Does National Constitution Making a Political Playing Field for Political Parties? Part 1, 2, and 3.
Do we require Delimitation for elections alone? 
Political Parties should not be
given prominence while National Constitution is being formulated, and any
political party cannot play politics for gaining upper hand through formulating
a National Constitution.
All politicians shall realize
that we are on the process of adopting a new national constitution to a State
that had been troubled and traumatized since its’ independence by way of 1.
Overriding the written constitutional guarantees, 2. Playing for the miss-construed
gallery of constituency, with narrow minded selfish politics
of racism and as an effective cover-up for fraudulent and corrupt activities as
well, with total disintegrating disregard to the Pluralistic Nation’s
State Requirement and 3. Every (prior?) constitution making becoming politics
playing field repeatedly for SLFP and UNP alone.
All the present members of the
Constitutional Assembly shall realize the above mentioned are the demoralizing evils
of the troubled Nation, thus shall realize that they are not in the
process of making political party constitution, but a viable
National Constitution that would chase away all the post-independence devils
and evils on and off the constitution.
Likewise Electoral reforms should
not be aimed at carving out for favourable loopholes for any political parties but at best
representation for the people and by the people for being served by their
elected representatives, and
thus any political parties cannot be allowed to play major role in formulating
the electoral process. For the best representation each administrative Grama
Niladhary Division and all Divisional Secretary Divisions should become
the units of
basic consideration in deciding the areas of Parliamentary seats and Local
Government constituency or wards.
Though a best representation to
the Parliament can be derived from each of the Divisional Secretary
Division, but for the recommendations of the 2004 Parliamentary Select
Committee(PSC2004) on Electoral Process that necessitates the introduction
of the Mixed electoral process of 70% FPPS and 30% PRS, each of the 280 Divisional
Secretary Divisions cannot be represented in parliament as one constituency;
but two adjacent Divisional Secretary Divisions can make
up a Parliamentary Constituency for FPPS electing a member. Therefore 140 well known FPPS constituencies would emerge, similarly each
Divisional Secretary Division would provide the constituencies for the respective
Provincial Councils; all Divisional
Secretary Councils may elect their members entirely through PRS or
through mixed and Grama Niladhary Divisions each carry shall decide the wards.
It has been challenged that recommendations
of PSC2004 of 70% FPPS and 30% PRS would drastically reduce the minority
and minor political party representations enjoyed by them in the preset 100%
PRS. There is no any special need for just one kind of electoral
process covering all the elections for electing the people’s representatives,
but an electoral process appropriate for the particular type of local body. For
example minor constituencies of PS, MCs and UCs may elect their representatives
through entirely PRS, but strictly sans the preference voting system; a move that
minor political parties and all ethnic group outside North and East would
definitely welcome.
At this juncture, it is noted
with public interest and with total dismay of the public that the same Members
Parliament who sat on that PSC2004, are admonishingly opposing the same
recommendations they were part and parcel then. Major ruling parties the UNP
and SLFP also shamelessly fearful of this PSC2004 recommendations and wanted
keep the changes on hold and greedily, through means various insinuates to go on
with the present system of proliferating fraud, corruption, and dragging goons
and underworld gangs for the always winning the system, unabated, with total
disregard to the long standing public demand and of National importance.
Therefore it is absolutely imperative
that electoral system for the Parliament and Provincial Councils, which have
heavily populated and hold larger constituencies be held by the process
recommended by the PSC2004. This recommendation cannot be allowed to be
overhauled at its’ foundation itself for petty and greedy ambitions of any
political party. These claims can be proven all myth through following
approach to the Recommendations of PSC2004.
Coming back to the deriving of
Parliamentary Constituencies through each electorate carrying two Divisional
Secretary Divisions island wide would provide 140 seats for FPPS, which
is almost equivalent to 62.22% of the present capacity of Parliament and based
on Recommendations of PSC2004 there is room the for further
increase of 7.78% equivalent to 18±1 seats that can be filled by
Multimember Constituencies (outside the North and East provinces) for ethnic
representation which is quite important for National Unity. Further increase of
7% to FPPS as of 77% has been suggested and can accommodate 15±1
seats off Multimember Constituencies within the North and East provinces in the
electoral districts of Batticaloa, Digamadulla, Trincomalee and Vanni again for
pluralistic ethnic representation. Outside Northern and Eastern provinces Electoral
Districts Badulla, Colombo, Gampaha, Kandy and Nuwara-Eliya would carry one or more
than one, multimember Constituencies. Therefore all electoral districts will
have half the number of Divisional Secretary Divisions it carries as its
FPPS electorates. The electoral district Colombo have to have 3 triple member
constituencies. In addition 23%
PRS shall collect 2 each for 22 electoral districts and 8 members for all the
parties securing more than 3% of the total vote cast at a particular election
if the final figure is 52 at 23% as this is based on present strength of 225
members, and further increase of Parliamentary Seats would surely ensure more
than 20 seats in stake for minor political parties and minorities outside North
and East. There shall be provisions for improving the process without the
disturbing the basics and objectives of the Recommendations of PSC2004.
We do require Delimitation for familiarity
naming of the Electorate emerged through the merging of two or
three Pradeshiya Sabbhas; for example Dehiwela - Mt.Lavenia joins with
subs Moratuwa and Ratmalana..........
Ladies and Gentleman,
We saw how constituencies would emerge from
Divisional Secretary Divisions (Pradeshiya Sabbhas) now we will see how many
Parliamentary seats could be possible from each Electoral District. For the
100% PRS certain Administrative districts merged as one Electoral District,
Jaffna + Kilinochchy emerged as Jaffna; Mannar + Mullaitvu + Vavuniya emerged
as Vanni Electoral District. But for the other than the stated Districts
administrative districts and Electoral District are one and same.
Administrative
Districts
|
No. of PS
|
Single Electorates
|
Multimember electorates
|
Total FPPS Seats
|
1.
*Colombo
|
09 (11)
|
07
|
03x3
|
16
|
2.
Gampaha
|
13
|
06
|
02x1
|
09
|
3.
*Kalutara
|
11
|
06
|
-
|
06
|
4.
Matale
|
11
|
05
|
-
|
05
|
5.
*Kandy
|
17 (18)
|
06
|
02x2
|
10
|
6.
Nuwara-Eliya
|
05
|
02
|
03x1+ 02x1
|
07
|
7.
Galle
|
16
|
08
|
-
|
08
|
8.
Jaffna
|
14
|
07
|
-
|
07
|
9.
*Kilinochchy
|
03(04)
|
01
|
-
|
01
|
10.
Batticaloa
|
12
|
02
|
02x1+03x1
|
08
|
11.
*Digamadulla
|
15(17)
|
05
|
02x1+03x1
|
10
|
12.
Trincomalee
|
10
|
01
|
03x1+02x1
|
06
|
13.
Mannar
|
05
|
-
|
02x1
|
02
|
14.
Vavuniya
|
04
|
-
|
03x1
|
03
|
15.
*Mullaitvu
|
04(05)
|
01
|
-
|
01
|
16.
*Kurunagala
|
18 (27)
|
13
|
-
|
13
|
17.
Puttalam
|
11
|
06
|
-
|
06
|
18.
*Anuradhapura
|
18(21)
|
10
|
-
|
10
|
19.
Polonnaruwa
|
06
|
03
|
-
|
03
|
20.
Monaragala
|
10
|
05
|
-
|
05
|
21.
Badulla
|
14
|
05
|
02x1
|
08
|
22.
*Matara
|
12 (14)
|
07
|
-
|
07
|
23.
*Hambantota
|
09(11)
|
05
|
-
|
05
|
24.
Ratnapura
|
13(16)
|
07
|
-
|
07
|
25.
Kegalle
|
10
|
05
|
-
|
05
|
Total
|
280
|
123 + 17
= 140
|
168
|
|
Another very important recommendations of PSC2004
is to raise women representations in the administrative councils, to be as 25%
in all councils. Therefore further exploring the possibilities for that I tabulated each district carrying Divisional
Secretary Divisions (Pradeshiya Sabbhas) against the number of single and
multiple member electorates, each could yield and the possible number of FPPS
seats be elected directly, based on population density in hand. Total FPPS
elects arrived was 168 and it exactly equals the number elected in 1977,
through the total FPPS system but population represented is doubled for obvious
reasons, which
is still far better than nobody knows who is whom within an enormously - many
fold whole district is as an electorate.
A number was put forward by experts as a
readymade remedy for all the misconceptions claimed by minor parties
and minority parties over the mixed electoral process as the 20th amendment
immediately. The players played the
ostensible enthusiasm, the extensive discussion of supposedly implementing at
the earliest as soon as the new players got on to the stage of administrative
steering through the silent revolution of January 8th 2015; but
again as soon as the 19th Amendment was passed in Parliament, the
ostentatious enthusiasm became purposely inflated tyres being deflated for no more steering and was declared that no electoral process as 20th
amendment, but as chapter in the new constitution, a “valuable” pretext in many
means to stay with the total PRS system and just another General Election
followed in the no looser total PR System since
the PSC2004 recommendations and the players made a mockery
of the election and selected the losers to be seated in parliament further;
today they have become so foul mouthed to the same leader who
declared them as winners! Hence the people have been very eagerly waiting far
too long to cast their votes directly to a person they wanted to be
elected.
Coming back to the point in discussion 30%
women representation in the councils or whatever, people the voters cannot be
too greedy to hope that would happen ever as long as the dressed up men legislators’ greedily hang on to
the highest percentage of PRS as the only way of retaining their seats. The expert number that was put forward
was 240 and the number that derived above for FPPS (168) is exactly70% of this
all- remedy number; 30% of this 240 is 72 for PRS. Should be more than
enough for any political party to claim few seats. Last time around I suggested that 8 seats for
national list out of 52, since this “National List” criteria has been used to
make a mockery of the just purpose of the elections it has to be removed from –
as has been done to preferential voting system. This I have repeatedly
emphasized many a times (2014- 2015); in those same discussions I have also
discussed that just 2 seats per electoral
district could be more dangerously detrimental to the minor parties in
that such a move would unjustifiably favour the UNP, SLFP and regionally strong
political parties such as TNA. In my
previous paper I made this intentional error to make the minor political
parties to realize their fundamental mistake in seeing the facts. Throwing out the “National List” criteria
also should work in the favour all the minor political parties that secure more
than 03% of the cast votes. For me It is always 100% FPPS that would yield
the best representation of the people.
Ladies
and Gentleman,
Would manly manners prevail to call in the
ladies first or man-ism would continually pursued and be demonstrated to hang
on to “do not let go” the opportunity?
Further Discussion on PRS for Mixed Electoral Process
There
can be apprehensions when we begin
really start applying the Mixed Electoral Process (MEP); once the
PRS yield number has been determined for the MEP, there
should be a flexible approach in using that particular number, in
order to alleviate the discriminations if there is any, after the completion of
FPPS process only in the very first election under MEP i.e. if the total number legislators is 240, the
30% PRS will yield 72, criteria to use the number should be flexible
and not the number itself; if the minor political parties who had considerable
number of representation in a council or Parliament preceding the election for the same,
fails to secure appreciable
number of seats at the conclusion of FPPS part, the PRS number
should be considered for National or Provincial level aggregation to allocate
seats to the minor parties. In my earlier reviews I was critical of the “National
List Criteria” in total PRS system, because of the way it was manipulated by
the all political party leaders with total disregard to the verdict arrived by the
act of franchise. Human made errors
cannot be allowed to undermine the good objectives of a criteria.
In
MEP there is no any need to consider PRS at
district level, since FPPS completely fills the representation
electorate-wise to a district, and further allocation of district-wise PRS members likely to reopen
the absurd mayhem found in the total PRS electioneering, and would complicate the
whole system, rather than simplifying the process for the
benefit of the voters. While strict laws enacted relating to the election,
prohibits appointing a lost candidate at the FPPS part to PRS
vacancy, the National Level PRS consideration confirms to
the franchise verdict and remarkably upholds the simplicity of electoral
process most desired and welcomed by the entire constituency itself! Therefore only the National Level PRS is
the way to proceed with MEP.
PSs = Pradeshiya Sabbhas FPPS = First Past the Post
System
MCs = Municipal Councils PRS = Proportionate
Representative System
UCs = Urban Councils MEP = Mixed Electoral
Process
