By Mohamed Faizal –
Mohamed Faizal
Some of the candidates who were defeated in the recent parliamentary election have been appointed as MPs on the National List. This has created a bit of an uproar, particularly in the social media. The argument is that the holy clause concerning the appointment of National List MPs have been contravened. (Rather, the spirit of the sacred provision.) I don’t think any sacrilege has been committed.
Put plainly – leaving out all the euphemism – provision for National List was made in the constitution to counteract the stupidity of the voters. It was to bring into parliament those high calibre candidates who the ignorant electorates would not send in. So, how exactly has the holy provision been violated? When the party leaders appointed the defeated candidates as MPs, they were acting with the spirit of the provision; they were bringing into parliament those, who the masses, in their absolute ignorance, had refused to elect. What the party leaders have done is just righting of a wrong. It is fully in the spirit of the holy provision. In any case, who are we to interpret the sacred provision? The understanding of the holy priests of democracy should, and it does, carry much heavier weight than the understanding of the laity, the voters.
When a candidate is defeated in an election, it doesn’t mean that he has now become unfit to become a member of parliament. Politicians and voters know this alike. If we thought a defeat in an election rendered a candidate unfit to rule, then politicians would not be allowing them to contest another election, and the voters would not be participating in an election where defeated candidates are fielded, let alone elect them. As we know too well, not only are the defeated candidates permitted to contest another election, the voters who defeated them in the previous elections have gleefully on numerous occasions elected them to parliament this time. Everyone believes that defeated candidates are not unfit to rule.
The hue and cry from the public, this time, over the appointment of defeated candidates as MPs is not in congruence with the normal belief and practice. If anything, it is yet another additional proof to how weak the intelligence of the average voters is. Entering of defeated candidates to parliament on the National List is fully consistent with electing them to parliament in subsequent elections. If the masses are willing to allow the defeated candidates to be elected on another election, then they must be willing to allow them to be appointed too.
Let me prove this with another “tangible” argument. Candidate MLAM Hizbullah from the Batticaloa district was defeated in the election by a mere 127 votes. If 64 voters who voted for his opponents had voted for him instead, he would have been elected with a majority of one vote. If a re-election were to be held today in Batticaloa, there is no doubt that a great majority of the voters would be voting with new loyalties, resulting in the victory of Hizbullah. This would, in fact, be true of all those candidates who lost with such small margins, particularly in electorates where there are candidates who lost with really big margins.
The above would also highlight another important point about the masses. They just don’t know what they really want. They are never sure of their decisions. They simply like to gamble. We all know that all of these, particularly gambling, are no virtue. These are in fact immoralities. The opinion of such immoral masses are not to be considered favourably.
If we believed that a defeated candidate is in fact unfit to rule, we would not be having the current prime minister as the prime minister. We would also be having a completely new parliament. I am not sure of the number of parliamentarians who were once defeated in elections. I am pretty sure that would be really large.
Perhaps, we should do away with this façade of election. We should instead leave the country in the hands of some enlightened kings! (Sarcasm not intended.)
Amarasiri / August 26, 2015
Mohamed Faizal
RE: Defeated Candidates On The National List; It Is No Sacrilege, Calm Down!
Technically, Yes. Why? Because it is an arbitrary cut off point.
However, the original intention was not to give defeated candidates a back door entrance.
This was for people of eminence who can help the country, not themselves and the political leaders who select and appoint them.
For that they need to be selected by the people.
But..
“Put plainly – leaving out all the euphemism – provision for National List was made in the constitution to counteract the stupidity of the voters. “
Yes. Otherwise how could they have given 300,000 votes to Wimal Buruwansa, of 2/2 =0 fame at Colombo?
Yes, these Buruwas need to be balanced, BUT not with More Buruwaws, more donkeys.
/
Sriyani Mangalika / August 26, 2015
Geetha was selected by Rosy was not. Mahinda Samarasinghe was not selected pl compare them with other UPFA MP s for Kalutara.
How could you justify this result through democracy. Then all result out of Democracy in this country is healthy for our development whatever the reason.
Compare the people’s selection Muthuhettigama where Hou andunneththi and Kindelpitiya from Colombo not selected.
On that basis could you say since it is merely out of democracy in the country in that context could one ensure it is towards the prosperity of people in this critical juncture,
This is my personal view through observation and analysis.
I feel it would be important to consider seriously.
/
humbug / August 26, 2015
Ranil W was never defeated. He increased his majority each time. It was the party UNP that was defeated
/
lal / August 26, 2015
Mr Faizal,
It not fair to say that the voters rejected a candidate because of their ignorance. The democratic process is such that people have the right to choose and, that choice has to be respected. Whether a losing candidate be appointed as MP on the national list is another matter and is upto the leadership of party leadership to decide. I can understand a candidate’s feeling if they lost by a slender margin but they have to consider defeat as a possibility when they decide to contest. There will not be another election be held for such candidates. A recount is a possibility, and I presume EC would be able to provide further advice.
The election are over, lets get down to are routines.
/
jay / August 26, 2015
You are wrong. If you consider the voters are stupid, then the whole election is of no value. There are cases where people win by ONE VOTE. Still that is a measure. If we use your analogy then there could be no examinations, no measures. Do not treat anyone as GOD, so that they could identify GOOD from BAD.
Legally there is provision.
But accept that on principle, it is wrong, wrong and wrong.
jay
/
EW Golding / August 26, 2015
Mr Faizal I agree that appointing a defeated candidate on the National List does not contravene any law. I am prepared to go further and say that, as an exception, when a good person is appointed, it should be supported. I would put Rosy (not appointed) and Mahinda Samarasinghe (appointed)in that category.
The huge hue and cry that has arisen is because the mechanism has been (ab)used to appoint rogues, bookies, ex-ministers who ruined education and similar vermin, after they were rejected by the people. This has shattered the image of President Sirisena as a wise and decent leader.
/
MirakRajBanda / August 26, 2015
Either Faizal was paid by Hisbulla or must be a relative who’s doing some ‘repairs’ to his image plunged to such deep to call him ‘Thug, Crook, MaRa bootlicker, etc’.
If you travel through Eastern Province, you can see yourself how people hate him for his love with previous regime ^^.
/
Sinhala_Man / August 26, 2015
Thanks, Mohamed Faizal,
You have summed up the situation admirably.
The August 17th 2015 General Elections will go down as one of the strangest, but also as one of the most important. We had to decide whether we wanted Rajapaksa autocracy (the unpopularity of which was sought to be offset by appealing to the lowest communal instincts of the Sinhalese voter) or a return to liberal democracy.
When the lists of candidates arrived in our homes, many of voters found that the candidates we wanted to vote for were contesting from the wrong party. So, Mahinda Samarasinghe lost from the UPFA list, but would easily have made it from the UNP list. Of course this is hypothetical. Sarath Amunugama (despite his age!), and Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena probably fall in to the same category, and why not we place Sunil Handunetti, too, in this category?
Some were fortunate to win on the UNP list although their support lay mainly with normally UPFA voters. Examples would be Champika Ranawaka and Hirunika Premachandra; I’m sure the former would have brought a lot of his personal votes in to the UNP. I, myself, am unlikely to have voted for either. Rosy Senanayake was desperately unlucky – let down by female voters; I see no solution for her but to come forward in five years’ time. I voted in a remote district where I had to tell the decent medical doctor sitting M.P. that unfortunately he was backing the “wrong SLFP leader” – i.e. Mahinda Rajapaksa.
To get rid of the murderers who posed as the saviours of the Sinhala race, Maithri may have had to further compromise – and bring in the S.B. Dissanayake whom he himself finds obnoxious. Just because of such acts, I’m not willing to revise my view that Maithri is the best thing that has happened to Sri Lanka since Independence.
However, two other reports are worrying: there shouldn’t be another JUMBO cabinet (for two years or five), even if certain exigencies push it above 30, nor should the Rajapaksas be allowed to bargain for a moratorium on investigations as a quid pro qua for “retiring” from politics. Where does that leave Sandya Ekneligoda (I’ve once actually met her while she was leading her lone struggle), by now confirmed, to all dispassionate readers, to be a widow? And Wasim Thajudeen? And Isipriya?
It would be naive to imagine that countering the Satanic Rajapaksas could be done by angels alone, or by the good Maduluwawe Sobhitha. Two writers with Muslim names have commented well on the subject; Mohamed Faizal’s is an admirably complements the earlier article.
/
Ahmed Reza / August 26, 2015
“””National List was made in the constitution to counteract the stupidity of the voters”””
How can arrogance get more arrogant!
Explain how Dilan Perera’s appointment as MP through National List by Maithripala Sirisena is to “counteract the stupidity of the voters”?
Lankaenews (Blue Brigand Story yesterday) says Maithripala was blackmailed by Dilan Perera, to get the appointment. You can also read the vattoruwa of Dilan’s criminal misdeeds in this Article. Maithripala has not denied the allegation.
/
kligon / August 26, 2015
Rajapaksa s and their goons gone,and here come new goons (Defeated Candidates On The National List) and their masters.Its the same old crap with differant names !
/
Mohamed Hisham / August 26, 2015
Boy what a piece of white washing of your dirty master (please ask Mr. Hisbulla if he is still hoarding the loads of ‘eechampalam’ donated by the Saudi Govt for the poor in his garage at Rajagiriya). Well,well you have sung sweetly for your supper!.
Your arguments are good for fools not good even for the kindergarten kids.
Please don’t waste CT space with your vomit and take us all for suckers!.
/
Dashinth Thabrew / August 26, 2015
You sir, are either expecting to be on the next national list or someone who has no clue about what democracy is. There is a third option that I hesitate to mention as this is a public forum.
You are partly correct about the national list being a mechanism to counteract the stupidity of the masses in the sense that educated worthy people need to be brought to parliament. People who have not had public exposure enough to command a proper preferential vote.
The intellectual debates about the national list appointments these days consist of the argument that these are people that not only contested and lost but mostly people who were Members of parliament previously and have now been rejected by the public. How is it democracy when those previous members of parliament who are rejected by the country, are then appointed through the national list?
Why does any party need to submit their national list prior to the election if it can be changed at will later to include the candidates that lost their seat?
The fact of the matter is that appointing candidates rejected (defeated) in the general elections through the national list is nothing less than a violation of democracy itself.
/
moda putha / August 26, 2015
OMG
who is this pathetic figure Md Faizal – and what has he been smoking ?
Mirak RajBanda is right in stating “Either Faizal was paid by Hisbulla OR must be a relative who’s doing some ‘repairs’ to his image plunged to such deep to call him” I wouldn’t say or, but “and” !!
“National List was made in the constitution to counteract the stupidity of the voters” – how much more stupid should Faizal be to expect readers to be stupid to accept this analysis.
This deranged analysis concludes, “Perhaps, we should do away with this façade of election. We should instead leave the country in the hands of some enlightened kings!” So Faisal is saying to hell with democracy, the masses dont know what they want but we will appoint political stooges and thugs and rob the country forever.
The only observation to which I agree is the questioning, how on earth can Burwansa get 300,000 votes. How have the innocent voters been coaxed to be ignorant.
Voters get the politicians they deserve, ie; they vote for; there is no need for the unseen hand to impose further damage in appointing bigger crooks thru national list. Those whom the innocent / ignorant masses voted for are bad enough there is no need for further adulteration.
cheers
/
frank / August 26, 2015
Mohamed Faizal
Next time you see a laptop don’t touch the keyboard. You are so so stupid, just like the other Muslim fool with a name similar to yours – Fazl Muhammed.
/
Boko Haram / August 27, 2015
Come On frank; You are not HALF as intelligent as Fazl Muhammed. So, next time YOU see a keyboard,run away from it.
/
Buddhadasa / August 26, 2015
You are trying to defend the undefendable. Just because someone who was defeated but you may have liked was appointed through the National list you seem to think that it is not sacrilege. This is no democracy but sort of a dictatorship by the “Yahapalaya” President
/
Spring Koha / August 26, 2015
Mohamed Faizal has given us a specious argument, and ended with a ridiculous conclusion.
First of all, he forgets that the ‘voter’ is paramount in an election. Casting aspersions on the most important person in the election is not the way to unravel the imponderables of the process.
The National List may legally allow tinkering to accommodate beaten candidates, but morality will throw up myriad reasons for not second-guessing WE the people.
Of course, all the above may be marginal if you have another agenda for writing the article.
/
lal / August 26, 2015
Why did CT publish this article? I have read many articles in CT that I did not agree with the contents of but, I think without doubt that quality considered this stands out as the worst piece of journalism of them all.
/
keluim samarasena / August 27, 2015
true to his style, Faizal simply seems to love to get the readers go for the guns and go looking for him while he must be happy sipping his coffee pondering the next rock he plans to throw at the placid and utterly lethargic waters in Srilanka public opinion. sure he provokes.. but my respect goes to him for doing it to my thoughts……..
/