Producing good candidates from a bad electoral system

Finally, the seventh Parliament has been put out of its misery. Now begins the nomination phase of the general election that will be conducted under the electoral system that has been in place since the 1980s. The true test of whether the country has made any progress toward good governance is the quality of the nominations.

Contrary to the statements of some well-meaning people, there is considerable dissatisfaction in the land about the electoral system, especially about the quality of the nominations. Efforts have been underway since 1996 to reform the system. President Sirisena tried his utmost to enact the reforms as promised by both major presidential candidates, but the seventh Parliament failed to complete the task.

There are two principal schools of thought on the electoral system. The first, and perhaps the most widely held, position is that the system is good but yields bad MPs because of failures of will. If only political parties resolve to nominate better candidates and we voters give preferential votes to the good ones, the results will be fine.

The second position is that the present system is structurally flawed; that the bad candidates are produced by those structures. We have to change the structures if we are to see better behaviour. I hold this position. That is why we put so much effort into the 20th Amendment.

Outcomes and their causes

The root cause is the absence of controls on campaign expenditures.

The current system requires high spending. Imagine the costs of campaigning right across the Anuradhapura District which is 6,664 sq. km in size, or of reaching 1,637,537 registered voters in the Gampaha District. Former Minister Kumara Welgama is on record that he spent Rs. 80 million for his 2010 campaign in the Kalutara District which is less than 1/4th the size of Anuradhapura and has around half as many voters as Gampaha.

"Until nominations close on 13 July, citizen groups and voters should focus on the quality of the nominations, especially those by the major parties. The ongoing work of the March 12th Movement led by PAFFREL, Sarvodaya and other organisations provides a good basic filter. If these base criteria are violated there should be loud protests. According to the eight principal criteria set out in the March 12th Declaration, which has the concurrence of political and other leaders and for which a million signatures are being collected as we speak, political parties should not nominate candidates who are criminals. Nominees should be free of bribery and corruption and unconnected to anti-social trades. They should be environment friendly, not associated with the abuse of authority and inappropriate financial dealings. They should be close to their electors. The political parties should provide adequate opportunities for women and youth"

This requirement leads political parties, especially the major parties, to nominate those with the ability to outspend their opponents. There may be a few wealthy candidates willing to spend their own money with no return in mind, but a many appear to consider campaign expenditures an investment to be recouped. This creates the necessary conditions for the insatiable hunger for Ministerial positions and for corruption.

The need to finance increasingly expensive campaigns constitutes a barrier to entry for those not in a position to spend their own wealth or unwilling to make the necessary moral compromises. It also makes it more likely that those with ill-gotten wealth will be nominated from the major parties and will thereby enter Parliament.

One obvious solution is to strictly enforce election law, especially with regard to campaign finance. For example, if the rules against cut-outs and posters are enforced, the “arms race” of campaign expenditures wherein each is compelled to spend to nullify the efforts of opponents may be contained.

Well-meaning officials try their best. But past experience shows that their best is not enough. An empowered Elections Commission (not yet activated) and a revised Parliament Elections Act are necessary, but inadequate by themselves.

The current electoral system creates a need for high expenditures by compelling candidates to collect as many preferential votes as possible across the entire electoral district and removes the control that was exercised through the election-petition process under the pre-1978 first-past-the-post (FPP) system. Mere enforcement is inadequate to withstand these forces.

Under FPP, election petitions were common. In the first D.S. Senanayake Cabinet two Ministers, George E. de Silva and R.S.S. Gunawardene, were unseated by election petitions. There were other famous cases such as that which led to Anil Moonesinghe being disbarred from contesting.

These cases constituted a critical disciplinary mechanism that led to self-policing by candidates who feared that any violations of the law by themselves or by their supporters could give cause for a petition and a possible reversal of the result. Losing candidates had incentive to document violations and invest in legal proceedings to unseat MPs considered to have won unfairly, because they could then win the by-election.

The district PR with preferential voting system provides no such incentives to losing candidates, however egregious the violations of election law by the victor. There being no by-elections, a losing candidate from a different party cannot benefit even if a petition were to succeed. Thus, election petitions related to general elections went into desuetude.

Therefore, the need for electoral reform is urgent. The 20th Amendment to reform the electoral system in ways that address the above structural problems of the present system should be among the highest priorities of the eighth Parliament and the President.

What can be done in the meantime?

Until nominations close on 13 July, citizen groups and voters should focus on the quality of the nominations, especially those by the major parties. The ongoing work of the March 12th Movement led by PAFFREL, Sarvodaya and other organisations provides a good basic filter. If these base criteria are violated there should be loud protests.

According to the eight principal criteria set out in the March 12th Declaration, which has the concurrence of political and other leaders and for which a million signatures are being collected as we speak, political parties should not nominate candidates who are criminals.

Nominees should be free of bribery and corruption and unconnected to anti-social trades. They should be environment friendly, not associated with the abuse of authority and inappropriate financial dealings. They should be close to their electors. The political parties should provide adequate opportunities for women and youth. Details are at https://www.change.org/p/calling-all-political-parties-in-sri-lanka-for-clean-politics-and-a-clean-parliament.

In addition, efforts similar to India’s myneta.info could be undertaken by Sri Lanka’s civil society, assisted by our dynamic IT community. Here, information provided to the Elections Department by political parties would be made available to citizens and journalists in easily accessible form, including over mobile devices. Additional information on the achievements and professional qualifications of nominees, especially those proposed as National List MPs, could be sought and published.

Suggestions have been made to crowd-source information on the suitability of candidates. However, this poses considerable risks because incentives exist to malign candidates with unfounded allegations. Whoever is responsible for crowdsourcing the information will be held liable for criminal defamation and worse. This caution does not apply to legitimate journalists and commentators who assess the available information and present evidence-based conclusions.

In the end, it is about the voters holding political parties accountable. They should seek out information about the quality of the people they are asked to vote for. A political party that proves by its nomination decisions its disregard for the values of the enlightened voter, should not receive the vote.