Erratic Elections and Twisted Outcomes

“Elections are very costly, especially presidential elections and general elections. Both main parties had spent over 5 billion rupees at the 2004 general election which is an enormous amount of money. In turn the bill is shouldered by the people. Therefore allowing a large Cabinet of Minsters has been the order of the day. Higher the risk of a snap poll, higher the size of the Cabinet (including non-Cabinet ministers where the term is used to mislead).”

by Thomas Raj Johnpulle

(October 06, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardain) Manipulating the outcome of elections is nothing new to this country. The most striking example is the total scourge of the 2004 general election in Vanni. Election observers stated that the degree of election malpractices completely altered the outcome. Then there have been instances of manipulated vote counting. When Vijaya Kumaranatunga contested the Minneriya by-election around mid 1980s, the number of votes received by the candidates fluctuated drastically on subsequent counts!

The third form of election manipulation is the use of “election monitors” who have more stakes in the election than some candidates! A big shot behind one “election monitor” was appointed to a well-paid government job when his favourite political party won the election. Fourthly, the use of “independent” groups to promote main competitors is a unique feature in our elections. They vie for air time and other privileges in favour of their masters. Given the high sensitivity of presidential elections, a number of henchmen contest it to amass support for their respective masters. Interestingly they mainly criticise their masters in the open to give the impression that they are quite ‘independent’! Fifthly, managing the timing of elections has been yet another malpractice which has gone mostly unnoticed.

Always a Mix-up

Following the 1977 general election, a general election was due in 1983, but, alas!, it was not to be! Instead a referendum and a presidential election were held in lieu of the general election that was due. The mystery continued. Based on the happenings in 1982 a general election was due in 1988 but it was a presidential election that was held first! The general election followed in 1989. Six years from 1988 a presidential election would have taken place first in 1994, but, a general election preceded the presidential election. Erratic timing continued when a presidential election was called one year in advance (in 1999) ahead of a due general election (due in 2000). The chaos took over as there was another general election in 2001. Continuing from there, a presidential election was due first, scheduled for 2005; but a general election was called a year ahead (2004) and the presidential election followed!

The marvel of it all is that each and every time a general election was due, a presidential election was held and vice versa. Going by the erratic schedule, a presidential election is due next!

It’s Impact

Things would have been vastly different had a general election taken place in 1982; may be the war would have taken a different turn. Surely the parliament would have been a hung parliament and possibly a different president would have assumed office. Again in 1988 had the general election been held first, a totally different government would have assumed office. Same can be said about the 1999 election. It is therefore clear that timing has been always manipulated by the party in power to secure a favourable outcome at elections. The relative popularity of the president verses the ruling party parliamentarians seems the key decider.

Until 1977 consecutive elections produced alternative ruling parties, but it changed thereafter. Along with it, animosity between the two main parties reached new heights. Voters were separated from the rulers and at times resulted in totally ridiculous election outcomes.

The fate of provincial council elections, in terms of their timing, is even more saddening.

Elections are costly affairs

Elections are very costly, especially presidential elections and general elections. Both main parties had spent over 5 billion rupees at the 2004 general election which is an enormous amount of money. In turn the bill is shouldered by the people. Therefore allowing a large Cabinet of Minsters has been the order of the day. Higher the risk of a snap poll, higher the size of the Cabinet (including non-Cabinet ministers where the term is used to mislead). Prospect of receiving a pension is another cause of concern for parliamentarians. In view of the pension, some may not support snap elections even though their party leader may want one.

Success of democracy depends on free and fair participatory elections held on a timely basis. Manipulating any of the cogwheels of this democratic process amounts to manoeuvring people’s choice. However, constant change of ruling parties is not good either in the case of Sri Lanka where policy consistency is something that is never heard of. May be a few changes are needed for the supreme law of the country to regain the true spirit of elections. When British rulers granted universal adult franchise in 1931, it made Sri Lanka the first Asian country to gain it. Brits knew the ability of locals to govern themselves; but they would never have guessed the locals’ unique ability to govern the process that elects them to government!- Sri Lanka Guardian