How to select only those worthy of election

My attention was drawn to recent letters to the press by Dr. A.C. Visvalingam, Edward Gunawardena and Dr. M.M. Rajapakse on the subject of screening and selecting better candidates for Parliament.

People have witnessed the recurring, unprofessional conduct and unproductive contributions from many of our present ‘Mace- raiding’ and riotous Provincial Councillors and Parliamentarians who make a mockery out of the sacred Parliamentary system. The disillusioned voting public now crave for ‘good and disciplined behaviour’ and enhanced productivity from Parliament and the Provincial Councils through selection of a decent, honest, ethical and principled set of political professionals who will always place the country first on their agenda.

Hitherto, our voters have exhibited a good sense in changing Governments. But in regard to selection of individual candidates, they have failed miserably. For example they have voted for teledrama actresses and cricketers beating experienced politicians. They have also sent to Parliament, inexperienced candidates and politicians facing criminal charges defeating more suitable candidates. Let us not hide the fact that our voters are swayed by temporary hand- outs or bribes in the form of cash and kind.

In this scenario, the only alternative is to compel the respective parties to select and field their best teams of political professionals in district-wise merit order to achieve the goals of the country as well as the goals of their respective election manifestos at provincial and national level.

For this purpose, the contesting parties as corporate entities should be required by the Election Commission to follow a robust, unbiased and transparent process of screening followed by a meticulously structured interview method to select their nominees. The screening criteria set out by polls monitoring watchdog PAFFREL through the ‘AllParty March 12th Declaration’ surely had a salutary effect on party nominations at the last General Election. This process must be strengthened and given legal teeth by the Election Commission.

Towards this end, I suggest the following steps.

1) Strengthen ‘PAFFREL’ pre-interview criteria with the following additional criteria. i) The applicant should have at least two passes in GCE A’ Level in not more than 3 sittings. (It is not a tall order in the present times.) ii) Should possess at least one added

professional qualification from a recognised professional body (even a six-month diploma would do) iii) Should produce at the interview, a good health record certified by a Registered Medical Practitioner. iv) Should be below 75 years of age as

at the last date for nominations. The above is not an exhaustive list and more conditions may be added to achieve the citizens’ objective of deriving a reasonable return for their investment by having professional politicians in the Provinces and the Parliament.

2) Under the structured interview method, numerical values shall be adduced to traits such as multi-lingual skills, debating ability, social integration, political, legal, general knowledge and overall suitability. Special weightage should be added to women to place them in an electable position in the district merit list of the party to fulfil gender representation requirements. Parties may add more value categories to improve quality of selection.

3) The aforesaid sets of basic screening and interview criteria should be gazetted by the Election Commission/ Department well in advance of the date of nominations, so that parties can frame their screening and structured interview methods. Thereafter, parties can accordingly complete the interview process; prepare their preliminary District merit lists of candidates and publish same in at least one national newspaper in Sinhala, Tamil and English before a specified date well in advance for the public to raise any objections also before a specified date with the Elections Department. 4) If there are valid objections conveyed by the Election Commission/ Department, the parties should amend their lists accordingly, before submitting them on the nominations date. 5) At the time of submitting nominations lists, the party secretaries should certify that they have conformed to the selection and interview criteria to the Returning Officer through an affidavit. Any immediate misinformation should allow the Returning Officer to reject the name of such nominee/s or if found later can be contested through an election petition.

By following the above method, it should be possible to erase the public opinion that the Party leader is the sole person selecting candidates. On the contrary, the parties would become the best judges for selecting election candidates in District-wise merit order.

We appeal to all readers and civil activists to support this proposed system of ‘Modern Representative Democracy’ to ensure a professional and productive Parliamentary system where the MPs’ chit system, cross-overs, ‘hung’ or ‘unstable’ Parliaments would go into the limbo of forgotten things!