In a recent LMDtv interview, Dr. Gehan Gunatilleke – a Partner of LexAg and Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission Sri Lanka (HRCSL) – shed light on the nation’s pressing need in shaping its democratic future.

“I would be hesitant to say that Sri Lanka’s democracy is fundamentally flawed,” the commissioner stated.

Reflecting on Sir Winston Churchill’s sentiment that democracy, while imperfect, is the best system available, Gunatilleke believes that there is a firm resolve to strengthen rather than abandon democratic ideals. He emphasised two main points: first, the need to implement the 13th Amendment of the Constitution, which mandates significant devolution of power to the provincial councils – a reform that has been promised but not fully realised.

Secondly, he critiqued the concentration of power in the executive presidency with the argument being that this centralised authority can lead to poor decision making and crises. Gunatilleke advocated for devolving power to ensure that decision making is closer to the people it affects.

“A culture that has embraced nepotism, a culture that has embraced corruption and a culture that has embraced violence,” he lamented, highlighting deep-rooted issues within Sri Lanka’s political landscape.

Despite these challenges, the constitutional scholar noted a positive shift away from election related violence in recent years, attributing this in part to improved monitoring and civil society efforts. Gunatilleke stressed the need for continued transformation of the political culture to foster accountability and restore trust in the democratic process.

“I think it’s wrong to say that Sri Lanka has massive voter apathy when it comes to elections,” the commissioner asserted.

Acknowledging the high voter turnout at elections compared to global norms, he identified a different issue: a high level of voter indifference between elections, which stems from a failure to hold politicians accountable for their electoral promises and manifestos after voting.

Commenting on the aragalaya, he stressed the complexities that arose. Drawing a comparison to movements like Mahatma Gandhi’s, which portrayed visible leadership, he pointed out that the movement was not homogenous or meticulously planned; but rather, an unforced evolution without central leadership.

“I would be hesitant to criticise the aragalaya as something that was infiltrated by violent movements,” Gunatilleke said. And he cautioned against being overly critical of or whitewashing the movement.

Continuing to discuss the aragalaya, he noted that elements within it advocated for broader reforms such as abo­lishing the executive presidency and implementing anti-corruption measures: “If the measure of success was the accountability of individuals that held power, I think that forcing a resignation is also a form of accountability.”

Despite mixed success in achieving systemic changes, the movement sparked discussions on critical issues like ethnic relations and violence against minorities.

The eminent lawyer underscored the need for electoral reforms to address accountability among elected officials, proposing a recall mechanism. He pointed to the UK as a leading example, stating that “in 2015, a particular act that was passed allowed voters within a constituency to attempt to recall an MP.”

By enabling constituents to trigger by-elections through petitions against underperforming representatives, he argued that such reforms could greatly enhance accountability and responsiveness to public concerns in Sri Lanka.

And finally, Gunatilleke provided an overview of how Sri Lanka’s democracy is perceived internationally.

He acknowledged valid criticisms regarding the nation’s democratic shortcomings but portrayed its international standing as nuanced with both constructive engagement and criticism playing major roles in shaping diplomatic relations.