Wednesday, November 24, 2021 00:05--{{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

The introduction of a suitable and effective electoral system that reflects the true wishes of the people is the hope and aspiration of the people, and this is the need of the times-picture from Shehan Gunasekara 

I have written many articles arguing that it is necessary to consider revising our existing electoral system. I think this requires some amendments to effective representation. I am very pleased to note that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa reiterated at a recent forum that the introduction of the electoral system and the new constitution is a priority. To this end, the Parliamentary Special Committee is finalizing its recommendations. At this stage, I should emphasize some of the shortcomings in our current system of election of parliamentary representatives. As an enthusiastic follower of our country’s political development, I want to share some of my thoughts and opinions on the existing electoral system. I cherish the countless opportunities that I have received during my visit. The most important thing is that I have listened to many interesting parliamentary debates, especially those of many famous and respected intellectuals and politicians in the past. Unfortunately, these debates are lacking now. People must read the old "Hansard", which will prove their valuable contribution. Some famous speeches of former senior congressmen still linger in my mind. The last parliamentary election was held in August 2020 during the pandemic and was the most peaceful election in the country's history. There is no paper-cutting, no posters, etc. Unlike in previous elections, we have witnessed paper-cutting and posters becoming the order of the day. Except for a few incidents of voting violations, no incidents of violence have been reported. Political meetings are kept to a minimum. The country is in a state of complete peace, and people move around in daily activities during and after the election, especially on the day when the vote count is taking place. It is worth noting that unlike past elections, there are no foreign election monitors. In past elections, foreign election monitors were invited to report and supervise each election.

Hybrid of First Past the Post system and PR

In many of my previous articles, I advocated reintroducing the First Past the Post system (FPP) to replace the existing PR system or mix the two as needed. The vast majority of people believe that the current electoral system does not conform to the effective representation of the people. Even President Gotabaya Rajapaksa emphasized the need to introduce a system that mixes "pass rate" and "proportional representation."

Some obvious flaws

Under the existing public relations system, the procedure used to elect representatives allows candidates of the same political party to shoot at each other to obtain priority votes that ultimately determine the winner. Candidates are not only forced to compete with opponents; they must also compete with competitors in their own party, which is not a healthy phenomenon. If a person desires to serve the people and enter the parliament, these people are not only forced to run as organizers among the voters of their choice; they must campaign in the entire region where their voters are located. There have been many examples of such organizers in the past. Even if they have won their voters, they cannot enter the parliament because they cannot win the trust of voters in the entire region. This is a costly task. Many others did not win over the voters they chose and designated, but they were able to gain entry because of their ability to win the entire constituency. In some cases, some voters are lucky to have more than one member representing them, while other voters are deprived of any representation. This is a serious shortcoming that needs to be corrected in order to establish an effective representative system. Candidates who have the ability to carry out effective marketing activities will eventually enter the parliament. In other words, it ultimately boils down to a person’s ability to carry out effective marketing activities without the need to explain that such activities are expensive. The public relations system introduced by the then powerful United Nations People's Party government in the 1978 Constitution deprived intellectuals who had no financial power to enter parliament. According to reports, candidates spent millions of dollars on campaign activities under the existing public relations system. In all our parliamentary elections, we have observed many examples of conflicts between political parties in order to obtain priority votes. This is common and urgently needed. Candidates of the same party may even challenge the final result of the priority vote for their own "self-satisfaction", thereby sabotaging the election process. Based on our interactions with various people at several social gatherings and other forums, it is no exaggeration to say that, with the exception of a few candidates who can widely publicize and promote them, many voters are not aware of their candidate offers Number. Under the existing proportional representation system, many leading and popular candidates sometimes fail to win elections because they cannot effectively promote their preference numbers, which is a major determinant. Even a large percentage of voters go to polling stations without knowing their choices. This is one of the reasons why candidates are forced to canvass votes directly in front of the polling station, even if such a campaign violates the election law. It is reported that in the last parliamentary election, a large number of votes, accounting for 4.5% of the total votes, were rejected. In the last presidential election, only 1% of the votes were classified as invalid votes. Whether this was intentional or due to a lack of understanding of the complex election process is unclear. However, it is no exaggeration to say that the format of the ballot paper must contain many symbols, and the priority number may confuse a large voting population, which may lead to the rejection of these ballots. Even if the majority of voters like and vote for them, candidates who are widely accepted and respected among the voters of their choice sometimes still fail to enter parliament. The reintroduction of a voter-wise voting system in which the people elect their representatives is desirable because it will ensure the entry of unblemished and honest candidates who can contribute to healthy parliamentary debates. It will also provide voters with the representation they deserve. These people can effectively contribute to governance for the greater good of the country by sharing their knowledge and expertise, because there does not seem to be such a person at present.

Independent candidates enter parliament

The 1978 Constitution is completely different from the previous electoral process of direct representatives through voter elections. The previous system allowed candidates from recognized political parties and independent candidates to contest among any voters of their choice. Before 1978, there were many well-known and popular members of parliament who were not allied with any political party. They participated in the elections as independents and won seats by an overwhelming majority only because of their popularity among voters. They have made great contributions to valuable parliamentary debates. In the past electoral system, certain electoral districts had several multi-member electoral districts to ensure the representation of minorities. Southern Colombo, Central Colombo, Nuwara Eliya-Maskella and Batticaloa, and Pottuvil as a double constituency are some of the constituencies I think of. The current system prohibits any independent candidates from entering unless they form a group and submit nominations collectively. The success of such independent groups is very remote, and it has completely closed the door for any such candidates to enter, unless they are allied with registered parties. It is worth noting that after the 1978 Constitution was promulgated, there were no independent members in the parliament. 

It is interesting to study the Kerala model. In the recent Kerala parliamentary elections held in India, the current government led by a left-wing party returned with an overwhelming majority. The main reason for its victory was its successful control of COVID-19. Many people praise the government, especially the Minister of Health as a physics teacher. She was re-elected by a vast majority. What is heartening to note is the party's ability and courage to appoint a new Cabinet comprising 31 newly-elected members. No one in the previous cabinet was re-appointed. Even the Minister of Health, who was recognized by the United Nations for his efforts to effectively control COVID-19, was excluded. To provide opportunities for the greater interests of the country, it is the party's decision to tap and use new talents. This decision was gracefully accepted by all members of the outgoing cabinet. In addition, because the party hopes to have new members with new expertise, all members who have served for two terms have been deprived of the right to re-nominate. Perhaps Sri Lanka can learn from the Kerala model and tap new expertise, because it is clear that despite the government’s power, many members have been enjoying ministerial allowances for decades. One party should have the courage to make such a decision that may be deprived of due to lack of professional knowledge, which may be mainly due to the existing public relations system for electing representatives.

According to reports, the only purpose of the UNP government of the then President JR Jayawardene's introduction of the public relations system was to preserve its power base. The party always gets more votes in every parliamentary election, although they cannot win a majority, which prevents them from forming a government in a few cases. According to reports, the constitutionalists at the time believed that the introduction of the public relations system would ensure their uninterrupted power continuity. However, they have been proven wrong in successive elections, especially in the last election. Despite the PR system, UNP could not even win a seat in the election. 

The 1978 constitution stipulates that according to the overall percentage of votes obtained by all parties across the island, members will be provided with accommodation through a national list. This provision appointed 29 members and 196 members were elected according to the PR system. Each party has the right to appoint members based on their overall performance. Many civil organizations and key figures have been calling on party leaders not to appoint unsuccessful candidates through the national list. It is heartening that, apart from TNA, AJP, and UNP, no political party nominates any unsuccessful candidates through the national list to the current parliament. In the last parliament, 11 unsuccessful candidates entered through the national list, and some of them were even awarded ministerial positions. After the last parliamentary election, there were many speculations about the unsuccessful candidates trying to enter the parliament under their leadership. Within a few days after the election, the People's Party boldly finalized its list of countries. All other parties took a considerable amount of time, because some failed candidates reportedly tried to enter through the national roster. The framers of the constitution envisioned the introduction of the national list mainly to accommodate intellectuals and technocrats, rather than competing and winning in elections, because the country could benefit greatly from their expertise. The original purpose of introducing it does not seem to be fully realized. The existing limit of 29 people in the national list needs to be reviewed, otherwise it is feasible to completely abolish it, which will be welcomed by everyone. At this stage, let us review the 1972 constitution formulated by the Sirimavo Bandaranaike United Front government, which completely abolished the national list or the so-called "appointed members" at the time. All candidates must enter the parliament through a vote of the people. Before the promulgation of the 1972 Constitution, there was a clause appointing members of Congress under the "appointment of members of parliament" clause. I think this clause is limited to six members and reserved for certain communities. Some appointed MPs were forced to seek elections in the 1977 general election. They all lost the election and were wiped out by the UNP wave. It is not advisable for the defeated candidate to make any request through the national list. They should have the courage and conviction to succumb to the will of the people, accept the verdict, and respect democracy, because the parliament is the temple of democracy. 

In some respects, discuss the reintroduction of the Second House, or in other words, the reintroduction of the Senate to give certain groups or communities sufficient representation. The Senate, the Second House, was abolished by the 1972 Constitution. The main reason for its abolition was that it wasted public funds because it did not realize its desire to create it. Any legislation passed by Parliament is stamped by the Senate. In some cases, the losing candidate is appointed by the political party as a member of the Senate. In view of its past experience, it may not be feasible to reintroduce this because it is actually a way to enter the legislature similar to a national list, which will be a burden on taxpayers.

Before the introduction of the public relations system in 1978, as long as there were vacancies in the parliament, the people had the opportunity to elect new members of their choice in by-elections. In many countries, such vacancies are filled through by-elections of vacant seats. Whenever vacancies appear, the public relations system deprives the people of the opportunity to elect the representatives of their choice. The current government is denied the opportunity to periodically test public opinion in the event of death, resignation, or loss of seats due to election petitions. Before 1978, all such vacancies were filled after by-elections. This gives the people the opportunity to send messages to the government and the opposition on several important issues that affect not only certain voters but the entire country. In the absence of regular public opinion surveys in our country, this approach will be a very valuable tool for all parties to determine the acceptability of their directions and policies. It is worth mentioning that there have been two such major resignations in the history of our Parliament. JR Jayewardene, then the leader of the opposition party and the first member of parliament in southern Colombo, resigned to protest the extension of the Parliament’s lifespan by the then Sirimavo Bandaranaike government. The other is the resignation of SJV Chelvanayakam, the then leader of the Federal Party, who resigned from the Kankesanturai seat in protest against the promulgation of the 1972 Constitution. Both the aforesaid personalities were re-elected with wider margins at the by-elections in spite of the massive Propaganda of the then powerful Government which lost both by-elections. Candidates who failed in the last election are filled in and enter the parliament based on the priority votes they received in the last election. Individuals who lost in the last election became members of Congress overnight. This deprives voters of the opportunity to elect a new representative of their choice. If the proposed electoral reform gives due consideration to the reintroduction of by-elections, it will be desirable.

Serious consideration should be given to the promulgation of the "Anti-Defection Law" to effectively prevent members from transferring to other political parties. If they cross, they should voluntarily give up their seats and seek re-election. The law is in force in the Indian Constitution, which effectively closes any crossing doors. This will also ensure the stability of the government.

It is worth noting that the now repealed Article 19 amendment deprives the president of the power to dissolve the parliament unless it is passed by two-thirds of the parliamentarians. This approach is unimaginable and unrealistic, because no member will agree to disband prematurely. The makers of the regulations failed to recognize this aspect and its reality. This led to a major constitutional crisis in October 2018. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the then president had no right to dissolve the parliament before the expiry of the four-and-a-half-year time limit. This even deprives the new president of the right to dissolve the parliament immediately after his victory in November 2019, which could have avoided the disaster of holding elections under the global pandemic. 

Presidential elections and nominations

In the last presidential election, there were 34 candidates from different parties and colors. Many candidates know that their chances of winning are slim. Some people have submitted their nominations as agents of the main candidates, while others may have submitted their nominations for cheap publicity. According to media reports, this caused the country and the Election Commission to pay an additional Rs. 2000000000. It also helps to confuse voters because it has to accommodate all 34 candidates and therefore cannot properly determine their preferences from the two-foot-long ballot. Serious consideration should be given to revising the existing eligibility criteria, and it is mandatory for candidates to obtain at least the minimum required number of votes from the total number of votes cast. Deposits should be substantially increased, or bank guarantees equivalent to cash should be provided. This will ensure that only serious candidates can enter, and will eliminate all other candidates who do not have the people's support for their policies. This is not only a blessing to the Election Commission, it will also enable voters to choose their favorite candidates without difficulty, and the country can save millions of rupees for presidential elections.

Introduction to Electronic Voting Machine (EVM)

Now is the time for us to consider the use of technological innovations for elections, especially in voting and counting. Compared with the current paper-and-pencil system for voting and counting, the effective introduction of EVM will ensure that the voices of the people are heard clearly and there is no room for manipulation. The system has been implemented in neighbouring India and has worked well, and the results were announced almost on the same day as the count. This will minimize the huge costs currently incurred and eliminate all forms of manipulation that falsify voter choices. 

It is no exaggeration to say that the elections cost a lot of money, and according to media reports, this expenditure is as high as Rs. 10 billion has been spent in the last parliamentary election. Provincial assembly elections expire at any time; after that we can look forward to local government elections, all of which will lead to huge expenditures. Election after the election. Given the existing COVID-19 and compliance with the precautionary measures laid down by the health authorities in the last election, expenditures will definitely increase because any election requires people to gather in various public places. The authorities should seriously consider a mechanism to hold all three major elections (i.e. the president, parliament, and provincial assembly) at least on the same day. Voters can get three ballots to elect their president, congressman, and provincial legislator on the same day. Not only can it save billions of rupees, but it can also ensure the country’s political stability. Policymakers can focus on the mission and responsibilities that the people entrust to them, instead of wasting precious time and energy on campaign activities. This will not be a complicated process compared to existing public relations systems that need to be effectively understood to determine voters’ choices. It is worth mentioning that the United States is one of the largest democracies in the world. In addition to other state elections, the people also elect the president, congressmen, and senators on the same day. However, senators and congressmen are elected regularly for six and two years respectively. Presidential elections are held every four years on the first Tuesday of November in the prescribed year. 

According to media reports, the recently concluded German general election will elect representatives to its parliament (Bundestag). Among them, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s party has failed to win a majority of its main opponents, and neither party will be able to form a government. Negotiations are ongoing, and even if the election has been completed, it will take several months to finalize the formation of the government. The main reason is Germany's complicated voting system. The system combines proportional representation and First Past the Post system. It is interesting for us to study the representative election model in Germany to ensure that these shortcomings in our proposed electoral system will not deprive the country of the right to form a government immediately after the election. This will lead to political instability, which should be avoided at all costs. The government is in a high position and its powers are overwhelming. This is a great opportunity to reform the current electoral system. The opportunity should be seized and not missed. The previous Ahapalana government missed the golden opportunity to realize this effort, and the people entrusted it with tasks including the abolition of the presidency. It is the hope and aspiration of the people to introduce a suitable and effective election system that reflects the true wishes of the people. This is the need of the times. 

All content on this website is protected by copyright, and the copyright can only be copied by providing "ft.lk" with due courtesy 2004 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd.