Columns

The controversy over the Speaker’s educational qualifications and his subsequent resignation overshadowed the fiasco regarding the appointment of Parliamentarians from the National Lists of Opposition parties last week.

The National List which was originally intended as a mechanism to bring in experts and professionals of standing with the capacity to enhance and strengthen the legislative process no longer serves that objective. The concept of the National List was meant to bring in those who had the capacity to contribute to improved governance but did not wish to get involved in the hustle and bustle of electoral politics to enter Parliament. This was meant to substitute, even in a limited way, the opportunities available to intellectuals through the Second Chamber or the Senate which was abolished by the Republican Constitution of 1972. 

The best example of the correct use of the National List was the induction of Lakshman Kadirgamar to the legislature whose outstanding contribution as Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister will be indelibly recorded in history.

Today the mechanism of the National List has been completely distorted and misused. It is used to provide a platform for powerful individuals in the political hierarchy who do not wish to risk defeat at the polls to enter Parliament. It is also used to bring in to Parliament those who were defeated at the polls while there are also instances of appointments on the National Lists being given to those who have provided resources in one form or another to the pParty.

Initially the practice of appointing defeated candidates through the National List was frowned upon and criticiszed. One of the striking features of the 2024 elections is that this practice has now gained a level of acceptance as reflected by the absence of any critical public discussion on the matter.

This may in part be influenced due to the unusual phenomenon of a defeated candidate, Ranil Wickremesinghe, being nominated to Parliament on the National List and becoming Prime Minister and thereafter the President during an acute economic crisis.

When one examines the recent appointments from the National List of the two main Opposition formations, the Samagi Jana Balavegaya and the Alliance led by Ranil Wickremesinghe (Gas Cylinder) several issues arise which leave voters confused.

With regard to the nominees of the National Democratic Fund (NDF) from its National List, the General Secretary of the NDF Sharmila Perera says that it was done in accordance with the MOU signed by the constituents of the Alliance. However these appointments are surrounded by controversy because they are contested by some of the constituent parties of the gas cylinder alliance.

The Leader of the Alliance former President Wickremesinghe had informed the representatives of the NDF that Karunanayake’s name had been forwarded for the position of National List MP in an arbitrary manner without his consent and the approval of the other parties in the alliance.

He has later appointed a committee to look into the matter.

The Chairman of the United National Party Vajira Abeywardene has stated that the NDF General Secretary had no authority to unilaterally nominate Faiszer Musthapaha which nomination he described as political theft.

Whether the nominations by the NDF General Secretary are in accordance with the MOU or not is unclear in the absence of the contents of the MOU being made public. It would be best if in the interests of transparency if the MOU is made public so that the voters who voted for the Gas Cylinder and enabled the NDF to obtain two National lists are able to judge whether everything is in order or whether they have been shortchanged by the leadership of the NDF.

In the case of nominations from the National List of the SJB the concerns are somewhat different although here too the authority to make such decisions is drawn from the unpublished MOUs entered into between the SJB and the constituents of the Samagi Jana Sandhanaya.

The question uppermost in the mind of SJB voters is whether the constituent parties had an absolute right to a slot in the National list of the Alliance irrespective of their contribution to the overall amount of votes polled by the SJB. It is significant that the SLMC, ACMC and the Tamil Progressive Alliance suffered setbacks by way of the number of votes polled by their candidates thereby reducing the overall number of votes cast in favour of the SJB. Or should the constituents of the Alliance have agreed to be flexible in the interest of the Alliance they had pledged to support and allowed the SJB to nominate some of its members?

As far as the SJB was concerned should they have allowed the constituent parties to hold them to ransom and demand their pound of flesh irrespective of the future progress of the Alliance? Did they shoot themselves in the foot by overlooking the claims of some of their own stalwarts who may have helped them to recover and grow after the SJB’s defeat in 2024? Imtiaz Bakeer Markar as the Chairman of the SJB was one of the three key officials of the Party and should normally have been an automatic choice. Eran Wickremanayake who was touted as one of the three economic wizards of the SJB would have been invaluable in Parliament while Hirunika Premachandra who played a big role in first initiating the campaign against Gotabaya Rajapaksa would have increased the depleted female representation of the SJB Parliament.

Political parties must realize that the voters have a right to know the basis on which appointments to the National list are made and therefore the MOUs they enter into must be made public before the elections so that they can make informed decisions when they cast their vote. In the instant case since this has not happened, it is better even at this late stage to make the MOUs public so that the voters can understand the thinking behind these appointments.

(javidyusuf@gmail.com)