For Whom Are Electoral Reforms Sans Voters?
By Harishke Samaranayake –June 19, 2015
Harishke Samaranayake
There was a political necessity in society over a long time to have decent electoral reforms effected. Necessity was to strengthen people’s representation in an improved parliamentary democracy. That required the whole electoral system to be clean and devoid of corruption. That in turn required political parties to be democratic, corruption free and accountable to the people. We therefore wish to note that electoral reforms brought to straighten the tail of the system as proposed in the 20th amendment will not meet the aspirations of the people in establishing a democratic change.
Though easy, it is a total lie to dump all evil of this electoral system on the “preference vote”. We are very clear that fusing the old first past the post system with proportional representation is not going to clean up the system. If the electoral system can be turned decent with such change, then the Indian parliament must be one with exceptionally decent personalities. In the present Indian parliament 186 of the elected MPs have criminal charges against them. The problem in India is also the untold and unspoken relationship between businessmen and black money launderers with political parties and politicians. This cannot be plugged for good by reforms aimed at one end of the system. Let us make this unhesitatingly clear here. Unless electoral reforms bring in legal conditions to have political parties open their election funds to the people and candidates publicly declare their campaign budgets, future elections will elect loads of corrupt representatives to the parliaments as at present.
These reforms that were reported as having now been adopted by the cabinet of ministers after months of haggling are nothing more than arithmetical jargon that never was the outcome of a democratic process. They were conspiratorially restricted to political parties represented in parliament and to some of their lackeys. The proposal to increase the number of MPs in parliament to a number above 225 is therefore not one that serves people. Those who now travel with the government on its footboard, those who avoid this issue, leans on the argument that increased numbers help better women and youth representation.
