Tuesday Nov 26, 2024
Tuesday Nov 26, 2024
Wednesday, 4 March 2020 01:35 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
A majority of the people of the country will agree that the existing electoral process needs to be amended – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara
Parliament has just been dissolved and it’s back to electoral politics. Politicians of all parties are engaged in forming alliances with friends and foes alike with the sole intention of obtaining electoral benefits. In politics they say “there are no permanent friends or enemies only permanent interests”.
These are interesting and difficult times for the voters at a time when we are approaching the first anniversary of the Easter Sunday attack where several innocent and unfortunate people became victims in churches and hotels. Such a calamity was never even dreamt of. The country particularly their families are still yearning to know the truth. It is no exaggeration to state the people responsible failed in their duties towards protecting these unfortunate victims.
The previous Government completely failed in their responsibilities towards protecting these innocents. Commissions are appointed with much publicity, however, we still don’t have any answers.
This election once again will be a crucial one. The people will be called upon to elect their representatives to serve them for the next five years. It’s noteworthy to mention the term of the Parliament and the Presidency were reduced from six years to five years by the previous Yahapalana Government. Whatever its fault there were some positive steps implemented by the previous Government, notably the Independent Commissions to ensure democracy works at its best and the steps towards reconciliation which appear to be fading after the emergence of the new Government.
"At the last Presidential Election, a total of 34 candidates contested knowing very well they cannot win. Then what is the purpose. Some of them filed their nominations as proxies for the major candidates while some others filed their nominations with the aim of gaining cheap publicity. This cost the country and the Election Commission an additional Rs. 2 billion. This also confused the voters to a great extent in correctly ascertaining their preference from the long ballot paper"
There is a clamour by some especially the outgoing government to amend the 19th Amendment which has some positive as well as certain negative aspects. They will campaign for a two-third majority to achieve their objective which appears to be remote under the existing PR System although still possible as the main opposition is in shambles.
When the 19th Amendment was introduced I was alarmed to note the Constitutional provision which deprived the President of the power to dissolve Parliament unless it is voted by two-third of the members of Parliament. Such an exercise is unthinkable as no member of Parliament will give their consent in signing their own death warrant as such an exercise will deprive them of their pension rights in addition to the other benefits.
The framers of this stipulation failed to realise this aspect and its reality. This resulted in the major Constitutional crisis in October, 2018 which was ultimately resolved by the Supreme Court by its unanimous decision in ruling the President has no power to dissolve the Parliament before the expiry of four and a half years. This provision has even deprived the new President to dissolve the Parliament immediately after his victory.
There are several issues which will be put forward by the parties and the major one will be the amendment of the 19th Amendment which has clipped some of the powers of the President.
This is the time manifestos are being prepared for the consideration of the voters. The writer, I should confess is not a constitutional expert. However, being a keen follower of the political developments in the country as a student of politics and one who is very much interested in the political developments, I wish to take this opportunity in expressing some of my thoughts, with the readers for the benefit and consideration of those who will be entrusted with the responsibility of drafting and amending the constitution which will take centre stage after the formation of the new Parliament. I will however, restrict my opinion to the electoral reforms which also needs certain amendments.
It would not be inaccurate to say that a majority of the Sri Lankan people are of the opinion that the existing electoral process is not suited for the democratic form of governance, hence it needs a change. The framers of the 1978 constitution, namely the then UNP Government, failed to consider several aspects and aspirations of the people when the constitution was enacted almost immediately after they assumed power with their steam roller majority. It is vital and interesting to examine some of the flaws.
They completely abolished the system of ‘by-elections’. Whenever a vacancy occurs in Parliament, the people are now deprived of the opportunity of electing the representatives of their choice.
This also prevented the Government from testing the public opinion at regular intervals whenever an opportunity arises due to the death or resignation of a member. Prior to 1978 we could remember that every vacancy in Parliament was filled after a by-election in which the Governing party and the Opposition vigorously campaigned. This gave an opportunity to the people to give a message to the Government and Opposition on several vital issues affecting not only the particular electorate but also the entire country. There were instances of leaders of political parties resigning their seats on policy issues and re-contesting at by elections to give a message to the governing party. This has never happened after the introduction of the 1978 Constitution as there is no such avenue.
This system was replaced by an entirely undemocratic system where MPs are being appointed as and when a vacancy occurs by a system which could be described as ‘chit MPs’. Individuals and party henchmen who have no public support become Members of Parliament overnight, as a result of which they lose touch with the electorates and become unanswerable to the voters. The proposed constitutional reforms should bring back the system of holding ‘by-elections’ whenever a vacancy occurs in Parliament.
The existing system of proportional representation or ‘Manape’ as commonly known, in my view, is a completely outdated system of electing Members to Parliament. The reason being a person interested to serve the people and enter Parliament is required to campaign not only in their chosen electorate as the organiser, but in the entire district. We have seen several instances in the past elections where such organisers have failed to enter Parliament even though they have won their own electorates with a comfortable majority, due to their inability to win the entire district.
In certain instances, some electorates were fortunate to have more than one member to represent them while some others have none to represent their interests in Parliament.
Under this system only a person who has large financial resources and other logistical support could campaign in the entire district, which is highly costly, for which one needs various other resources apart from the massive money power. This effectively shuts the door for decent and respected individuals who have no money power to enter Parliament due to their inability to have the resources to campaign in the entire district. Prospective candidates well accepted and respected in their chosen electorates fail to enter Parliament even though a majority of their electorates vote for them.
"Massive amounts are being spent on the elections and according to the Chairman of the Election Commission a sum of Rs. 7.2 billion is estimated to be expended at the upcoming General Elections. Can the country which is facing many economic problems spend such a vast amount on periodic elections? After the conclusion of the general elections a similar amount will have to be spent for the long overdue Provincial Council elections which is expected to be followed by the Local Council elections. Democracy is costly. What is the
solution?"
This is due to their failure to match the resources of other wealthy and powerful politicians within their own party who are ultimately in a position to win the entire district even though they may not be the popular choice acceptable to their electorate. This has happened in the past as well as in the recent elections, where we have noticed several popular politicians being deprived entry to Parliament even though their electorates have voted for them due to their inability to win the entire district.
Prior to 1978 we could remember candidates visiting each and every household with their manifesto and meeting their voters and discussing their problems. We hardly see such an exercise now. For instance, in the electorate I reside I have never seen the Member of Parliament who is supposed to represent this electorate for a considerable period of time. The introduction of the ‘First past post system’ is the need of the hour since this will ensure not only the entry of decent and people of high integrity; it will also provide people with the representatives they deserve.
This has created lot of controversy in the past. The existing National List provides for the appointment of a total of 29 members to Parliament based on the percentage of votes polled by each registered party. The framers of the constitution decided on this to ensure that certain intellectuals and technocrats unable to obtain popular support could be accommodated in Parliament and thereby the country could benefit from their expertise.
However, without any argument, we could agree that the original purpose for which this was introduced has not been achieved. We have seen the entry of several individuals who could contribute to valuable parliamentary debates and thereby the country being deprived.
In the last Parliament, we have seen several candidates who were defeated by the people were accommodated by all major parties, including the JVP through their allocation in the National List. Some of them were not only accommodated they were even appointed Ministers with greater responsibility. Parliament is the Temple of Democracy. I think Sri Lanka may be the only country where defeated candidates could still enter Parliament through the back door thanks to the National List.
Several members of the civil organisations and intellectuals have expressed their disapproval of accommodating defeated candidates through the National List. It was reported that the leaders of the Governing party and the main Opposition have given an undertaking no such exercise will take place in their parties after the next parliamentary elections. The country awaits such undertakings from the other parties. Interestingly the National List was abolished in the Constitution of 1972. However, this was reintroduced by the UNP in the 1978 Constitution.
The Executive Presidency, which has wide powers, limits the holder only for two terms of a total of 10 years consequent to the 19th Amendment.
It is said the then President J.R. Jayewardene was too old to seek a third term and this may have prompted him to limit the period to two terms, taking his interest into consideration. However, we could well remember in 1989, attempts were made to bring in an amendment thereby allowing the then President to seek a third term. Due to political uncertainty which prevailed in the country at that time, and the opposition within his own party this was dropped.
This may have contributed to the then UNP government limiting the term of the Presidency to a two term period which stipulation was removed after the Presidency of President Mahinda Rajapaksa and reintroduced by the 19th Amendment. There are pros and cons in limiting the term. A popular personality should have the right to seek re-election and go before the people after all it is the people who should have the final say.
Serious consideration should be given to introduce this provision which will effectively prevent the members from crossing over to other parties. If they cross over they should automatically forfeit their seat. This provision is available in the Indian constitution. However, I understand although this was included in the 19th Amendment due to the objections of members this was dropped.
Massive amounts are being spent on the elections and according to the Chairman of the Election Commission a sum of Rs. 7.2 billion is estimated to be expended at the upcoming General Elections. Can the country which is facing many economic problems spend such a vast amount on periodic elections? After the conclusion of the general elections a similar amount will have to be spent for the long overdue Provincial Council elections which is expected to be followed by the Local Council elections. Democracy is costly. What is the solution?
In my opinion the policymakers should seriously consider a mechanism to have at least all three major elections on the same day (i.e., the Presidential, Parliamentary and Provincial Councils). The voters could be given three ballot papers to elect their President, Member of Parliament and the Provincial Councillor on one and the same day. Not only billions of rupees could be saved, it will ensure political stability in the country and the policy makers could concentrate on their mandate and responsibilities. The Election Commission could affect suitable mechanism to meet such an eventuality which is not difficult.
At the last Presidential Election, a total of 34 candidates contested knowing very well they cannot win. Then what is the purpose. Some of them filed their nominations as proxies for the major candidates while some others filed their nominations with the aim of gaining cheap publicity. This cost the country and the Election Commission an additional Rs. 2 billion. This also confused the voters to a great extent in correctly ascertaining their preference from the long ballot paper.
I would suggest the eligibility criteria should be amended to make it mandatory for a candidate to at least obtain a stipulated minimum number of votes from the total votes polled and the deposit should be increased to at least Rs. 10 million which could be supported by a bank guarantee.
A majority of the people of the country will agree that the existing electoral process needs to be amended. The parties and members who will be involved in the process of electoral reforms should consider the above proposals towards ensuring an effective system of elections in electing the representatives of the people.
The writer is a Senior Retired Banker and could be reached via email at [email protected]
