When the going gets tough, PA gets going

It will be difficult for the PA to get the same number of votes as it got at the presidential election. Even if it does, all the parties which supported the government will be able to get 115 seats only. If there is a decline in its vote the PA will not only lose its majority in parliament, even the success it had secured at the parliamentary election will be endangered. 

The government's main expectation was to introduce an electoral system advantageous to it at whatever price to prevent such an eventuality.

Because it was too embarrassing to introduce a change in the electoral system so openly, the government wanted to use the new constitution as a cover. However, that cover prompted a massive protest from the Maha Sangha and the Sinhala masses. The public protest which was building up in the country against the new constitution turned the government's programme of winning over a group of UNP MPs into a farce. Due to that reason the strategy aimed at bringing about a change in the electoral system also failed.

The final outcome of all this was to give new life to the anti- government movement which had been in a state of impotence earlier, and to strengthen and activate the opposition movement, and to double and treble the public discontent about and opposition to the government. 

The whole scheme failed and now the government is going for election after causing the emergence of a powerful opposition movement against itself.

Now the government has to tread a difficult path. If it fails to win a majority at the parliamentary election, it will lose its parliamentary power, and the presidential system will go into a crisis.

To prevent such a happening the government may resort to any means whatsoever. 

It is easy at a presidential election to implement a policy of winning through villainy, but it is difficult to do so at a parliamentary election. At a presidential election there is only one candidate contesting from one party. 

As a result there is no contest among local leaders of the same party. But at a parliamentary election the contest among local leaders belonging to the same party limits the possibility of an organised and corrupt programme. 

If impersonation takes place on a large scale, the question to whom the preferential votes go can complicate the whole programme. At a general election it is also more difficult than at a presidential election, to use bogus ballot papers. At a presidential election it would be necessary to produce only one kind of ballot paper for the whole country. But at a parliamentary election a number of different ballot papers will be necessary for each district. Even at an electoral plunder that might be implemented overcoming all those limitations, the difference that can be caused in the number of seats is limited.

In the previous election there was no organised movement working against electoral malpractices. However at this election the Buddhist temple and the Catholic church are due to come to the fore with that objective. In addition to that, pro-democracy groups are due to take action with that aim. If all those organisations are able to promote a strong social consciousness about the need of free and fair election, the possibility of an organised electoral plunder can be limited to a great extent.

At this election what will be more important in a democratic sense is not who will win but the question whether this election will lead to a strengthening of a foundation of democracy or to its break up. If this election also becomes an electoral plunder, the distrust that is growing among the people about the system of democratic election will be confirmed and a situation will surely emerge in which the entire democratic political system will collapse.

Inside the glass house

Editorial/ Opinion Contents