Columns

In the context of a general election, when voters make their decision about which political party to support, the reasoning behind their choice is often relatively clear and based on substantial political issues. However, when it comes to selecting individual representatives, the reasoning behind voter preferences can sometimes be puzzling.

The complexity of voter behaviour in Sri Lanka’s Parliamentary elections, particularly in the context of the Proportional Representation (PR) system often appear to defy conventional logic. Gaining insight into the underlying factors that influence such choices can be of significant importance when considering the implications for the future of Sri Lanka’s political culture.  

The Proportional Representation System and voter choice

Under the Proportional Representation (PR) system, voters in Sri Lanka have the opportunity to select not only the political party of their choice but also an individual candidate from within that party’s list. This system offers more flexibility than the previous First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system, which did not allow voters to choose candidates directly but instead required them to cast their vote solely for the party.

While not in any way discounting the overall superiority of the FPTP electoral system, the PR system enables voters to select candidates based on personal merit or alignment with their values. However it also presents challenges when trying to understand the specific motivations behind individual choices.

In the FPTP system, voters were compelled to accept the candidate chosen by the party, even if they disagreed with that individual. The PR system, on the other hand, offers a wider array of candidates from each party. Despite this increased choice, voters often make decisions that are difficult to comprehend, especially when they opt for candidates whose behaviour or qualifications may seem questionable to outside observers. This presents an intriguing paradox: if voters are given more options, why do they sometimes make choices that appear to defy conventional wisdom or seem to undermine the very principles they claim to uphold?

The case of the Yahapalana Government

To understand this phenomenon, it is essential to consider the broader political landscape in Sri Lanka. For instance, when the Yahapalana Government came to power in 2015, it was clear that many voters were motivated by dissatisfaction with the previous administration, led by Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Rajapaksa’s government had overseen the defeat of the LTTE and the end of a three-decade-long civil war, but it was also marred by corruption, mismanagement, and authoritarian tendencies. The Yahapalana coalition’s promise to combat corruption and restore good governance resonated with many voters, and they decisively voted for change. This shows that, in some cases, the electorate is able to make a clear and informed decision based on significant political issues.

Similarly, when Gotabaya Rajapaksa was elected President in 2019, voters seemed to rally behind the argument that the country’s national security was at risk and that only his leadership could protect Sri Lanka from external and internal threats. This too reflects a relatively straightforward voter decision, based on perceived security concerns.

Likewise, the National Peoples Power (NPP) victory in the 2024 parliamentary elections is interpreted as an endorsement of the party’s platform to change the political culture of the country and root out corruption as well as a rejection of the disastrous economic mismanagement of the Gotabaya Rajapaksa regime.

However, while voters’ preferences for political parties can often be traced to specific issues like governance, security, or anti-corruption efforts, the reasoning behind individual voter choices, particularly when selecting candidates, is much more opaque. This becomes particularly evident when we look at specific electoral districts and the choices voters make, even when presented with a wide range of candidates to choose from.

Unconventional choices in the 1989 General Elections: The Ratnapura example

One of the most striking examples of this phenomenon occurred during the 1989 General Elections in the Ratnapura District. In the UNP (United National Party) list for that district, two candidates who were widely believed to be involved in the murder of the popular SLFP (Sri Lanka Freedom Party) youth leader, Nalanda Ellewala came out on top of the UNP list when the results were announced . Despite the presence of other candidates with unblemished records, the majority of UNP voters in Ratnapura still cast their preference votes for the two individuals who were under suspicion. This choice, given the seriousness of the allegations against these candidates, was difficult to understand and seemed to defy conventional electoral logic.

This case underscores the complexity of voter behaviour, especially in situations where moral or ethical considerations might not always align with the final voting decision.

Unruly behaviour in Parliament: The October 2018 crisis

Another striking example of puzzling voter behaviour occurred in response to the behaviour of some Parliamentarians during the stand off in Parliament as a result of the 2018 Constitutional crisis. On that occasion the Legislature witnessed chaotic scenes, including MPs throwing chairs and chili powder at each other. This unruly behaviour was widely televised, bringing the spectacle to the attention of the public.

Despite investigations into the incident, none of the parliamentarians involved was charged or indicted. Also, when the next general election came around, many of these same MPs were re-elected, garnering a significant number of votes from their constituencies.

This response is difficult to explain in purely logical terms. How could voters, who were likely appalled by the chaos in Parliament, still choose to send those same individuals back to the legislature?

Controversial candidates: Dr. Archuna Ramachandra and others

In more recent elections, individual candidates with controversial backgrounds have also managed to secure significant support, despite their reputations. Dr. Archuna Ramachandra, an independent member of Parliament from Jaffna District, is a prime example. From the time Dr. Ramachandra entered Parliament he attracted attention for his behaviour, including an incident where he sat in the Opposition Leader’s chair during the inaugural session of Parliament.

His temperamental behaviour patterns were already well known to voters in Jaffna before the election. Yet, despite this, voters in Jaffna chose him over other candidates with less problematic behaviour.

Similarly, Chamara Sampath Dassanayake from the Badulla District, who had been accused of mistreating a government teacher by making her kneel during his tenure as Chief Minister, was re-elected to Parliament despite his tarnished reputation. Voters in Badulla chose him over other candidates, including his own party leader, veteran politician Nimal Siripala de Silva.

In the Kalutara District, voters also made an unconventional choice by electing Rohitha Abeygoonewardene from the “Gas Cylinder” Alliance, despite numerous allegations against him over the years. This decision was particularly surprising given the presence of more established and candidates with a national reach, such as former Minister Dr. Rajitha Senaratne.

Voter behaviour: A puzzle for political analysts

The choices made by voters in these cases are difficult to reconcile with the typical criteria for selecting political representatives. Voter education organisations often emphasise the importance of ethical conduct, professionalism, and a commitment to public service in selecting ideal candidates. However, the cases of Dr. Archuna, Chamara Sampath Dassanayake, and Rohitha Abeygoonesekera suggest that voters are willing to overlook these criteria in favor of other considerations.

This puzzling voter behaviour presents an important research opportunity for political analysts and scholars. Understanding the factors that drive voters to choose candidates with controversial or dubious reputations could provide valuable insights into the political culture of Sri Lanka. Such research could help identify the psychological, social, and cultural factors that influence voter decisions and, ultimately, contribute to the transformation of the country’s political landscape.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the reasoning behind voters’ decisions to support political parties in Sri Lanka’s general elections is often based on clear and identifiable issues, the choices made at the individual candidate level can sometimes appear illogical or contradictory. The cases explored here—ranging from the 1989 elections in Ratnapura to the re-election of controversial figures like Dr. Archuna and Chamara Sampath Dassanayake—highlight the complexity of voter behaviour and the need for deeper analysis.

Understanding why voters make certain choices, even when they appear to go against conventional wisdom, is essential for both political analysts and party leaders in shaping future elections and transforming the political culture of the country. (javidyusuf@gmail.com)