The Election Problem

Sri Lankans, whatever one might say to the contrary, rarely look beyond their collective noses when it comes to matters of the state. The ‘island mentality’ rules and everyone is quite happy to keep it that way.

For instance, when elections draw near – an event never far off in this land of elections, elections and more elections – there is a huge chorus that is raised about how election laws are being violated. Then, when the polling day arrives, almost on cue various allegations are thrown about on election fraud. And indeed more often than not these allegations turn out to be true. Yet once the results are announced everything is quickly forgotten and the issue dies down until the next election.

How many opposition politicians who shout themselves hoarse alleging fraud have actually made it their business to do something about it post election? Only a fraction walks the talk. Even the much-publicized election petition of Sarath Fonseka challenging the results of the January 26 presidential election seems like a non-starter, with the General having more pressing problems on his plate like the court marshal due to take place this week.

Over the years it is this lethargy – always expecting someone else to do the job while you do the talking – that has bred this culture of impunity when it comes to election fraud. Except for the rare cancellation of a vote at a polling booth not much has been done by the elections commissioner himself, even when there have been instances where a prima facie case existed.

It is against this backdrop that the collective short-sightedness of the Sri Lankan electorate is called into question, for every fraudulent election irreversibly alters the course of this nation. It is the people that end up paying for their own folly.

To minimise fraud, at every poll some new measure is adopted by the elections commissioner to enhance the security of the ballot paper and to ensure correct voter representation. One measure that has gone a long way to ensure this is the National Identity card or some other acceptable proof of identity being made compulsory for voting. However this somewhat successful measure has been seriously compromised by the issuance of nearly two million ‘temporary’ ID cards through dubious ‘authorities’ at the last poll. For instance, one such ID-granting authority was the grama sevaka, the majority of whom are politically appointed and unashamedly pro-government. These very same temporary cards will be used at the forthcoming general election as well.

The point is this – how many opposition politicians who cried foul, post election actually visited these grama sevakas and availed themselves of a list of the persons who were issued temporary IDs and looked into any discrepancies? Ditto for the many names that go missing from electoral lists. Your guess is as good as mine.

Then, of course, there is the curious case where the elections commissioner makes the standard boast that he has imported the best possible ink to dab on voters’ fingers at the time of voting to avoid the same person voting many times over – a novel feature of our elections. He most certainly has got the ink right because nearly six weeks after the last dab of it at the presidential poll and despite many an attempt using various methods ranging from petrol to thinner to coconut oil to battery acid none of it has worked to erase the purple patch denoting adult franchise.

It then follows that if such good quality permanent ink is used on the voter’s finger that an equally good permanent ink pen will be made available to mark the ballot, but, in fact, it is quite the opposite. The most impermanent of markers – the humble pencil – is what is made available for voters to mark their ballot. For those bent on fraud, all that it takes is a piece of rubber to erase the pencil mark and then proceed to mark as one pleases. It defies logic why this has to be so and the voters or the politicians have never questioned this ‘requirement.’

That apart, it is a serious indictment on the part of the political parties that at least in the interest of democracy in this country no party or politician has deemed it fit to take on the elections commissioner to challenge the many glaring lapses on his part over the years, especially when it came to the last poll in January, which election the commissioner himself described in the most foul terms.

The commissioner always took the easy way out when rules were being openly flouted, and continues to do so even today with what is clearly turning out to be calculated prevarication on the part of the commissioner.

Many have been his threats to ‘take action’ in the face of flagrant violations of the law, but other than a few ‘orders’ to revoke the transfers of some police personnel not much else has been done using what potentially is a very powerful post in times of an election. After all, the authority that should legally be vested in a commission as per the 17th Amendment is now vested in one person, who, ironically, is given to complain that he has no power.

The problem for the commissioner is that it is not the lack of power that is holding him back but the fact that his power will have to be used on the all-powerful executive president who in fact is the de facto campaign leader of the UPFA. Which government servant will risk doing that?

The 1978 Constitution expected the elected president to be above board when it came to party politics, which is why the president is elected directly by the people. The elected president was expected to leave behind his political baggage and transform into a statesman once he took office, staying aloof of petty politics. But when the holder of that office also grabs the office of a party leader and proceeds to personally lead an election campaign on behalf of that party what does the elections commissioner do?
He does what Dayananda Dissanayake has been doing from 2005: Nothing.