With the system of proportional representation introduced in the 1978 Second Republican Constitution, the smaller electorate representation system was abolished and the candidates for a Parliamentary Seat had to canvass in a vast district, spending an enormous amount of money to get elected. Hence, only rich people or those who could get the election contributions from rich friends could afford to stand for elections.
Although the system of Proportional Representation (PR) was introduced to improve upon the old system, it could not be considered a perfect system of democratic elections. A massive district is made an electorate where only candidates with huge sums of money can afford to contest and spend on the election campaign. Potential candidates without almost unlimited campaign funds are unable to do so.
The PR system also compelled the candidates to submit fraudulent statements on poll expenses in order to hide details of huge campaign expenditure. They could not reveal details about all campaign funds received from friends and well-wishers. Furthermore, the system lead to corrupt practices as the elected candidates had to repay the funds received for election campaigns by way of liquor licences, top jobs and lucrative tenders.
Electoral laws
Although there were demands for immediate changes in electoral laws to make it more democratic and genuinely people representative, the elected governments did not fulfill their campaign promise of electoral reforms as they were preoccupied with other priorities. In these circumstances, the Cabinet decided earlier this week to approve the proposal presented by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to advise the Legal Draftsman to draft Legislation to make provisions for controlling election expenses. “Universal suffrage is the principle of the sovereign power of Sri Lankan citizens. During an election it must be applied free and fair representing the will of the people,” the preamble of the proposal stated.
 |
| President Gotabaya Rajapaksa |
 |
| Former Chairman of the Election Commission Mahinda Deshapriya |
If a candidate, party or group spends too much money on the people’s vote without any control, it can have a significant impact on the will of the people. Many countries, including India, have imposed rules and regulations to control election spending.
In Sri Lanka, the need to control the expenses incurred by candidates or parties contesting elections has also been discussed. Approval was given at the Cabinet Meeting held on October 17, 2017 to amend the existing Ordinances in order to make provisions to minimize the illegal conduct of elections.
The drafting of new regulations should not take a long time as the Parliamentary Select Committee appointed to identify the reforms related to the structure and rules of Parliamentary elections and submit amendments has reached an agreement in consultation with the relevant parties. Accordingly, the Cabinet of Ministers approved the proposal presented by the President to advise the Legal Draftsman to draft proposed amendments taking into account the above approvals and consensus.
The First-Past-the-Post (FPP) system or electoral system introduced in 1931 with universal franchise, lasted until 1977 General Elections. Although, it was not considered the best one, it has kept the election expenses under a strict level and many victorious candidates found themselves unseated by courts when election petitions were filed by losing candidates challenging largely the winning candidates’ expenditure statements.
One of the electorates that recorded the unseating of elected members on petitions, was the Kandy Electorate. In the first Parliamentary election in 1947, the candidates were government-clerk turned politician, T. B. Ilangaratne and capitalist George E. de Silva, the first Cabinet Minister of Industries. When George E de Silva won the election, Illangaratne filed an election petition accusing his opponent with malicious campaigning. Ilangaratne lost his job after the 1947 General Strike but an article published in the run up to the election claimed he was sacked for bribery. The article was written by a Buddhist monk and Ilangaratne proved the monk was one of George R. de Silva’s campaign agents by submitting evidence of the monk’s speeches made at the rallies.
Later, George E de Silva was stripped of his seat as well as of his civic rights for seven years. In the subsequent by-election Ilangaratne faced George E de Silva’s son Fred de Silva, former Kandy Mayor. When Ilangaratne was elected, his opponent Fred de Silva filed a petition over false propaganda and he too won the case. Ilangaratne was unseated and stripped of his civic rights for seven years.
As T. B. Illangaratne was debarred from contesting, Illangaratne’s wife Thamara Kumari Illangaratne contested and won with a comfortable majority. In a subsequent petition, it came to light that losing candidate Fred de Silva had violated campaign financing laws. During the campaign period Fred de Silva used the services of a Tamil translator. The fee paid to the translator was Rs.25. In the financial statement he failed to enter this payment of Rs. 25 to a translator. For this omission, Fred de Silva lost civic rights for three years, despite the fact that he was not among the elected members. That reminds us the strength of laws on election expenditure under the old electoral system. While a candidate lost civic rights for omission of expenditure of Rs. 25 then, today’s candidates go scot-free after deliberately concealing millions of rupees of elections expenditure because of the legal lacunas.
Financial expenditure regulations
Another candidate who lost the election lost his civic rights in 1965 general elections proving the toughness of the law on campaign financing at the time. P. B. Dedigama filed his nominations, but later resigned from the contest to extend support to Dudley Senanayake in the Dedigama Seat. Although he published a newspaper advertisement to inform the people about his resignation, in a subsequent petition filed in the Supreme Court he was found guilty of the said offence and fined.
In the old system, the candidates cut down expenses because of strict financial expenditure regulations. However, after the 1978 changes in electoral system, the laws were openly flouted and unchecked campaign financing became the order of the day at every election.
The unchecked campaign expenditure distorted people’s free will and deprived a level playing ground for candidates. Furthermore, it opened flood gates to a free flow of black money and corrupt practices. The situation further exacerbated as some of the elected politicians came under control of their financiers, who wanted the repayment in kind. 
The former Chairman of the Election Commission, Mahinda Deshapriya raised this issue during his tenure and also prepared draft regulations for this purpose. After that Cabinet of Ministers agreed in principle that laws should be brought in to regulate election expenses.
The EC proposals require the political parties and independent groups to submit an audited Financial Statement within two months of the release of election results. While it incorporates provisions to bare the funding sources, the proposed law has not spelt out stringent penalties for the offenders, other than depriving the candidate of his seat, if elected. In contrast, the polls observers have come out with a draft containing proposals for a comprehensive campaign finance law with rather harsh penalties that would definitely deter wrong-doers.
The need to bring in regulations was stressed by champions of democracy and the public outcry for stringent campaign financing laws has become more vigorous over the years. Hence, President Rajapaksa’s decision to submit a Cabinet Paper on draft legislation to make provisions for controlling election expenses is a most welcome step in right direction.
Add new comment