A pyramidal legislative structure

By SomapalaGunadheera

I refer to Bernard Fernando’s article in the Daily Financial Times of Saturday8 April entitled ‘Parliamentarians should be patriotic professionals’. While I am obliged to him for the undeserved compliment paid to me at the beginning of the article, regarding my piece on ‘Selection criteria for prospective MPs,’ I agree with the proposition that “A paradigm shift in our political culture is imperative where two sides will finally maintain a consensual relationship rather than a confrontational stance to achieve the common objective of developing the country and its people under a system of good governance”.

However, I find it difficult to agree with his proposal that political parties should“field the most efficient, reliable and genuine professionals”. No doubt that some professionals would make ideal legislators, despite the tendency of individual professionals to be having one track minds.My own view is that suitability of a person to be a politician depends more on his character than on his academic attainments. Of course, a basic education is essential in all those who aspire to be MPs. 

We have had eminent political leaders like DS, Sirimao and Premadasa who were not professional men. But they were outstandingly deft in managing the affairs of state. What really matters is a politician’s honesty and commitment to public service. Not only must s/he be genuinely committed to serving the people but also s/he must be a person of the world with vision, integrity and patriotism. S/he should shun bribery and corruption and be pragmatic and positive. The “job role of a national Parliamentarian includes visiting his voters in the electorates as a primary job requirement”.Hence voters can spot such men from their day to day experience of dealing with them. 

It is a pity that the country has not devoted enough attention to the qualities that should be expected in good legislators. It is bribery that often sends an electorate astray toselect the wrong man. If a fool-proof system can be worked out to exclude bribery at elections, we can be sure of electing an ideal Parliament. A prime responsibility of civil society is to evolve such an election process that does not leave room for vote buying. Generations of our election commissioners have failed to accomplish that objective.

The present Chairman of the Election Commission won a lot of applause for the efficient and impartial role he played at the last Presidential election. He would go down to history, if he uses his vast experience and pivotal position to evolve a unique system for our elections. NGOs devoted to election reform like the CaFFE and the CMEV have an onerous duty to get involved in this effort.

For obvious reasons, Parliamentarians are not suited for this assignment. Self-interest is likely to cloud their judgement in this area. For that reason, the ongoing Constitutional Assembly is disqualified to evolve a new electoral system for the country on its own. That is a job for an experienced and enlightened group of relevant experts. The C/EC will do an unforgettable duty by the country, if he takes the initiative to convene such a group. The recommendations of the group may be referred to the people for a final decision at a Referendum.

Now that we are in the process of amending our Constitution or creating a new one, this is the most opportune time to address this issue assiduously. It is up to every public spirited citizen to address his/her mind to the most suitable electoral system for our country or come up with sensible and practical amendments to what is presented by others. We may tarry for ever, if we fail to make our contribution at this crucial hour. It is regretted that more comments were not addressed to my proposal about selection criteria for prospective MPs. 

Elections have become a great bother in our life. We have varied types of elections - local, provincial and national. They are spread round the year causing costly disruption to public life often making them a public nuisance. Holding them is effectively left to the discretion of those in power.

I, for myself, would suggest that we establish a pyramidal system of elections. This is briefly what I mean by such a system.  Only one election is held every five years. At that election a number of candidates are selected to tally with the number of seats at the local government level plus the numbers allotted to Provincial Councils and to the Parliament. A certain ratio of this number could be reserved for the minorities, the youth and women according to the total votes polled by them. An upper limit should be fixed for the seniors.

Once the requisite total is elected by the national electorate, those elected will elect members for the upper levels from among themselves. Nominated seats may be added for any on-course corrections needed. As an alternative, elected members may be placed in the upper chambers in order of votes polled by them, making the most popular reach the highest Legislature. There will be no re-elections on no-confidence motions under this system. If change is necessary, the sitting members will make the necessary changes by voting among themselves. Thus the elected representativeswill present a replica of our nation and its political reflexes.

It is not proposed that the procedure presented is the only solution possible to our political mess. It is presented to invigorate an honest discussion on how we should compose our legislative structure. The intentions behind the proposal are as follows:

1. It would minimise the efforts and costs spent at the moment to create our respective legislatures.

2. Avoid the public nuisance created by the present system.

3. Put an end to the timing of elections to their advantage by those in power.

4. Give more time to the election staff to closely supervise delimitation, electoral lists and bribery and corruption.

5. Create a homogenous reflection of the political thinking of the masses from the base to the top.

6. Prevent the sudden collapse of an administration and avoid the trouble and expense of electing an alternative from the beginning.

7. Minimise friction between the respective legislative bodies.

8. Produce a structure that reflects the choice of the people from the bottom to the apex.

I present the model for correction or adoption by the proposed expert committee for presentation to the people along with the constitutional amendments being worked out at present by Parliament, after it is approved at a referendum.