Columns

The successful conclusion of the 2020 parliamentary elections has brought to the forefront the issue of how individual candidates are assessed by the voter prior to casting his preference. Political commentators will undoubtedly mull on the reasons for Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna’s margin of victory and the poor showing at the polls of the two oldest political parties, the United National Party (UNP) and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) – the parties widely identified as the country’s main political parties.

There is however a third matter that must trouble concerned citizens. That is the question as to how much importance the Sri Lankan voter attaches to the integrity and contribution of individual candidates in deciding on their representatives for Parliament and other government institutions.

This question assumes an added significance at this Elections with the defeat of the Jathika Jana Balawegaya’s (JJB) Sunil Handunetti in the Matara district thus depriving him of a seat in Parliament. Handunetti was one of the parliamentarians who adorned the last Parliament with distinction.

His role as Chairman of the Parliamentry Committee on Public Enterprises, popularly known as COPE, made him a stand out as a parliamentarian who earned the respect of those inside and outside Parliament. His work in COPE with regard to the Central Bank Bond Scam issue, and his relentless efforts to ensure the effectiveness of the Legislature’s role in monitoring the country’s finances was invaluable.

Like his colleagues in the JJB, he took the work of Parliament seriously and contributed immensely to the legislative process. His efforts received appreciative publicity in the media and was therefore well known to the public. Yet the voters of Matara rejected him thus depriving the country of his services in the days to come.

The fact that the people of Matara were not supportive of the JJB at Wednesday’s general election undoubtedly contributed to his personal defeat. Yet the question arises as to why did a sufficient number of educated voters not reach out beyond party lines to ensure that a tested parliamentarian, with not a trace of impropriety in his political career, be sent to the Legislature. Was their allegiance to any particular political party more important than the role that an individual like Sunil Handunetti could play in Parliament?

The other question that arises is the inability of the present system of proportionate representation to accommodate independent individuals of exceptional ability to stand for election and obtain the endorsement of the electorate to enter Parliament. The first past-the-post system of elections enabled individuals to stand for elections independent of any party and enter the Parliament with the approval of the electorate.

This provision does not exist under the present system of proportionate elections although there is a national list which was meant to facilitate those who did not want to face the process of going through the hustings. However a national List parliamentarian depends largely on the leadership of a political party to enter Parliament and his ability to act independently is therefore greatly limited.

The case of Sunil Handunetti is also interesting from another aspect. He first entered Parliament from the Colombo district in 2004 and then was elected to Parliament once again from Colombo in 2010. In 2015 however when he moved to his home district of Matara, the Deniyaya born politician was defeated and had to be accommodated from the national list to Parliament. Once again this time too Mr Handunetti has been rejected by the voters of Matara despite his sterling performance in the last Parliament.

Another election result that defies understanding is the case of Premalal Jayasekera from the Ratnapura district. Although he was convicted of murder just two days before the election, the voters of Ratnapura cast 142,037 ballots in his favour. Clearly the court judgement did not in any way influence the voters who continued to repose confidence in him.

Such a phenomenon is not unusual for a parliamentary election in Ratnapura. At a previous election, two individuals who were accused of causing the death of SLFP Parliamentarian Nalanda Ellawala by shooting, obtained the highest number of preferential votes in the UNP list for the Ratnapura district and entered Parliament.

Mr Jayasekera may function as a Member of Parliament pending the determination of his appeal against the conviction, but taking into consideration the pace at which the wheels of justice move in the country, it is safe to assume that he may complete most, if not his entire term as a parliamentarian, before the appeal is finally concluded. Meanwhile the importance that people place on the integrity of their representatives will remain a question mark.

Former President Maitripala Sirisena who has returned as a parliamentarian representing the Polonnaruwa district will also face an awkward situation. He will have to rub shoulders with an individual who has been convicted of causing the death of a person who worked to make him the President.

There are several similar questions that arise in one’s mind when one looks at the results of the 2020 general elections. One is the case of Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan. Mr Chandrakanthan, who is better known as Pillayan which was his nom de guerre while in the LTTE, is currently in remand for the alleged murder of former parliamentarian Joseph Pararajasingham during Christmas Mass at a church in Batticaloa in 2005. He was elected to Parliament at Wednesday’s polls with 54,198 preferential votes.

Clearly there is much to be desired with the present system of election that needs to be reformed. Dulles Alahapperuma who returned from the Matara district made a strong plea for change just after the results were announced. He urged the Government to bring about electoral reforms urgently and claimed doing so would be as meritorious as “ defeating the LTTE.”

Incidentally Mr Alahapperuma’s colleague Mr Lakshman Yapa Abeywardene was another casualty from the Matara district, after he failed to gain sufficient preferential votes to enter Parliament. Mr Lakshman Yapa and Mr Alahapperuma, two of the more decent politicians around, were the first to introduce the concept of campaigning on a common platform when they contested from opposite camps at the 1989 general election. Mr Lakshman Yapa was in the UNP, while Mr Alahapperuma was a nominee of the SLFP.

(javidyusuf@gmail.com)