Don’t hold country to ransom through the ‘crossover’ mockery

The present distressing situation in the country could have been surely prevented, if the ‘crossover ban’ was passed with the 19th Amendment. It was removed on the floor of the Parliament after the Opposition protested at the time when the 19th Amendment was debated. 

Now, the politicians are free to engage in the most lucrative but dirty game of ‘horse-trading’ for filthy lucre and power! This mockery has made the voters mere on- lookers and has become the No. 1 money spinner for the politicians, relegating the duty-free vehicle permit to second place.

It is abundantly clear that this is a political issue involving ‘representative democracy’ where the voters are the principals and the MPs are only agents under a principal/agent relationship. Thus, isn’t ‘crossover’ a blatant violation of the collective rights of the voters (principals) who elected the MPs as their agents to the Parliament to represent them for a specific period of five years under a specific symbol? Isn’t it the fundamental duty of the MPs to exercise a social conscience (not an individual conscience) and protect the collective right of their voters which far outweighs the fundamental right of an individual?

If we trace the recent history of ‘crossovers’, it was the former CJ Sarath Silva who opened the floodgates for the ‘crossover’ mockery when he curried favour with the Government in power at the time. He became wiser after his retirement, and professed that the fundamental duty of the Judiciary is to protect the rights and interests of the voiceless public than of individuals.

Considering the foregoing and in order to ensure that the public confidence in our electoral system is not further eroded, I strongly commend in the name of democracy and safeguarding the sovereignty of the people that necessary amendments are brought to the constitution to prevent this abhorrent and scornful crossovers happening during any regime. 

For this purpose I reckon that Article 99(13) which seemingly looks after the individual rights and natural justice should be amended accordingly. In conjunction with this amendment it would also be necessary to abolish the ‘Preference Voting’ system and replace it with the more logical ‘Party list’ system. Under this method, the burden of selecting preferred individuals will be removed from the simple voter and devolved on the political party concerned which should be compelled to select the most eligible political professionals to the Legislature through ‘District Party merit lists’ prepared by using stringent eligibility criteria and a structured Interview method laid down by the Elections Commission.

Simultaneously, it is high time that the voter as well as some of our political pundits lend themselves to a paradigm shift in their mindset by viewing the Parliamentarian more as a ‘lawmaker’ and a ‘financial controller’ of the country at large, rather than as a local ‘demigod’ who brings solutions to his sundry needs such as jobs, culverts, lamp-posts and latrines, et al. The services of the now ubiquitous ‘Pradeshiya Sabha’ members and Provincial Councillors should be utilised to look after such needs.

Last but not the least, the day is not far when the voter will realise the futility of spending billions of taxpayer rupees, time and energy to hold national elections every five years when the balance of power in the Parliament can be changed according to the whims and fancies of a few ungrateful MPs who betray their sacred duty owed to their voters under the pretext of fundamental rights of individuals.

Bernard Fernando,

Moratuwa