Paper short abstract:

Sri Lankan democracy was hailed as a ‘model’ in the early years but of late there has been a strong critique of Sri Lankan democracy and some consider Sri Lankan democracy as a failure. This paper asks the important question as to why it has suffered constants sets backs.

Paper long abstract:

Sri Lanka has long been the subject of much scholarly attention among students of politics, anthropology and history for its supposedly well-functioning democracy in the early years, although some studies did challenge from the outset, the view that Sri Lanka was a 'model' democracy. However, in recent times, Sri Lanka has been depicted as a failure of democracy both in academic and policy circles. Generally, the critiques have focused on a multitude of issues including, but not limited to, human rights, minority rights, rule of law, independence of the judiciary, corruption, nepotism, abuse of state power in elections and many others. Post war, the discourse of human rights violations have added further fuel to the critique of democracy in Sri Lanka. There have been strong demands for greater accountability and transparency on the part of the Sri Lankan government. The most important question this paper tries to address is why democracy suffers constants set backs in Sri Lanka despite reasonably long history of democracy in the country as well as much appreciated better performance in the young years of its democracy. Although many studies of the democracy in Sri Lanka have been rich and deep, there is a sharp gap of understanding why Sri Lankan democracy is currently ailing. This paper explores both the peculiar manner in which Sri Lankan democracy has functioned over the decades and public response to the same and advances several potential explanatory factors for the said malfunctioning.