Election Season: What America Can Learn from Sri Lanka

Sri_Lanka_Landscapes

Diverse landscapes of Sri Lanka

Published October 24, 2016, last updated on October 12, 2017 under Voices of DGHI

By Shashika Bandara, 1st-year Master of Science in Global Health Candidate

I went home to Sri Lanka in 2014 after studying and working away from home for seven years.

Sri Lanka was preparing for a presidential election. President Mahinda Rajapakse was pushing for an unprecedented third term of the executive presidency—an executive presidency that enjoyed close to absolute power in Sri Lanka.

Power was on display from billboards to media coverage to impeachment of the chief of justice.

 
Presidential Billboards
 

President Rajapakse's billboards were abundant during election season​.

I returned to Sri Lanka to gain a better understanding of human rights and health rights in particular. A 26-year ethnic civil war had ended in 2009. Increasing pressure on freedom of speech and increased scrutiny on human rights related organizations were becoming the trend. 

The country was divided. Nationalistic political rhetoric was playing one ethnicity against the other. It was a serious affair. The future of Sri Lanka, reconciliation efforts and the future of minorities seemed to depend on the election. 

The impending election also had serious implications for the economic, social and cultural rights of the people, especially those in underserved communities. The more I spoke with community workers, displaced families and families affected by severe poverty, the more I became aware of the need for interdisciplinary effort in resolving issues related to access to health, access to employment and quality of life. As many health care workers pointed out, there has to be policy level support for programs to be successfully implemented, and policy makers argued that they needed more compelling research to push towards improving policy and advocating for funding.

Looking at many ground level efforts, I also realized the need for alignment of local and global political efforts, donor interests and community interests in making many of these changes. With a presidential election raging in the background, political effect on health rights was amplified. Sri Lanka faced Chronic Kidney Disease of unknown etiology (CKDu), which affected more farmers every day, as well as an increased need for post-conflict health support for rebuilding communities. Stigma related to health issues, especially in mental health, were prevalent. I could go on. This was not just the case for Sri Lanka, but in many countries in South Asia and beyond.

Having gained a deeper appreciation for the challenges of global health, I wanted to learn how to find solutions to these issues from the leaders in the field. So I set off for the Duke Global Health Institute.

North Carolina was warmer than Sri Lanka when I arrived. The faculty are wonderful and also generous with homework. I also learned that my roommate, an engineering PhD, decided to take voice lessons for fun this semester. Needless to say, this made my alarm clock obsolete.

But more importantly and ironically, similar to my return to Sri Lanka two years ago, I arrived in the midst of a heated presidential election in America. I realized that this election has implications for global development and peace and will reflect the example the United States wants to set for the world. However, what I saw and heard were familiar divisive rhetoric and an abundance of scandals. 

Selfishly, I wondered what the outcome would mean to low and middle income countries such as mine. Even my mother—who usually does not follow politics—was worried about how the U.S. presidential election could affect the future of Sri Lanka and of the world. My mother’s interest was such that she worried for the health of Hilary Clinton when she came down with pneumonia. This interest was echoed by many of us across the globe.

On January 8, 2015, Sri Lanka defeated the then-President Rajapakse and decided to give a chance to the candidate who had campaigned on a platform of unity and good governance. This outcome had significant implications for the communities across the country, such as the farmers affected by CKDu, for the living conditions of the displaced and for the international community as well. 

America’s election holds the potential to be as pivotal, as vital, as Sri Lanka’s 2015 election—perhaps more so.

Like the Sri Lankan election, the U.S. election carries the familiar issues of a threatened democracy and questionable candidates. But unlike that election, whose effects were mainly local, the U.S. election will have reverberations across the globe, reaching the global south on issues related to global health and international development. 

As Election Day approaches, I can’t help but become anxious about this election, as I was about the election in Sri Lanka. I’m also hoping that, like Sri Lanka in 2015, America does not give into division and fear.