called 'kings' and 'queens'. The high-spending almost vulgar treating that is taking place is what is called 'canvassing' to an extent not hitherto seen in Sri Lanka.

The Elections Commissioner is seemingly trying to put a halt to this and the abuse of state or people's property, but quite clearly he is not being taken seriously. Unless the Commissioner declares an election null and void on the basis of this abuse of power, such flagrant violations of the Election Law will also be a charade of the democratic process.

One of the contestants has complained already, and of all places at a conference of sitting judges, that complaints are being made for violating Sri Lankan customs and traditions of providing a hot meal for a visitor to his humble abode. But this does not hold water when nobody knows who actually is picking up the tab.

In most advanced democracies there are strict rules on how funds, both private and state, and the state apparatus can be used by the incumbent and the ruling party so as not to give them an added advantage over their opponents. These niceties are never implemented here.

The Elections Commissioner complains that many of his proposals for election law reforms are gathering dust as annexures in parliamentary committee reports. There is clearly no will or inclination on the part of Parliament, both Government and Opposition, to steer such legislation through. While Sri Lanka boasts of a fairly mature democracy with the women of Lanka getting the right to vote before some of their European counterparts, these new advancements to the principle of representative government have not found their way to being implemented here. Thus, in many ways, one could even say that electoral reforms before Independence (under colonial rule) moved at much faster a pace for the greater benefit of the people of Sri Lanka than reforms enacted and put into practice by Sri Lankan rulers since Independence more than sixty years ago. One could go even further to say that the electoral and constitutional reforms that were enacted have largely been to benefit a particular political party in power at the time.

In the next few weeks, the country will witness a hard-fought election between two main candidates. What we are seeing in the early days is a vitriolic mud-slinging campaign based on personalities. Little is said of the issues that involve the country.
There are fears that 'tribal politics' will emerge in the upcoming campaign. There are fears that a military dictatorship could emerge should a particular candidate win. What difference does it make if a President ignores the provisions of the Constitution such as the 17th Amendment as a matter of deliberate policy than if a military junta overrides the Constitution and introduces martial law? How can one say that one is a lesser evil than the other?

In this context, it is pertinent to note what a Sunday Times reader has pointed out to one of our columnists -- that her quotation of 'the known devil is better than the unknown devil' is incorrect and that it should be 'the known devil is better than the unknown angel'. 'The known devil is better than the unknown devil' is merely a variant of the common English proverb 'Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know', and interpolation of the term 'angel' is of later origin according to some but both sayings are true though the 'angel' version is lesser used and lesser known.

If that is the crux of the choice before the people today, the Opposition has come up with the future of the Executive Presidency as its main theme but one can safely say this has been thrown up purely for expediency because the varied parties that have come together against the incumbent for different reasons had little else in common. The incumbent's line has been that now that he 'war' is over, let's start developing the country.

Issue-based political campaigning would raise the level of the present campaigns launched by all sides to this 'conflict'.
The main Opposition candidate has made a solemn pledge to the nation. Given the bad experiences the public has had with these 'solemn' pledges, they will necessarily have to take it with a pinch of salt. That pledge mentions nothing on how he is going to develop the country into a modern state. The incumbent has yet to outline his own road map for the next six years.

We look forward to a more enlightened debate on the future of Sri Lanka from each of the camps asking for the people's vote. The people should be given the opportunity to make an intelligent choice rather than just vote because they must and keep their fingers crossed and hope for the best thereafter.