By Gamini Jayaweera –

Gamini Jayaweera

Local Council elections were held in Sri Lanka on 6 May 2025 to elect representatives to Municipal Councils, Urban Councils, and Pradesheeya Sabhas. These representatives serve their communities on a four-year basis. Four major political parties: NPP (133 councils), SJB (13), ITAK (37), and SLMC (5), won overall control of 188 local councils. No one questions the legitimacy of these parties appointing Mayors, Deputy Mayors, Chairpersons, and Vice-Chairpersons in the councils they control. That is how democracy is expected to function.

Under normal circumstances in “hung councils” where no single party holds more than 50% of the council seats, the party that succeeds in securing majority support from other parties or independent members earns the legitimacy to appoint the Leader of the Local Council. This majority is typically demonstrated through an open vote. Such a process has long been recognized as a standard democratic practice in many countries, including Sri Lanka, India, and the United Kingdom.

Yet, in a break from long standing precedent, a controversy has arisen in Sri Lanka over leadership appointments in these “hung” councils. The President and the ruling NPP contend that they have a moral right to appoint their members as Leaders and Deputy Leaders in these councils, even without securing a majority vote. They argue that being the party with the largest number of seats grants them this entitlement, despite not reaching the necessary threshold of over 50% support for their nominees.

Accusation of Mis-Trust

In a controversial move, the President warned that delays in fund allocation could occur in councils where the NPP is denied leadership where they have highest no. of council seats but fall short of the over 50% of the members support. He claims the NPP cannot trust other parties to use public funds honestly and in the public’s interest. This statement has been widely criticised as undemocratic, ignoring the clear will of the voters who did not grant the NPP a legal majority. In contrast, leadership appointments in the 188 councils where a majority of more than 50% was achieved proceeded without dispute or obstruction.

A quiet procedural choice, how council members cast their votes has now become the centre of a growing storm. All over the country, councillors from all parties and the Representatives of the Commissioner of Elections are clashing over the use of Open versus Secret ballots to select the Leader of the Council. This uncertain voting system proposed by the Agents of the Commissioner of Elections encourage bullying, mistrust, accusations of favourable deals for opposition MPs, and creating a toxic working culture in local government.

It is disheartening to see that in some councils, the process of appointing leaders has turned into a battleground. In one case, tensions escalated to the point of physical violence between members of opposing parties, prompting police intervention to prevent further clashes, an unsettling reminder of the dirty politics of the past.

Open Ballots

Many argue that open ballots promote transparency and democratic accountability. Voters, they say, have a right to know how their elected representatives, especially independent members, vote on critical decisions, when it comes to appointing council leadership. Open voting, they contend, helps ensure councillors follow through on the promises and values they campaigned on. Lack of transparency may erode public trust, and the legitimacy of the democratic process can be called into question.

Secret Ballots

On the other hand, supporters of secret ballots claim that confidentiality protects councillors from coercion, intimidation, or political retaliation. By voting in private, councillors can exercise independent judgment without undue influence from parties, factions, or powerful individuals, an especially critical safeguard in highly polarized or contentious political environments.

Nonetheless, critics warn that secrecy may enable manipulation by entrenched political forces. Allegations have surfaced of ruling parties using inducements, including financial incentives, to sway councillors during secret ballot votes for leadership positions. Such practices, they argue, compromise the integrity of the process and undermine the spirit of fair representation.

Voters’ Right to Accountability

Voters may argue that they have a moral right to know how their elected representatives, especially independent members, have voted in selecting the leader of the council. This transparency is particularly important when voters do not want their representative to support a specific political party whose policies they oppose.

When the selection process is conducted through a secret ballot, the public may feel deprived of the ability to make informed decisions about those independent members in future local elections. They may also argue that such members are not adhering to the principles and values they claimed to uphold during their election campaigns.

While secret ballots for electing local council leaders do not violate voters’ fundamental rights, the practice raises serious ethical and democratic concerns. Transparency and accountability are core democratic values. Imposing a secret vote instead of an open one can erode the trust and relationship between voters and their representatives.

Comparative Voting Systems

Democratic nations employ a variety of voting systems to select local and national leaders, balancing transparency, accountability, and political stability. The structure of these systems often reflects differing historical, institutional, and cultural contexts.

In the United Kingdom, mayors are typically elected directly by the public through a secret ballot, ensuring voter privacy and broad-based legitimacy. However, council leaders, those who head local authorities, are chosen by fellow council members through an open voting process, fostering transparency within the council.

India frequently uses open ballots for the election of mayors. This approach is designed to curb party-switching and reduce opportunities for political horse-trading, particularly in coalition-dominated local councils. By making votes publicly known, it discourages backroom deals and reinforces party discipline.

In contrast, Australia often elects mayors through a secret ballot conducted among council members. This internal, confidential process is intended to reduce external pressures and protect members from political retaliation, though it may reduce transparency.

The United States presents a mixed model. In most cities, local mayors are directly elected by citizens through a secret ballot, upholding democratic participation. At the federal level, internal leadership roles, such as the Senate Majority Leader, are selected through secret ballots within party caucuses, emphasizing internal party consensus rather than public input.

These variations highlight how open and secret voting mechanisms are applied differently across democracies. Open ballots tend to prioritize transparency and accountability among representatives, while secret ballots are often used to protect individual choice and prevent coercion, whether by peers or political actors.

Conclusion

The NPP must consider initiating reforms to the process of selecting Leaders and Deputy Leaders in Local Councils, particularly in instances where no party secures an outright majority (over 50%) in local elections. Such reforms are vital to foster a healthy political culture and to prevent friction among council members.

In addition, legislation should require independent councillors to publicly disclose their vote in mayoral selections, even if the ballot remains technically secret. This measure would enhance transparency, deter backroom deals and help put an end to the dirty political practices of the past.

The ongoing debate between secret and open voting in local councils reflects broader concerns about trust, accountability, and the integrity of democratic processes in Sri Lanka. Procedural mechanisms, such as voting methods, carry significant implications for governance and public confidence. For local government to fulfil its true purpose of empowering communities rather than serving party interests, it must operate under clear, fair, and transparent rules.