Editorial

In most born-again democracies — countries which have escaped from the grip of long totalitarian rule –in Eastern Europe a few decades ago, some in Africa and more recently in West Asia, voters at their first elections would display their index finger to show the indelible ink painted on it as a proud symbol of this newfound freedom.

But in a country like Sri Lanka, which has a long and cherished history of the franchise, a history that began more than 80 years ago, one of the country’s former Elections Commissioners, Felix Dias Abeysinghe, would recommend in his post-1977 General election report that we do away with ‘inking’ as it was a slur on the voters and the election process as well.

Many would still consider it as a proof of voting and some have mastered the art of erasing the ink with indigenous substances from rubbing chunam to applying pineapple juice so that they can vote again and again. The point the much-respected then Elections Commissioner made almost 40 years ago was about the dignity of the voter and the honesty and impartiality of the electoral machinery prevalent in Sri Lanka at the time.

In many ways, the post-1977 era witnessed a deterioration of the whole process of elections beginning from the 1981 District Development Council election in Jaffna and thereafter the 1982 Referendum which extended the life of that Parliament. These two back-to-back elections saw a horrendous aberration of the electoral process. What followed was a string of questionable elections, with state sponsored malpractices galore. The notorious Wayamba Provincial election where ballot boxes were openly stuffed by pro-government goon squads climaxed with the 2010 Presidential election when the Elections Commissioner no less, went ‘missing’ for a few hours during the crucial count only to reappear, declare a winner and only later complain of the immense mental pressure he was forced to face. That story has yet to be fully told.

It may be that only when an incumbent Government is toppled that an election is given the stamp of public approval. Unfortunately, if a sitting administration is re-elected, accusations of the abuse of state power, the ‘treating’ of voters, and the influencing of the election machinery — from campaigning, voting to counting are aplenty.

Today, a host of election observers, both local and foreign, are monitoring the entire process of an election. Local monitors have been ‘on the ground’ throughout and know the ‘politricks’ engaged in by contesting parties and candidates. They play a useful role in assisting the short-staffed Elections Commissioner by exposing malpractices, educating voters, campaigning for best practices and pressurising political parties to stick to the law that is so blatantly flouted. Their recent campaign with ‘civil society’ organisations to exert pressure on political parties to reject known ‘bad eggs’ from being given nominations was a start. Many more of them ought to have been rejected, but at least something was achieved.

In contrast, foreign observers are a different kettle of fish. The European Union (EU) has sent a team to camp in Sri Lanka for a month, by their own admission for the first time since 2004. They say they are “observers not actors”, but given the role Norway played in the northern insurgency as “facilitators not negotiators” that may not have been the best way to describe their presence in the country. These observers were quick to disassociate themselves with previous EU observer missions and their reports of yesteryear, but the question is why they are not prepared to learn from the past.

Interestingly, it was the current Elections Commissioner who told a press briefing on the eve of the January 8 Presidential election that he would not be inviting EU observers for that poll. The reason he gave was unconventional to put it mildly; he said he would not be inviting observers from countries that had voted against Sri Lanka at the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council which called for an investigation into allegations of human rights violations during the last few days of the northern insurgency in 2009. He referred to them as “unfriendly” countries.

Instead, the Elections Commissioner invited some nondescript observers from the South Asian region but the bottom line is what earthly purpose these missions serve. Advanced democracies also invite foreign observers. The US does not tolerate foreign observers from the UN or the EU. To monitor British elections, several countries send observers, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) being a key monitor. In most instances, the demand for foreign observers comes from opposition parties that complain that the electoral process in a country is compromised by the overpowering state and the sheer abuse of the state machinery.

Take the example of posters which candidates put up in the dead of night. Rs. 9 per poster is the going rate only to waste it on a public wall. The printing cost per poster has to be added. And the Police have to be deployed for the laborious task of taking them down by morning. What can an election observer do but to howl? Candidates from all the parties are guilty. While the Police are questioning candidates from all parties for breaking the law on the day of Nominations by holding processions, new offences are being created by other candidates. The Police just cannot keep pace with the offences. This week, the Elections Commissioner had to issue a circular about musical shows and benefit shows being planned during the 48 hour ‘silence period’ between the last day for campaigning and polling day on August 17. It shows that the Commissioner has information that such events are afoot to defeat the purpose of the law.

These are the men and women who want to be the lawmakers of this country. They get there by first breaking the law. In advanced democracies, candidates just do not resort to this sort of thing; or the laws are so stringent that they can lose their seats even after being elected. What can foreign observers do about all this except to publish a post-poll report which serves neither man nor beast.

Often all they say in their summary post-election report of an election that has seen malpractice after malpractice is that “the election was reasonable, free and fair’. This goes to legitimise a flawed election. It is very much like some questionable auditors who would say “as far as it appears from our examination, proper accounting records have been kept”.

Already credible reports are emerging of foreign funds being pumped into the local campaigns. Stringent campaign finance rules pertaining to third parties do not exist in Sri Lanka. We hear little in these official election post-mortem reports. If in 1977 the Elections Commissioner asked for the removal of indelible ink from the voter, what sort of affronts are these on the electoral process.