Proposed Electoral Process and Prevention of Franchise Erosion

When members are elected to Parliament through 1972 constitution - First Past the Post system (FPPS) Candidates directly goes to the voters within a well-defined area and, Whereas in 1978 constitution – PR System (PRS) candidates are exposed to the voters through party symbol only since, few electorates of 1972 constitution are amalgamated to one electoral district which is too large and too highly populated to identify who it is, representing them, but the  political party; hence peoples’ supremacy has been transferred  into a  party leader. In other words the processing of candidature is such in FPPS smaller electorate of voters introduces the candidate to a political party where as in the PRS the party leader introduces the candidate to the voter. One of the party leader becomes an Executive President as well.

In FPPS few thousands of ten and in PRS few hundred thousand exercise their franchise to elect their representatives in Parliament, on behalf of a particular party though directly in FPPS & in PRS indirectly. Therefore in both the system, the elects do not have the right to cross over to another political party whatsoever, based on the simple basic fact that a pluralistic collective aspiration to elect one, cannot be nullified by an individual desire or collective desire. Therefore all crossovers to either sides should be discouraged and eliminated and people’s supremacy reinstated in the parliamentary process.

In a Democracy People should have more say than the Party Leaders!

In the present context there is an urgent need to change the Parliamentary constituencies lacking accountability and responsibilities towards voters and abdicating the Executive power of Presidency except Sovereignty and Law and Order simultaneously is most welcoming; too bulky members for a too large electoral district – As A Tamil Proverb describes appropriately and very critically “கும்பலில் கோவிந்தா”- “Kumbalil Kovindha”- means be in a flock to evade accountability & responsibility - puts the peoples’ supremacy the fundamental of Parliamentary Democracy in doldrums. Realising this and other critical reasons a Parliamentary select committee has been deliberating on this matter and as far as I can remember arrived to a conclusion – 70% first past the post system (FPPS) of the 1972 constitution and 30 % of present proportionate representation (PPR) – that means around 150 members thru FPPS and 75 thru PPR- though yet to be finalised.

The FPPS based on the 1972 constitution elected 168 members from 160 electorates the smallest unit to elect a member for parliament (154) with 2 of 3 and 4 of 2 multi member seats.  This factor cannot be ignored what so ever because it had been existed for a while and the people had been represented by that- thus a reduction in electorates becomes very sensitive issue. What may be suggested here is that proposed 70% FPPS should equal at least or more i.e. 160 or 161 preferably 168 members (thus avoids fresh delimitation thru re-enacting that section of the 1972 constitution) which warrants the increase the number of parliament members to 240 and the rest 80 is set against PPR National List , both of which is quite reasonable as for the period passed over and for the good effects of PPR to which it is meant for especially another A. Amirthalingham cannot occupy the post of Opposition Party Leader. Overlapping responsibilities and evading accountabilities worst reflected in the PPR can be minimized through these changes it is hoped.

What is suggested here is that the proposed 70% FPPS should at least equal 168, though only 160 members are elected directly and thus avoids fresh delimitation thru re-enacting that section of the 1972 constitution, and the balance 30% (PPR) Proportionate Representation warrants the increase the number of parliament members to 240; the rest 8 + 72  is set appropriately as PPR National List, MPs in order to keep the electoral process as much as possible very simple with an aim of reducing the number of votes that are rejected. This 70% FPPS and 30% PPR are very critical values in that lesser the FPPS and higher the PPR than the prescribed percentage value would be very detrimental to the entire process; here the PPR is adjusted to the critical maximum adding 08 members   and no any lost candidate off FPPS shall be accommodated as Nationalistic List MP, since it inclines to retain the same worst out come off PPR, and all eligible parties shall use the Nationalistic List to allocate representation for the Professional Specialists and particularly women. The lowest number of votes polled by a winning candidate through FPPS becomes the criterion for all the political parties to qualify for national list MPs nominations.

If parliamentary seats are 240 and allotment for PRS becomes 80, if 160 are elected through FPPS, that will re-introduce returning of Individual independent as MPs as well, should also be Determining the political parties that would gain access for a minimum one seat becomes an important issue, since both FPPS and PRS two different criterions are in place to elect members for one chamber that upholds the People’s Supremacy, through representation in thus the Supreme Parliament.

The issue of allotment of 80 members of Nationalistic List, would arise only after the completion of FPPS electoral process of a particular General Election. This would pave way for calculation of which are the political parties to be offered seats and how many each party will receive to be represented in the Supreme Parliament. The Basic for PRS qualification should be that of minimum number of votes polled by a winning candidate in just concluded FPPS election from the entire 160 electorates, whatever the count it may be. If it is 4567 votes that returned a seat thru FPPS and all political parties that gained total of 4567 or more from entire electorates shall have attain minimum qualification for one of among 80 seats in the parliament, though it does not by any means it secures a seat; I opine that such a low situation would not arise and this is the best way of application of the mixed system for Democracy.

 A most appropriate method is to allocate these seats through National Percentage of each political party polled and the Electoral Districts based on percentage polled merit, but of preferential voting directly. In addition to the FPPS elected MPs, on minimum for population basis following districts will select 3 members as of Nationalistic MPs -: Anuradhapura, Galle, Hambanttota, Kegalle, Kurunegala, , Matala, Mattara, Monaragala, Polonnaruwa, Puttalam, and  Vanni (11 electoral districts yielding 33 selected from the lists provided to Election Commissioner on the nomination day); 04 each will be selected from Ampara Batticoloa Badulla, Kaluththura, Kandy, Jaffna, Gampaha Ratnapura and Trinchomalee on the basis of multi-ethnic districts (09 electoral districts will have selectees of 36); Nuweraeliya will select 05 seats and Colombo district 06 respectively, both will select a total 11on the same basis and population wise, all summed up to 80 nationalistic MPs. 

Electoral Districts	Seats	Basic Rationale
1.      Anuradhapura	03	Minimum Qualification
2.      Galle	03	Minimum Qualification
3.      Hambantotta	03	Minimum Qualification
4.      Kegalle	03	Minimum Qualification
5.      Kurunegala	03	Minimum Qualification
6.      Matala	03	Minimum Qualification
7.      Mattara	03	Minimum Qualification
8.      Monaragala	03	Minimum Qualification
9.      Polonnaruwa	03	Minimum Qualification
10.  Puttalam	03	Minimum Qualification
11.  Vanni	03	Multi ethnic of 3 Admin. Districts
12.  Ampara	04	Multi ethnic
13.  Badulla	04	Multi ethnic
14.  Batticoloa	04	Multi ethnic
15.  Gampaha	04	Multi ethnic
16.  Jaffna	04	Two amalgamated Admin. Districts
17.  Kaluththura	04	Multi ethnic
18.  Kandy (Mahanuwara)	04	Multi ethnic
19.  Ratnapura	04	Minimum Qualification
20.  Trincomalee	04	Multi ethnic
21.  Nuwera-eliya	05	Multi ethnic
22.  Colombo	06	Multi ethnic
Total	80

This tabulation reveals that the Proportional Representation even after reduction to 30% still holds enough strength for its manifestation of the best as well the bad. In order to prevent PPR manifest the worse effects again, it should be made compulsory for the FPPS MPs to open a Public Electorate Office at their respective Electorates and inducted to work closely with the people within the electorate, whereas it is ideal for PPR MPs to concentrate in nationalistic committees and duties.

A constitutional guarantee should be laid in order to perfectly uphold the People’s Supremacy to formulate and to dethrone a government through the universal franchise to which Sri Lanka is proud for since 1931. It is prescribed that, clauses should be included in the electoral section of the constitution, banning all the crossovers to any elected governing bodies, beginning from the day of nomination until within the final 45 days of the stipulated term of the particular elected body.

A parliament formed by the mixed electoral system of FPPS and Proportional Representation System, a Member of Parliament crossing over to either ruling party or opposition party before the 45 days of term, will be ceased to function as an MP and lose all the privileges installed upon becoming Member of Parliament through the either system. If it is a member through FPPS there should be a By-Election in the particular Electorate to fill the vacancy and if it is a PPR member, next in line in the Nationalistic List for the particular electoral district submitted to election commissioner along with the nominations for FPPS in order to select the Nationalistic MPS.  E.g. Vanni Electoral District has  3 electorates and all political parties in the fray mandated to submit 4 names of proposed National List MPs, whom need not necessarily  to be from the same district and thus termed as Nationalistic List MP, not in the real meaning of "National List MPs of 1978 constitution", who would contribute more towards nationalistic duties.

An independent candidate, who is successfully returned to an elected governing body, though shall hold the discretion of supporting either the party that forms the government or the opposition party, any member elected through a registered political party, cannot do so, but only through the sanction of the executive committee of the particular political party through which he/she or collectively has been elected. Anyway any member returned through a political party may become an independent member by rendering his resignation any time, from the political party elected him/her shall not join any other political party until 90 days of acceptance of his resignation by that political party, but it is the same political party’s discretion whether to apply the law of 45 days of term stipulation against that particular member even in this case. Any elected member who has been dismissed and or through disciplinary action by a political party, will cease to function as a member of any elected governing body, and lose all the privileges born by that elected body and will be barred from joining any other political parties, as well as contesting any election, until the very next election is over.

Stern exemplary actions be taken against, all of those (any) elected members who instigate, and participate in any violence during election, and indulge and violating the election laws should be arrested and remanded until the particular election is over through the proposed Independent Judicatory Commission – Election Commission combination; the same should be applied against those any Government Servants who are partial, fails to implement the election laws, being part of propaganda, and shall be removed from their office, stripping off the title he/she holds, imprisonment, and can mount up to freezing their property – this follows a study revealing most of the Government Servants actively involve politics to protect the ruling party in order to protect the wealth they have illegally accumulated during the period concerned, and they may become a part of toppling a democratically elected government as well.

All these clauses are indispensable in the constitution to prevent Universal Suffrage or franchise being suffered and eroded by wealth, social status or race.