By RAVI LADDUWAHETTY Courtesy Ceylon Today

So, the Provincial Council Elections (Amendment) Act has been passed. The manner in which the Act was passed has a lot of positives but, what leaves much to be desired, is the manner in which the Bill was passed in the House. The only amendment to the Act was that which made it mandatory for women to have 25% of the representation in these local bodies and there was also this 60-40 rule which was meant for 60% of the votes and the candidates to come from the First-Past-the-Post System and the remaining 40% from the Proportional Representation System.

All well and fine. They took the Second Reading and the Third Reading on the same day which made them do a rushed job without any serious debate. What is worthy of conjecture, is the manner in which they passed the Bill like the 18th Amendment without any rationality.

While the Bill was all positive, what was negative was the manner in which it was passed and which created a precedent.

There are clauses in the Standing Orders of Parliament where amendments could be brought in at the Committee Stages. But Parliament was bringing in a negative precedent. If these amendments were to be brought in Parliament at a later stage, there could be nothing that could be done about it. Even if it is unconstitutional, no one could challenge it. It is also positive that the Preferential Voting System is out and with it will go all the rancour and the acrimony which went with it. That will happen that way whether it is the single member ward or the multiple-member ward.

CONTENTIOUS ISSUES

It is also that there should be 25% women representation in the House of Parliament, at Provincial Council Level or at the Local Government Level. It is also that there would be 25% quota for women and if a man gets a higher percentage of the votes, then he might be legitimately left out because women have to be elected and as 25% of the quota have to be won, irrespective of the votes that they poll.

There is also a possibility that a man who polls higher votes, might be a loser because priority is given to a woman. There is surely going to be another complication if only 10% of the vote goes to women. It does not necessarily mean that women will also vote for women. Then, what happens after that? The absurdity of the entire principle is that the man who gets 30,000 votes might lose but the woman who gets 1,000 votes might win.

The equality of opportunity will certainly go out of the window. There is not even a suggestion to counter this or a positive action plan which is proposed or suggested in such an event.

This is moot in the context of women who account for a mere 4% of number of Members of Parliament. This method might not attract the right kind calibre of women in the House, just as much as there have not been in most cases, the right kind of men also in the House!

But, in the case of the men, people have a choice and options as to whom to vote for. But the choice among the women will be very narrow.

It is also true that 52% of the population is women but it also does not necessarily mean that all women are going to vote for them. It is against the principles of democracy not to have equality of opportunity.

Then, coming to the First- Past-the-Post System and the Proportional Representation System, is the right kind of mix that would be very positive in the long-term perspective of the country. The fact that the Preferential Voting System or the Manaape is being done away with, is a very positive step in the right direction. There will not be any intra-party squabbles, rancour and acrimony and virtually ” killing each other” in the race for the top slots.

WORKING MAJORITY

It is also redeeming that the shift to the electorate system would be operational. Then the prospective MP would be contesting within the gamut of his electorate as to whether it is Colombo West, Maharagama, Kotte, Nuwara Eliya et al, in sharp contrast to a District, which would mean that the scales of operation would be much smaller, which will not need “corporate sponsorships” which will also lead to corruption. For instance, a businessman, or a business group or conglomerate could offer to sponsor a selected politician’s election campaign on the understanding that the politician, when elected, will see that his sponsors benefit from the politician in terms of getting tenders and other commercial benefits.

However, the best aspect of these electoral reforms is that the winning side which forms the government, whatever that is, will have a comfortable working majority, in sharp contrast to the landsides we saw in 1970 and 1977 which led to dictatorships and anarchy and the Hung Parliaments we saw post 1994 where “everybody had to be appeased with Cabinet portfolios and other perks in lieu of favours granted.