Nominations are being accepted for the next (Parliamentary) General Election.
The recently-dissolved Parliament virtually completed the full distance, just three months short of its mandated six years.
It was lucky to have overcome a few hiccups on the way. Thanks to a mass defection of opposition members, the Government survived a 2007 budget vote that could have otherwise brought it crashing down.
The previous two Parliaments, those of 2000 and 2001 had shorter life spans. The former because of defections from the Government to the opposition, the latter because one person, the President, short-circuited the mandate of the people by dissolving Parliament and calling for fresh elections.
What the 2004-2010 Parliament has to show by way of progressive legislation is hard to see. In these six years a total of 280 bills were made into law -- an average of 45 a year, but a study of these laws will show that most of them were minor amendments to existing laws or the incorporation of private foundations and societies through Acts of Parliament. The Members of Parliament (MPs) seem to have spent their time sitting in committees (PAC, COPE, Electoral Reforms etc.) whose recommendations were largely ignored by the Executive; extending the Emergency Regulations; and bickering with one another.
Many reasons are attributable to Parliament playing an increasingly diminished role than what is expected of it, i.e. (a) to be the voice of the people they represent, (b) to initiate, debate and pass new laws that bring the nation in line with the modern democracies of the world; and (c) to examine, debate and control the passage of public finances for the administration of the country. On a score of 100, it would be interesting to see how the people would mark this Parliament.
The foremost reason for this drop in the quality of Parliament has to be the drop in the calibre of persons entering it -- this depends on the electoral process that the people are given to pick the MPs.
This is why the current nomination of candidates is so crucial. At this very moment, the main political parties are selecting their candidates for the upcoming General Election.
There is consensus that the number of MPs in the Parliament should remain at 225. Parliament and the country are already groaning under the weight of the expenses for their upkeep. Their cost-benefit ratio is much in question.
Meanwhile there is frantic pulling and shoving within the party nomination boards. Senior members who have lost touch with their constituencies are pleading for places on the National List; there are ethnic pressures and blackmailing, especially in districts with multi-ethnic populations; parties looking for alliances, coalitions, symbols. The party leaders have an unenviable job right now.
The name of the game is to come up with a 'Winning Team'; to hell with a worthy Parliament. Winning at whatever cost is the goal, not finding the great and the good, the competent, the decent and the honest.
The Government seems to have already worked out its strategy. Popular entertainers -- actors, cricketers, together with those who have the mega-bucks to throw (no matter from where the money has come) along with an assortment of veterans make up its team. Led by a victorious President and supported by the State machinery, the combine has all the requirements to pull off a resounding victory. The opposition is looking for ways and means to defeat that combine. Whether that's what's best for our next Parliament is better left unsaid.
Prior to Independence, when the British guided our democracy towards universal adult franchise (1931), they felt that only the 'educated Ceylonese' should be represented in the Legislative Council.
At the time, we witnessed the 'gentleman politician', but today we see the thorough 'professionalisation of politics'. Few are inducted into the political spectrum from normal professions or vocations as politics has become a profession by itself, though that was never the case earlier.
From 1994 to 2004, the number of lawyers in Parliament dropped from 60 to 32, businessmen from 90 to 31, teachers from 12 to 10, public servants from 10 to 5 etc., Often, bogus descriptions of their profession/vocation are given as have two who have claimed to be journalists. The most significant aspect, however, is that 74 of the 225 MPs, i.e. 1/3rd of them in the last Parliament left their profession/vocation blank according to parliamentary records.
Even in Britain the trend is similar -- young men (and women) on the make, going up the party ladder, climbing the greasy pole to the leadership. Sir Alec Douglas-Home was probably the last of the 'gentlemen amateurs' to lead a major political party way back in the early 1960s.
No doubt, Gladstone, Disraeli, Churchill etc., were 'professional politicians', but now, the entire membership of the House of Commons are full-time politicians.
In India, last year's election to the Lok Sabha threw up a blend of youth and veterans, mindful of gender representation and interest groups, but at the state level there still remained a bunch of corrupt and criminal elements in the fray, some by proxy for their spouse or a parent already in jail. And yet, the people vote for them in these rural bases.
The Sri Lankan voter preference is also changing, say political analysts. Gone are the days when the voter wanted a vadagath (dignified) or ugath (intelligent) representative. Today's credo is to have someone who can do you a favour, whether right or wrong, legal or not.
The culture of politics and elected representatives is changing all over the world, not necessarily for the better. We can only hope that the party leaders, upon whose shoulders lies the major burden of selecting good candidates to the National Parliament will be mindful of their onerous responsibility.
It is, in fact, their duty to provide the more than 14 million voters of this country a credible choice and worthy candidates to pick from to elect some truly Honourable Members of Parliament. |
E-mail