Saturday Sep 21, 2024
Saturday Sep 21, 2024
Thursday, 2 October 2014 00:27 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
As we know, the existing election laws pertaining to curtailment of propaganda campaigns by candidates are the result of a very democratic and a collective effort by the Legislature, mainly to make available a ‘level playing’ field to the candidates of all parties irrespective of their varying financial capabilities to meet enormous propaganda costs.
In addition, they were aimed at reducing environmental pollution (through poster and polythene campaigns) and dispensing with highly unproductive and wasteful expenditures running into rupees billions merely to litter the roads and roadsides. The funds for these campaigns are often raised by resorting to illegal and unethical practices and money laundering.
Furthermore, these election laws were intended to control fierce election rivalries and fisticuffs arising from ‘manapa poreys,’ sometimes leading to the loss of life and limb. Thus, it is needless to state that the inconvenience caused to the day-to-day activities of the civic conscious, peaceful and the disciplined public by election propaganda is highly unwarranted! Isn’t ‘prevention better than cure’?
In developed countries, the general public does not attach undue importance to election propaganda. The information they get through mass media (print and electronic) is considered sufficient for their decision making. If Sri Lanka has achieved universal ‘middle income’ status, should we be resorting to ‘might is right’ tactics in election propaganda?
Background to the problem
Now I wish to deal explicitly with why these unwarranted happenings take place despite the political evolution of this country.
As we know, up to the 1989 Parliamentary elections, the MP of the electorate was the sole political representative to whom the people in a locality could go, to resolve their problems under the ‘first-past-the-post’ system. Thereafter, with the advent of the Proportionate Representation (PR) system, the same role was to be played by the district MP from the ‘Party list’. But, since some politicians argued to their advantage that people still wanted to have a person known to them in the District, the Preferential Voting (PV) system was annexed to the PR system.
After the advent of the decentralised Provincial Councils (PCs) and Pradeshiya Sabas (PSs) under the 13th Amendment, the PV system for Parliamentary elections should have been abolished as a logical corollary. It didn’t happen. As a result, the MPs who were compelled to protect and boost their own preferential vote base at general elections, selfishly and jealously retained with them some powers and financial votes allocated to PCs.
Thus, while we still see the MP of the district rushing to declare open local facilities such as roads, bus stands, public lavatories, libraries, culverts and what not, the innocent public also continue to parade to their district MP to obtain favours and solutions to their problems!
We know that the MP of a district cannot be contacted easily as he has to reside closer to the Parliament in order to attend its sessions as required of him. When people cannot meet the MP, they criticise the system. Some people even do not know or for that matter do not want to know that there are PC, MC, UC or PS members residing in their locality to whom they can easily address their problems. Sadly, their demigod is still the MP or the President!
The question also arises as to why people still continue to pay homage to or go behind politicians for every petty thing, including personal favours! Of course, given the general behaviour of our civil society, the public service and our protracted system for legal redress, it sounds reasonable for voters to approach political authorities to obtain ‘quick fixes’ for injustices perpetrated on them or to get bureaucratic bottlenecks cleared. If our Judiciary, public service and the decentralised administrative machinery perform efficiently and honestly, the need to approach MPs will hardly arise. This is where the real remedy to the problem lies!
Solution to the problem
Paradigm shift in mindset through public awareness
Be that as it may, what should we do to correct this unfortunate misconception that only MPs can deliver the goods to the people? In our view, it is high time that both the public and the politicians are made to fully understand the role responsibilities of the long-existing four-tiered decentralised political administration system consisting of:
a) a Central Parliament with 225 MPs
b) a Provincial Council system with nine mini-Parliaments housing a large number of PC ministers and members
c) a grass-root network of MC, UC and PS members and
d) an all-powerful Executive President who is the people’s ombudsman for all purposes, leading a massive Cabinet of around 110 ministers!
What a burden is this on the National Exchequer for a small country like ours? As taxpayers, are we getting a decent return on this investment? As if adding insult to injury, what a colossal amount of money is spent unproductively by way of cut-outs, posters and polythene campaigns affecting the environment to elect this coterie of so-called administrators of this country?
Given this scenario, a paradigm shift in the mindset of the voter is urgently required and can be achieved only with the help of the mass media and civic minded people educating the public. Towards this end, I give below some salient facts and suggestions that one and all should grasp and act.
1. MPs in the central Parliament are only legislators cum policymakers and as such their prime responsibility should be to formulate national policies and approve the necessary laws for the country’s advancement in all spheres. In addition, they are required to approve the National Budget and handle the finances of the country including national level infrastructural projects.
The people’s needs at village, urban and municipal level which have been included in the central budgetary allocations through the respective ministries, at the instance of the respective provincial and local authorities should be monitored by the MPs to ensure end-use of funds. It is in this manner that the MPs should relate to the people and not by usurping the roles of PCs and other local bodies!
2. We agree that in its present form, the PC system, loaded with nine mini-Parliaments, has become a wasteful drain on the country’s resources and finances. However, since it is a step towards resolving our national problem, it would be impractical to abolish this system at this juncture. Instead, the Government should properly empower the PCs and other local bodies to deliver maximum benefits from them to the people.
Since the representatives whom the people should actually get to know (if at all) should be those elected by them at the grass root level, the present local Govt. election system should be depoliticised so that all members are elected by the people, based purely on their social acceptance, service orientation and commitment to serve the people and the locality. It is akin to the ‘Grama Rajya’ concept presently being discussed.
3. Another plus factor that we cannot forget when dealing with public needs is the presence of an all-powerful Executive President elected by the people. It is evident that the President is untiringly dealing even with day-to-day issues in the ministries, trade unions, health and educational problems, etc. of the people in addition to attending funerals and kissing infants at public functions, etc.!
The Presidential Secretariat and the President’s Fund have become efficient outlets of assistance and funding for the needy people. However, what is really expected of an Executive President once elected by the people is to function as a ‘statesman’ and an ombudsman for the entire population of the country, without any political bias, and not to lead party campaigns as the leader of a political party. This is what was envisaged when the post of Executive President was marketed.
We are even inclined to suggest the further strengthening of the Presidential Secretariat to cater to people’s needs irrespective of their party affiliations, ethnicity or creed. However, a prerequisite is to remove the well-known dictatorial powers presently vested with the Executive Presidency such as exemption from judicial review, dissolving Parliament after one year and interfering with financial controls vested with the Parliament by taking over the portfolio of Finance, etc. Any other dictatorial power trimmings also may be considered.
The aforesaid underpinnings of a decentralised political administration system combined with an Executive Presidency amply justify the abolishing of the ‘Preferential Voting’ or ‘Manape’ system. It is needless to state that even the existing system has recognised this fact by making the ‘Preferential Vote’ optional for the voter!
In an extreme situation, if the voter decides to mark his vote only for the party of his choice, how will that political party select its candidates to fill the number of seats allocated after the election result? Obviously, it has to depend on a merit list of its candidates nominated for the district.
Revive the ‘Party list’ system
It is now very clear that at a Parliamentary election the people should be voting not for individuals but for a party of their choice based on its policy framework and action plan (party manifesto) time-framed for the ensuing six years. This being the most crucial factor to win votes, it can even be made an enforceable legal document in order to safeguard the gullible voter from being taken for a ride by false promises and political rhetoric!
Next, the voter expects only educated and capable individuals who can implement their party manifesto to come to the Parliament. Thus, it is in the best interest of the party concerned to field their best candidates in merit order, if they want to become the majority party in the Parliament.
It is necessary at this point to enlist some of the main advantages of the ‘party lists’ viz:
1. The much-maligned poster wars, enmities, rivalries, thuggery and financial extravaganza associated with the PV system will be no more, thereby creating a peaceful atmosphere during the elections.
2. Since a party will nominate the candidates strictly under its terms and conditions, the much maligned ‘crossovers’ will come to an end. Anyway, the country’s Constitution too should be amended to stop this comedy of unethical crossovers!
3. As the MPs will not be directly dealing with the people at grass-root level, they can devote more time and energy for their primary duty of developing policies and laws for the country. As such it will not be necessary to allocate large staff and luxury vehicles to ministers and MPs of the central Govt. The monies so saved can be utilised to provide facilities to PCs and other local bodies which are actually required to go to the field to identify and solve people’s problems.
4. In this scenario, we can even consider reducing the number of MPs in the Parliament and save a large amount of taxpayers’ money which can be channelled for worthier purposes!
Introduce an All-Party Cabinet
Given the existence of the more democratic and fairer PR system, coupled with a more-or-less common economic philosophy presently followed by the two major parties, we venture to suggest an extension of the PR system to Cabinet as well and implement the PR system in full.
In our view, it is the first step towards bringing about this much-elusive political consensus to solve our national problem in a cost-effective and a productive manner. One can see that this proposal merely seeks to regularise an existing situation where de-facto Opposition Parliamentarians are holding ministerial portfolios!
When the system is thus changed constitutionally and legally, no political party should feel shy to take over ministerial portfolios, as it would be their legitimate right and not a favour accorded to them by the party in power; nor will the winning party be required to bargain with minority parties, offering undue favours and promises! The TNA, which will get its due representation in the Cabinet, will certainly be forced to give up its present misgivings about a nationalist Cabinet and extend its cooperation working at a national level.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that a proposal of this nature evolving from decent civil society which puts the country’s interest first will not be palatable to the power-hungry politicians who have converted politics into a business of revenue and revenge! They always espouse a policy of ‘Victor vs. the Vanquished’ under the pretext of a so-called ‘stable Govt.’ which is synonymous with a virtual dictatorship!
It must be remembered that the proposed system will guarantee a ‘Stable Govt.’ all the time as the MPs and the ‘All Party Cabinet’ will be striving to achieve national goals of growth and development in a more transparent manner sans any rivalry or attempts to ‘crossover,’ which is unethical and unconstitutional. Also with an ‘All Party Cabinet’, the Executive President will find it difficult to dissolve Parliament prematurely.
Finally, we appeal to all right-thinking, decent citizens and politicians to work forthrightly towards a ‘paradigm shift’ on the lines mentioned above, and ensure the achievement of a true ‘Miracle of Asia’.
End ‘confrontational politics’ and enter’ consensual politics’!
