General election with a specific target

Almost imperceptibly, the general election campaign has shifted from a contest between the ruling party and the opposition, and from being a contest on political, social and economic issues, to a rather peripheral issue: A race for a two-thirds majority in Parliament.
This issue was first brought to the fore by none other than President Mahinda Rajapaksa himself, who, during the latter stages of the presidential election campaign, hinted that this general election would be the last with a battle for the ‘manaapa’ or preference vote.

That obviously meant a Constitutional overhaul of significant proportions, which needed a two-thirds majority, to be sanctioned in Parliament. Later, the ruling coalition, the United Peoples’ Freedom Alliance (UPFA) publicly declared its intentions of seeking a two-thirds majority.
The issue gained more currency when Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe entered the fray, saying that the voters had a duty by the country to deprive the ruling party of a two-thirds majority, as it would lead to dictatorial tendencies.

The thinking behind the government’s move is quite clear. President Rajapaksa has learnt from the experience of his first term of office. He knows how difficult it was to govern with a nearly hostile Parliament, and how he had to wean MPs away from the Opposition ranks with Cabinet portfolios.
The President must be quite fresh with the memories of anxious moments he spent while attempting to have his Budget passed, when some Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) MPs decided to rebel against him. It was the support of the then united Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) that saved the day for President Rajapaksa.
He does not wish to go through such experiences again. Hence, he wishes to have a free hand in governance, and would like to have a Parliament that would do his bidding, without a murmur of dissent. Therefore, the call for a two-thirds majority from the President.

It is interesting that the President has stated his desire to abolish the Proportional Representation (PR) system of electing Parliamentarians. What is being discussed in the corridors of power is a hybrid of the PR system and the first-past-the post Westminster system.
Under the changes that are envisaged, the demarcated 160 ‘electorates’ would elect MPs on a first-past-the-post system, while the balance will be distributed proportionally among the political parties, according to the percentage of votes they polled nationally.

What this system would do is to give a clear majority to the party winning the election, while at the same time, ensuring that all parties are somewhat proportionally represented in Parliament, instead of shutting them out completely, as it would have happened had the Westminster system been the sole criterion.
Already, the President has stated that the Cabinet of ministers in the new government would be pruned to about 35. That is indeed a commendable thought, but those critics who condemn the present mega Cabinet, must also realise that the President was only indulging in the politics of necessity.

It was the doling out of these vast numbers of portfolios- at considerable expense to the tax payer, as the Opposition has time and again pointed out- that enabled the President to govern, at first,with a bare minimum working majority in Parliament, although the numbers were more comfortable later on.
Now, to prune the Cabinet to 35 is no easy task, because that would invariably mean that some politicians who were ministers previously would be relegated to the status of mere Parliamentarians. Obviously, that would lead to dissension in the ruling party, after the poll.

This would be further compounded if the UPFA is left with a few seats short of the magic number of 150 seats, which constitute a two-thirds majority. Then, the President would have to play practical politics again and invite Opposition MPs to join the government, offering the incentive of ministerial portfolios.
Faced with the prospect of six long years in the opposition- and even thereafter, no guarantee of an automatic return to power- we are certain there will be many takers, if such offers are made, even among staunch members of the United National Party (UNP), who remain in the opposition ranks today.

Nevertheless, the prospect of offering ministerial portfolios to ‘crossover’ MPs, while at the same time, not rewarding the faithful of the SLFP, will be a conundrum that the President will have to deal with, using all his personal charm- not to mention the considerable powers at his disposal.
What then are the prospects of such a scenario- or will the UPFA be able to muster 150 seats on its own steam? If the comments of the Leader of the Opposition are any yardstick, then at least he considers this a real possibility.

Even so, it is a tough ask, for several reasons. Firstly, it must be noted that the President’s convincing victory at the presidential election cannot be automatically converted into a landslide for the UPFA at a general election.
The President’s victory was largely a personal one, where most voters were expressing their gratitude to a leader who delivered them from the clutches of terrorism after 30 years. That his Cabinet and coterie of ministers do not enjoy the same popularity is an open secret.
To offset this decline, there is a snowballing effect in the opposite direction: The demoralisation of the Opposition after the presidential poll and the apathy of voters who voted for the Opposition. Even so, it is extremely unlikely that the UPFA will poll the 57% recorded at the presidential poll.

Put simply, even if the United National Alliance (UNA), the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and the JVP win 50, 20 and five seats respectively, the collective Opposition would require only one seat more to prevent a two-thirds majority for the UPFA. This, it appears, is a distinct possibility.
The stage is therefore set for an absorbing battle, come April 8, one that would be more interesting than the presidential election. And, the outcome could either usher in major changes within the country’s electoral politics- or, result in more of the same: Political horse trading for the sake of expediency.