The Cabinet decision to increase the cash deposits, known in local parlance as the ‘”epey”, for candidates contesting national elections across the board is a welcome step. The move would not only eliminate ‘dummy’ candidates cluttering up the field, but also reduce the length of the ballot paper. This would make it less confusing for the voter, especially the unsophisticated village folk who were all at sea the last time around when they received their ballot paper – said to be the longest in our election history.
The cumbersome ballot papers in the past even led to many voters marking the ‘cross’ against the wrong party/candidate. The franchise ought to be a simple exercise. Burdening the voter in whatever way cannot be condoned.
According to the Cabinet decision announced by Cabinet Spokesman, Transport, Highways and Mass Media Minister Dr. Bandula Gunawardhana at the weekly post-Cabinet press briefing, in the case of a candidate contesting a Presidential Election from a recognised political party, the deposit has now been raised to Rs 2.6 million and in the case of an Independent candidate this will be Rs. 3.1 million. Where a General Election is concerned, a candidate contesting from a recognised political party will now be called upon to deposit Rs. 11,000 while an Independent candidate ‘s deposit will be Rs. 16,000 .The decision, according to the Minister, has been taken considering the cost increases all round. Of course, there have been protests from certain quarters who argue that the move could result in the stifling of the franchise by leaving out the ‘poor’ candidates while those in favour contend that the move could deter frivolous candidates and promote more serious contenders.
There is also the case of so-called Independent candidates holding a brief for a candidate contesting from a mainstream party in case of a Presidential Election. At General Elections, there have been plenty of instances where Independent candidates were fielded by political parties to eat up television and radio air time which would otherwise have been made use of by their rivals. This amounts to the trivialization of the franchise – a practice which should be halted. Former Elections Commissioner Mahinda Deshapriya pledged to hound out all such double dealers but retired before this promise was put to a test. It will now be up to the present Election Commission (EC) to ensure that the trivialization of the election process is stopped forthwith.
The former EC Chairman also pledged to ensure that candidates abide by their election manifestos, another progressive step which should engage the attention of the present Commissioners. According to a one-time Prime Minister, election manifestos are mere documents which are not binding on any Presidential candidate or political party that comes to power. In other words, election manifestos are not worth the paper they are written on.
This is tantamount to cheating the electorate and there has to be someone in authority to ensure election manifestos, or, at least some part thereof is implemented by the victorious candidate(s) or the political party, as the case may be.
The EC has also promised radical changes in the electoral process. Among them are pledges to unseat an elected Member of Parliament (MP), or any other political body, who had engaged in election malpractices, even before an election petition is filed by the aggrieved (losing) party. The EC has also suggested that a National List spot cannot be left vacant for more than two weeks following a General Election and that in such an event the Commission would take upon itself the power to appoint the next candidate in the order of the list.
The EC has now imposed a ceiling on all campaign expenditure by each candidate in the fray, though it has not had the opportunity to put this rule into practice. Of course, there are always ways to bypass the system. They (candidates) do not have to directly get involved in spending. As all Sri Lankans are aware, election funding is largely carried out by proxies of the candidates. A familiar scenario is on Election Day itself where various goodies, including food, are distributed among voters on their way to the polling booth. There are also other favours and blandishments that are made on behalf of the candidates concerned with the candidates themselves remaining innocent.
How is the EC going to keep tabs on this aspect? The Preferential Voting system under the Proportional Representation (PR) method has made it imperative that money bags are thrown around. This is because a candidate cannot just concentrate on his home electorate only, unlike in the earlier First-Past-the-Post (FPP) system. A whole district is involved.
How is the EC going to inquire into the expenditure of a candidate under such circumstances? Closer scrutiny in this respect at least could be possible only under the FPP system where only a single electorate is involved and monitoring would not pose a big problem.
A reversal to the FPP or at least a mix of PR and FPP would also cleanse the electoral process of the corruption that is now prevalent, and also save money both to the State and the individual candidate(s) concerned.
