Mixed Electoral Process; Anticipated Pros and Cons continues

Daily News 18/04/2015 Editorial page 

“A balanced Voice of People’s choice” 

Immediately implementable and suitable electoral reforms

By (. Herbert A. Aponso, Emeritus Professor of Paediatrics, University Peradeniya and Dayantha Wijesekera,  Emeritus Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Moratuwa, Former Vice Chancellor, University of Moratuwa and Open University of Sri Lanka)

The learned professors had offered 3 options for the above purpose and had also counter argued  against their 1^st option, as an immediate suitable reforms to which I  myself as well have many reservations on the contents of this option, particularly the maintaining of  the  Parliamentary seats as it now at 225. But further argues about strength of electorates varying in wide margins, from less than 50, 000 to more than 170, 000 and worries about disproportionate representation emerging through FPPS. But under the present system, 300, 000 to 700, 000 strength electoral district had been assumed as an electorate and nobody among those voters knows who their actual representative is! Therefore as have been agreed upon in the transitional arrangements that breaks the present very large electoral districts, into many electorates, presently known as polling divisions will “introduce” their exact representatives to the voters of each so called polling division, after a much protracted long 33 years and at this voters would be more than happier that the system that is being replaced.   This technical issue that has to be addressed by an extra quick delimitation and it is not impossible as has been claimed by a cabinet minister before the General Election.

A cabinet approved proposal says part of their Option 1 emerging as a proposal to satisfy the minority parties as well by creating a few multi-member constituencies where the population density is high and multi ethnic through a fast tracked Delimitation Committee (DC) although this as well had been countered by them as of impossible to practice in the very next election. The political parties, particularly the minority parties operating mainly in the south shall realize that this is a golden opportunity, and pressing for more PRS seats would culminate in communal organizations, organized groups and gangs, gaining entrance to the parliament at the expense of the same minority parties of the south, because PRS is such an easy process and that those antisocial elements’ voter base can swell bigger, against the broken and insecure voter base of the southern minorities or other smaller parties! In this context, I would welcome back the multi- member constituencies, and all the smaller ethnic parties shall use the multi-member constituencies with multiple votes, intelligently to secure a seat in Parliament, rather than a opting to an easy but a common hindrance of PRS; removal of winning votes of FPPS from all the electorates for the district wise calculation of the PRS eligibility on remaining votes, ensures the multiple voting would not be duplicated to the PRS, a proposal since 2006.

 The 3^rd Option of the learned professors speak for consideration of narrow margin losers of the FPPS and the same individual still worth for parliamentary representation and in all my proposals for electoral reforms since 2005-2006 I have maintained that a losing candidate of FPPS shall not be accommodated as PRS winner for the reasons, supremacy of the people’s verdict through FPPS is being conquered by the PRS and the behavior of the politicians return as it is presently now and I still stand strong by that  virtue.

If in case this option is also drafted in the proposals what is the margin considered as narrow margin loser, how many of those could be considered for PRS and these factors would decide the fate and consequent derailment of Mixed Electoral process soon or later consumed by this PRS factor.  Respected professors had put forward a formula through calculating the Percentage of votes obtained by losing candidate against the registered voters of an electorate, and arriving a merit tabulation of the Eligible score to accommodate the best losers into the system. What I would strongly recommend is, at no any circumstances drafting losing candidate into a district PRS shall occur, but it may be considered into the National List MPs and Bonus Seats which have been proposed as 24 and 5 respectively now, as in the above manner and applied only for   handpicked, by individual political parties. It should be handled only by political party hierarchy, and at any instance the Election Commission (EC) shall not temper the verdict of the FPPS in any form and a District PRS list of candidates shall be provided to the EC, before the conclusion of nomination deadline for FPPS, photos of those nominees and affiliated symbols of alignment may be displayed just outside the polling station premises as of probable district selects, and just outside the polling booth those same effects of the real contestants shall in bigger display, that asking the voters to cast one or more votes wherever it is relevant.  

EC shall stipulate that all the losing candidates who obtains less than 1% of total registered voters of an electorate as majority, are eligible to be appointed as national list member or through a bonus seat of that particular party. The success of purpose in FPPS within a mixed electoral process solely depends on this and only the strictness of adhering to the FPPS verdict would ensure a well groomed culture of the elected body and the elected and a Narrow margin loser should be marginalized as rare phenomenon by that less than 1% majority of total registered voters of electorate stipulation, and a candidate who could not make into the successful best loser category from a multi-member seat, shall never be accommodated as a narrow margin loser!

Another proposal by them is providing PRS for the independent candidates, again through calculation of total of votes obtained by the all the independent candidates District wise as well as island wise. This would be a very dangerous situation that it attempts to bypass a law and consequent purpose that prohibits the formation and registering the new political parties during an election.  Unless  otherwise the candidates contesting independently are allocated with the same a symbol at the completion of nomination at the discretion of EC within a same electoral district, those independent candidates neither can be considered for District PRS nor for National list PRS.

If the EC, at his discretion has allowed, on request same symbol for an independent group, for each electorate within a particular electoral district or for a number of electoral districts, and then the votes secured under that same symbol as an independent group can be considered  for District PRS as well as for National PRS.

Best way for minor political parties to work hard within a FPPS electorate and or allying with major political parties for gains. 

Electoral Reforms for Good Governance

A Doubled Hype of Expectation from the People during Sinhala/Tamil New year Season of Celebration

“Yahapalanaya” the Sinhala term for good governance has become a very popular term among the common civics, in the south; likewise the Tamil version “Nalladchchy” has become the common man’s term in the north and east.  On the eve of Sinhala and Tamil New Year hype of expectation off the dawning New Year socially, very common every year, but this time around, there is one thing in common, irrespective of ethnicity of this tiny nation, the hype of expectation is intermingled with the political front as well for various reasons. Will our politicians have the will to deliver the people’s expectation and escalate the New Year celebrations euphoric to the people?

Having expressed doubt at this, it is quite exciting during this Sinhala/Tamil New Year, on learning about His Excellency’s commitment and determination towards abdication in part of his own powers, and dedicating it back to the Parliament, and inducting to propose a practicable electoral process, for the very next Parliament. Amendments 19 and 20 seems as good beginning for restoring full fletched democracy.  It truly exciting and it should be for every citizen as well to find 20^th Amendment intends to re-induct 160 First Past the Post System election of members, 65 District Proportionate Representatives for 22 electoral districts and 25 Nationalist Members, as it almost equally caters all that is demanded for the typicality of Mixed Electoral Process.

Timely one as well, for that nobody would want to disappoint anybody, during this typically important festive season of whole Sri Lanka, particularly the politicians their own voters; secondly because just deposing the culprit or culprits will not guarantee that the good governance is established and if the proposals enacted and effected as soon as possible, it would lay strong foundation for good governance. Thirdly, since as it has been announced, the new Parliament would function as a Constitutional Assembly as well, the real performance of the mixed electoral process in the 2015 General Election could be analytically reviewed favorably or remodeled to find an appropriate and effective representation for true Democracy.

Well done “Yahapalanaya”!

Mixed Electoral Process; Anticipated Pros and Cons 

Various means of figures are proposed for this change of electoral process and there is no any doubt that the whole island is anxiously awaiting the actual mode of new process that would emerge as final formula to the satisfaction of whom are of most politically sensitive citizen, who are the voters as well. A major factor and a fact that has been not realized by our politicians deriving of appropriate representation for the people.

Now all political parties representing voters have just agreed to increase the Parliamentary seats to around 250.  In a true democratic means, this number of seats very relevant to the voters and play a huge role as they have to be appropriately represented and the need of the people are correctly reflected in their respective councils. In many countries there is permanent delimitation committee for this purpose, so that democratic representation derived through and to the perfect
 need of the people, rather than to the need of manipulative politicos.

The collective mind set of the people and the behavior and psychology of the politicians who, are to represent those people shall be a criteria and be considered in formulating a electoral process, and the easiest way out for all these consideration is the First Past the Post System (FPPS) through a minimum number of population within a possible minimum area, particularly for rural community. Such a system hits the nail on the head, emerging from those considerations at each election.  Sri Lankan voters had enjoyed such an easy and ideal (for them) electoral system until 1982, with grand success – for and against the behavior of the politicians and that is the hallmark of the democracy that thrives by the mandate of the people. That is why this system has been on the hate side of all politicos, since the advent and repetition of Proportional Representative System (PRS) that ensures a no lose situation but for the wish of the people, the electors. This factor has been well documented in each and every article that prescribed for electoral reforms.

The reason for me to repeat the same here is to point out that, when carving out electorates, you cannot back from that have been already enjoyed, by the electors, and of course it was totally deprived when PRS was introduced as the total criterion for electing the representatives and while reforming the electoral system you cannot behave like just introducing the FPPS newly for the reason above described.  

In the last election under the FPPS in 1977 the voters enjoyed the privilege of electing and rejecting their choice of members for the Parliament, from 160 electorates, members amounting to 168. Therefore in any model proposed to reduce the number of electorates, few of 160 are enlarged, without equality consideration, which would pave way for the worst syndromes of the PRS, to easily creep into the FPPS system as well without previous warning, which is otherwise a perfect system alone. This inhospitable anticipation is not just fortune telling but based on the human behavior particularly in polling divisions, where PRS has been practiced for more than 30 years. Human behavior is such that it hold on to the latest practices.

The unfortunate thing that happened in 1977 post-election FPPS was, politicians instead of analyzing their shameful defeat that encountered for all the so called HON. Ministers, and instead of accepting the facts at its face value,  propelled by human nature they found fault with voters and reacted according to that ill-fated opine in two ways – one was the communal rioting against the Tamil voters and then followed it by replacing the hitting nail on the head character FPPS with PRS  as an absolute electoral process all the elected bodies in the country. Both reactive actions resulted in ill-fated consequences. Now these politicians are muddling out for best percentage for PRS for themselves and for the worst of the entire system by the name mixed electoral process. Some are suggesting 50% of each, including further break for District PRS and National PRS.

Within a truly developing nation, with expanding and improving census it is not appropriate representative wise to reduce the FPPS number of electorates that had already existed, even in a mixed electoral process. Doing so would bargain for electorate competition within a political party even without preferential voting system. This may even worsen if double voting system is included in order to accommodate the district PRS, as this would in operational situation insinuates and emancipate as preferential voting. This is very similar to the great scientists Isaac Newton making two holes larger and smaller for the passage of Cat and the Kitty.

The FPPS alone had a weakness that it carried on with double and triple voting in certain electorates and the rest had single voting reflecting the inequality of casting votes amongst the voters! That is how the last FPPS election elected 168 members from 160 electorates. The PRS introduced should have been targeting the weakness of the FPPS, but it turned out to be constituencies of transforming the politicos into fortune hunters and harmful communal emanating ones.

For all these reasons it is far more appropriate to begin with 160 seats off FPPS (even it is 50% of the total seats), unless there was extensive amount of reduction in the national population through natural calamities, war and migration, that outnumbered the natural expansion of population. Do these population reducing factors, have done enough depletion or destruction of the country’s population to warrant the reduction of FPPS seats since the last election through the FPPS – A question that cannot be ignored in evolving an electoral process even if it is a mixed of FPPS and PRS, where the later system all ways carries on with the its intrinsic character of producing the “non-representing” representatives through its inherent collective responsibility character that spoil the PRS. Therefore the PRS cannot take the dominant role  in an electoral process and unless it is limited to less than 1/4^th of an electoral districts’ total FPPS elect, all of its bad would emerge to topple even the mixed electoral process. Otherwise it requires a strict laying of code of conduct and practicing it, which itself in turn cast reasonable doubts.

That is why in a 250 seats of parliament best way of electing them is through 160 through FPPS and 90 through National PRS. This will clearly alleviate the claim of smaller political parties that their representation will be annulled or reduced  if  there is any truth in that claim at all in the first hand. All the prominent politicians may be included in the National PRS list so that to accommodate the prime criteria of mixed electoral process 1. No candidate declared lost off FPPS shall not be drafted into as PRS winner. All should bear in mind that if FPPS when operative 100% in past has not reduced the minority representation, how it can it be expected happen in a mixed electoral process - ridiculous - unless it is done voluntarily in order to permanently shunting off the implementation of recommended Mixed Electoral Process!        

ICC - International Cricket Council​ CEO, David Richardson jumps the gun in prove of that he is dancing to the tune of Mr. Srinivasan the Chair of ICC than to the mandate of ICC. 

CEO, David Richardson, shall realize that the elected bodies are more politically motivated than the appointed ones. Elected bodies are more politically motivated because of the party affiliation of the personals, and they can easily buy the clubs to vote those personals  into the office of Sri Lanka Cricket​ through political power and unabated wealth.  That is what had happened during previous regime, and thus dissolved Sri Lanka Cricket was more politically oriented than the newly appointed Interim Committee. Deposed Sri Lanka Cricket officials Chairman Dharmathasa, and  Nisanka Ranathunga, were very much attached to the deposed autocratic ruler and were making political appointments, and Sanath Jeyasuria, Hashan Thilakaratne are such political appointments ahead of many experienced selectors and hence Marvan Attapttu who is a brother in-law of Nisanka Ranathunga, former Secretary as a Head Coach  and were running the show for a decade just concluded, under the well protected disguise of Elected Body. If there was no any political interference during the previous regime, Sri Lanka Cricket  would have enjoyed foreign expertise as head coach and fielding coach. Politically motivated  elected body effectively thwarted this very welcoming  idea of Sri Lankan spectators to their total dismay! 

CEO, David Richardson who has poor knowledge of Local politics and situations developed there upon shall realize that all elected bodies would not be clean as ICC expects and imagine and the Interim Committee is aimed at fall outs of such autocratic rule and its members are of all Cricketing Paternity vastly  experienced than David Richardson himself!

ICC shall also realize that an Elected Government under an Executive President has all the rights over the organisations to prevent that are running amok, rigging of impending elections, buying of clubs to prevent independent voting and corruption.

ICC should have broad ideas of local politics than the criteria of "Elected Bodies" and have broader sense of defending the members than finding quick reasons to quickly dismember through mere words and letters of the code of establishments.