News

News

The rape of manape
Alleged racket in counting centres as preferential vote battle intensifies
By Ameen Izzadeen
Come next Saturday, most Sri Lankans over the age of 18 will cast their votes to elect members for six provincial councils, irrespective of whether these assemblies or those who will get elected mean anything to them.

As usual, the battle will be tough not only for parties in the fray but also among candidates within the party to top the preference vote count, for the candidate who tops the list would get the Chief Minister's or the Opposition Leader's seat in the PC. Those who come among the top on the winning party's preference vote list can stake a claim for a provincial ministerial post that certainly comes with lots of perks.

Much has been exposed with regard to election malpractices ranging from intimidation and impersonation to vote-buying and ballot-stuffing. But little is known about the malpractice with regard to preference votes or manapes.

This manape malpractice is as systematic as party vote rigging, if not more meticulous in planning. We have heard allegations about ballot boxes being changed. The Jaffna District Council elections of 1982 was a bitter example that paved the way for more such malpractices at subsequent elections elsewhere. We have heard allegations about goons threatening voters and elections officials and stuffing ballot boxes while the police turned a blind eye as happened in the 1998 Wayamba provincial elections which have carved a niche for notoriety in Sri Lanka's franchise history. We also witnessed party rivalry turning into a murderous rage in Pallethalawinna three years ago.

Sadly, we know little about manape malpractice, though those who perpetrate it have mastered the art of manipulating the manape vote. This article is an attempt to show how big-time politicians-turned-manape-magicians win elections and get elected even if they are most unpopular among the people.

After every election, we have heard people commenting about the questionable victories of some candidates. "I can't believe my eyes that this fellow has won, in spite of the corruption charges, thuggery and arrogance." These are the words the politically matured among us would have uttered in disbelief and dismay after predicting "that fellow will lose the elections, because nobody in his electorate likes him."

How do they top the manape count? Every civic-conscious citizen has a duty to know the tricks the unscrupulous politician employs and to pressurize the authorities to plug the loopholes and develop a foolproof system.

We come out with an incident that is alleged to have taken place in Kandy at the April 2 general election vote counting at the Kandy District Secretariat. We would like to emphasize that this is only an allegation and the incident may or may not have happened. But many in the know say that something had happened at the District Secretariat and three counting rooms were sealed after a protest from a UPFA candidate.

The allegation also gains credence if one looks at it in the light of the delay in announcing the final results of the Kandy District. The Sunday Times spoke to Anura Gonawala, a JVP counting centre agent, to verify the allegations. We approached a JVPer because he belongs to a party that claims it lives by its principles and also because it is yet to be tainted with muck in the game of dirty politics.

He confirmed that the rooms were sealed after some incidents. But with regard to the allegation that the District Secretary, who is also the Returning Officer, accompanied by a prominent UPFA candidate had entered the counting room during the break (that is after the counting of the party votes and before the manape counting began), Mr. Gonawala said he could only say that he had heard about it.

CWC member Thurai Madiyugarajah who is contesting Saturday's provincial polls from the Kandy District in an interview with the June-July edition of the Kandy News, a regional newspaper, responding to a question whether malpractice took place inside the counting centre at the general elections says:

"I, as a candidate, have experience in witnessing the happenings in the counting centres at three provincial elections. It is an open secret that malpractice takes place inside the counting centre with the alleged connivance of government officials. Attempts at making such malpractices public have been suppressed by the money power and the political power of the big candidates. With responsibility, I make the statement that all sorts of games are played in the counting centre. We need to take necessary action to prevent such malpractice."

Kandy District Communist Party candidate Raja Uswetikeiyawa in an interview with the same newspaper also admits to malpractice taking place within the counting centre. He calls for the presence of professional election monitors at counting centres till all types of counting are over.

With politicians themselves admitting to rigging with the help of unscrupulous government officials who are bought over with promises of promotions, foreign tours and monetary rewards, there ought to be more than what meets the eye.

Our investigations into the drama that is alleged to have taken place at the Kandy counting centre did not draw a blank, though many of those who spoke to us resisted coughing up evidence or information. But we managed to draw a mosaic picture from a wide array of information.

To understand this mosaic, the counting process needs to be understood.

The counting centre, which is usually the District Secretariat building or a public building (e.g. schools), receives the ballot boxes from polling booths from around 4.30 p.m.

Ballot boxes are kept in stores till counting begins around 7 p.m.
A counting centre consists of several counting rooms. Windows of the rooms are covered with old newspapers. Doors are closed and fans are switched off when counting begins and apart from counting officers, only leaders of the party lists and agents of political parties contesting the elections are allowed inside.
In one counting room, about 10-12,000 ballot papers are counted.
Generally, one electorate's votes are counted in about five to ten counting rooms.
The counting centre is headed by the District Secretary who acts as the Returning Officer (RO). He is supported by an Assistant Elections Commissioner (AEC) and a Chief Counting Officer. The CCO is required to carry out instructions of the RO and the AEC while there exists a professional parity between the RO and the AEC.
Once ballot boxes are brought inside the counting room, they are emptied, two at a time, on the counting table.
They are made into bundles of fifty ballot papers, rubber-banded and put into a huge box.
Once this process is over, the bundles are brought to the trays on the counting table and the counting begins with ballot papers being sorted according to parties.
Once sorted, they are made into bundles of fifty ballot papers. (e.g. UNP bundles, UPFA bundles and Independent group bundles.) Two rubber bands are used this time.
Another counting officer on the same table then rechecks the two-rubber-banded bundles. Once he is satisfied, a third rubber band is used to fasten the bundle.
These bundles are then put in boxes according to parties, the results are noted and sent to the computer room for compilation and announcement.
Counting officers leave the room for a well-deserved rest.

This process helps make the counting easy and is transparent, too. But it is at this stage the unscrupulous counting officer gets an idea about the preference vote patterns, which is something a losing candidate could buy from an unscrupulous official.

In the Kandy district, Harispattuwa, Ududumbara and Hewaheta had been identified as electorates where voters had largely cast one preference vote.
Many reasons have been attributed to the single-preference vote patterns in these electorates.
1 Due to the selfish nature of the campaign
2 The caste factor
3 The inability to understand the complexity of the voting by educationally backward villagers.
Ediriweera Weerawardene had received a lot of single preference votes from his electorate Harispattuwa, Mahinda Abeykoon from Hewaheta and Sarath Ekanayake from Ududumbara.

Fearing the prospects of being defeated with a JVP candidate topping the preference votes in the Kandy district, a losing candidate, a UPFA bigwig at that, is alleged to have got into action to ensure his victory.
It is alleged that three counting rooms where ballot papers from Harispattuwa, Hewaheta and Ududumbara were counted were opened during the break and the single-preference ballot papers were tampered with. Soon the news began to leak out within the building. UPFA candidate Ediriweera Weerawardene's private secretary and his lawyer are reported to have protested and compelled the RO to seal the three rooms. But they were unable to prove what they had heard.

In any case Mr. Weerawardene was reportedly forced by the party leadership to drop the agitation.
Later, at a public function in Kandy, President Chandrika Kumaratunga is said to have thanked him for saving the party's honour.
Mr. Weerawardene when contacted by The Sunday Times said counting centre malpractice - which, he alleged, took place with the help of unscrupulous government officers - deprived him of the opportunity to become an MP.

Kandy's District Secretary E. M. P. B. Polgolle, who is in the centre of the controversy, was not available for comment as he was on an overseas tour.
According to many candidates, including Mr. Weerawardene, malpractice also happens when preference votes are counted - a process that begins after the counting officers take a well-deserved rest. It is during this period of rest, deals are alleged to be taking place. It is also alleged that supporters of politicians who are not sure of winning get a list of government officials who will be doing elections duty and earmark some names to approach them with quid-pro-quo deals.

When preference votes are counted, the room is relatively less crowded because many of the political party agents are tired by then and would have left the counting centre. Agents of small parties and independent groups would see their presence as a futile exercise.

Preference votes are counted by the same counting officers with one officer reading out the number and another marking the number on a tally sheet. It is at this stage many candidates win or lose. One officer, who holds the bundles close to his chest, can read out the number of his or her favourite candidate even if it is not on the ballot paper. Similarly, the officer who is marking the tally sheet can enter the number of his favourite candidate, even if it is not read out by the other officer.

It is also alleged that the figures on the final tally sheets, which only bear the signature of the RO, are also tampered with while they are being taken from the counting room to the computer room.

The system is fraught with possibilities of fraud. Civil society should agitate for the implementation of fool-proof counting systems that will respect and help reflect the will of the people. In the Philippines, in spite of hi-tech methods, it took six weeks after the elections to announce Gloria Macapalgo Arroyo as the winner at the Presidential elections, because civil society there had ensured the implementation of a system to prevent the rise of another Ferdinand Marcos whose manipulated election victory led to a revolution that eventually overthrew him.

It is time now that Sri Lankan civil society, which with its campaign had succeeded to some extent in ensuring a free poll on April 2, launched another campaign to wipe out malpractice taking place at counting centres, where the role of the poll monitors is limited or absent.

Recommendations
The following recommendations are suggested to minimize the manape fraud at the July 10 provincial elections.
1. Employ a fresh group to count the preference votes from the 11th morning - preferably from another district. (In this instance, from Wayamba or the North-East, where elections are not being held.)

2. Allow all candidates or their representatives along with officials of poll monitoring groups such as the PAFFREL and the CMEV to be present at the counting rooms.

3. All tally sheets going from the counting chamber to the computer room should bear the signature of candidates or of the representatives present in the counting chamber.

4. A photocopy of the tally sheets with all the signatures should be made available to the candidates and the poll monitors.

5. The tally sheets received at the computer room should be double checked with the copies given to the candidates and poll monitors.

6. A photocopy of each of the tally sheets received from each of the counting chambers should again be made available to the candidates or their representatives inside the computer room.

Top

Back to News