How To Improve The Quality of Our Legislators

How to Improve the Quality of Our Legislators
by Prof Rajiva Wijesinha-Jul 30, 2017

( July 30, 2017, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Let me begin with some very
simple concepts, since these will help us to understand what exactly we should
aim for in trying to improve the quality of our legislators. First, we should examine
the role of Parliament, what it is meant to do, and how it can do this effectively.
Second, we should examine the role of Parliamentarians, and what is required for
them to fulfil their roles effectively.
At its simplest, Parliament is there to make laws. That is why the title of this
seminar refers to legislators. So we need to consider what Parliamentarians need
to know to make laws in the interests of the country. Connected with this is the
passing of regulations which are required by laws to give them teeth.
But there is a second function of Parliament that springs from its legislative
function. Amongst the most important laws it makes are those affecting the
finances of the country; hence the need to have an annual budget, which is
discussed at length. So we need to consider what Parliamentarians need to know
not only to use the resources of the country productively, but also to develop
resources.
Thirdly, since it is Parliament that allocates as it were the finances which are used
by the executive branch, it must make sure these are used in accordance with the
provisions it makes. Hence it must monitor the use of funds by the executive.
These are the principal functions of Parliament. But because we are still steeped
in the Westminster system, we confuse the functions of Parliament as Parliament
with those of the executive branch of government, which on the Westminster
model is based in Parliament. Even though we moved in 1978 to an Executive
Presidency, we have uniquely amongst countries which elect an Executive
President independently of a parliamentary election maintained the rest of the
Executive in Parliament. Incidentally I should note that my despair about what
passes for Departments of Political Science in this country is that there has been
no serious research about both the rationale and the impact of J R Jayewardenes
decision to violate the commitment of his manifesto to have an executive outside
Parliament.
So, sadly, our Parliamentarians, all of whom hanker after Executive office, do not
realize what their responsibilities are as legislators, nor as the guardians of the
finances of the country against the excesses of the executive branch. The scrutiny
of legislation by Parliamentarians is non-existent. And though there are some
admirable individuals in the financial oversight committees, the ridiculous
attendance figures at these committees make it clear that most Parliamentarians
could not care less about such responsibilities.
The problem is exacerbated by the other function of Parliamentarians, which we

have to accept as a reality, though it has nothing to do with legislation or financial
oversight. This is the representative function. Parliamentarians represent
particular segments of the population, and they have a responsibility to look to
the welfare of those they represent. They must obviously do this if they wish to
continue to be elected, but such work is also necessary because otherwise the
interests of particular areas will not be highlighted.
Unfortunately Sri Lanka has, again uniquely, developed an electoral system that
confuses the issue. Because all elected Parliamentarians have to seek votes in a
whole District, and therefore have to work for all the people in the District, their
energies are diffused. They cannot concentrate on coherent development
programmes that will enhance amenities and create economic opportunities for a
targeted area, because they are always looking over their shoulders to see what
the competition is up to. And that competition is as much if not more from their
own party as from elsewhere.
It is true that in theory Parliamentarians are allocated to particular constituencies,

and they will do more for those areas. But it beggars belief that our electoral
system still binds them to the District as a whole, so that they are beset with
problems from all over the District and cannot ignore these nor indeed trying to
fit individuals from all over the District into government jobs.
One obvious remedy is to change the electoral system. I still find it shocking that
the most important structural change in the manifesto on which President Sirisena
won the 2015 Presidential election has been forgotten. He himself promised, in
seeking the support of his own party for the 19th amendment, that he would not
dissolve Parliament before it also passed the 20th amendment. But he broke that
promise under pressure. His chief coalition partner has indicated that he does not
want a change, but it is appalling that those who believe in good governance are
not agitating for this, and are instead pursuing matters the benefits of which are
debatable. Given that the President has made it clear that he knows the present
system contributes to corruption, it seems to me a duty that all those concerned
with purposeful reform should pursue, to ensure change in the electoral system.
I should add that there is a simple solution that could be implemented

immediately to at least improve the situation. When Jayewardene realized that his
original conception of Proportional Representation, a pure list, led to those at the
bottom abandoning the party, he introduced choice. But instead of one vote per
person, he gave three, to ensure that all candidates campaigned all over the
District, and fought with others in their party for preferences. This is absolutely
unnecessary. If voters had just one preference vote, candidates would be confined
to their constituencies, and would not squander massive amounts on propaganda
all over the District. And while it might be argued that those with smaller
constituencies would be at a disadvantage, this could be remedied by allocating
the seats each party won at the election on the basis of proportions of the votes
of their constituency they obtained.
Such a system would also help with the selectivity that parties should exercise in
choosing
candidates. Now, because candidates are nominated on the basis of the District as
a whole, there are no clear criteria to choose the best representative possible
and therefore a range of criteria is employed including say relationship to already
established politicians. What is preferable is a system whereby individuals apply to
be candidates for a particular constituency and have to establish their credentials
with regard to that particular constituency. Rival claims can then be assessed
consistently, with a clear focus on benefit to the people of the particular
constituency.
I have argued at length for constituency based candidates because that seems
essential. But connected with this is the idea of seeking excellence in candidates,
and that should contribute also to improving the quality of the judgment
Parliamentarians will exercise with regard to the first three functions of legislators
that I began by describing. At present, given the intensity of the competition for
nomination in each District, and the power as it were exercised by those with the
resources required to campaign throughout the District, general awareness and
analytical capability are ignored. When it is a question of picking just one
individual for one area, these qualities too can be assessed.
But while obviously it would be good to have more thoughtful people in

Parliament, we need also to accept that there will be differences not only with
regard to thinking capacity but also common sense. It is therefore vital that we
develop systems to help legislators do their duty.
One obvious remedy is better familiarization sessions for parliamentarians when

they are elected. I was horrified by what I received, which was only information on
the perks available to me. But when I first used to visit Parliament, and had the
benefit of seeing how a capable Secretary General worked, I saw that
familiarization included explaining the Committee system, what the Committee
stage of legislation involved, and how private members could contribute through
questions and motions.
All that has gone by the board. Private members motions are a joke, and the time
available is monopolized by a few individuals, whereas there should be a process
of selectivity that privileges national impact. The provisions we tried in the last
Parliament to introduce into Standing Orders, to ensure that questions were
answered promptly and in person, have been totally ignored in the pitiful changes
the government has now introduced into Standing Orders.
And worst of all, Parliamentary Commitees still continue a joke. They have turned
into places where individuals raise parochial questions pertaining to constituency,
or rather, District problems. There is obviously need of such a forum, but we tried
to suggest that such problems should be looked at in the Ministry, where relevant
officials could be summoned without them having to waste their time in
Parliament with many not wanted at all, but having just to sit there. And instead
of all members who bother to attend Committees having to listen to problems of
individual schools or bridges, the concerned MP could deal on an individual basis
with those in executive authority.
Committees in Parliament are meant to look at policies, assess legislation,

examine expenditure. For this purpose, Committees should be small, and
individuals should sit on just two or three committees, where they can
concentrate on issues of principle. The Committee itself should develop
collegiality, so that members of all parties would work together to develop
common objectives and monitor achievements. They would be assisted by experts
who would be available to provide the required background information and data.
One reason Parliamentarians do not attend committees is that they do not see
what purpose they achieve. If they are given teeth, a few individuals could make a
difference, in selected areas. That would at least restore to Parliamentarians the
title of legislators, whereas now they are simply treated as lobby fodder.
To sum up then
a) We need to change the electoral system
b) We need, pending that, to focus the attention of candidates, and of parties in

selecting them, on individual constituencies. Given voters just a single preference
vote will help to concentrate attention.
c) We need to encourage parties, in selecting candidates, to be aware of the

general analytical
capabilities required, with regard to law-making as well as financial oversight. It
may be a good idea for parties to post the general capabilities of each candidate
for Parliament, and then to draw up, after the election, a schedule of broad areas
in which candidates have expertise.
d) We need to make committees effective by setting them at a manageable size

that encourages collegiality, and selecting members in terms of their interest in
the subject. The schedule suggested above would be useful to parties, and would
indicate to the public the expertise being brought to bear on policy questions.
Where any area lacks expertise, Parliament should have consultants available to
advise and educate. A possible schedule is appended.
e) We need to ensure better training for new Members as they enter Parliament,
so that they have a clear understanding of their various responsibilities.
f) We need to ensure the effective functioning of parliamentary processes, with

due attention to the reports of committees, the opportunity for private members
to raise issues and promote legislation, and entrenching the accountability of the
executive to Parliament by making responses to committee recommendations as
well as questions mandatory, with sanctions applicable in case of shortcomings
Schedule of subject areas in which Parliament needs expertise
a. Legal provisions
b. Finance
c. Public Administration
d. Foreign Relations and Security
e. Education
f. Health and Social Services
g. Industry, Trade and Commerce
h. Agriculture, Fisheries, Water Resources and the Environment
i. Housing, Construction, Transport and Highways
j. Power and Energy
Posted by Thavam

How To Improve The Quality of Our Legislators

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

How To Improve The Quality of Our Legislators

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

How To Improve The Quality of Our Legislators

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

How to Improve the Quality of Our Legislators

by Prof Rajiva Wijesinha-Jul 30, 2017

The problem is exacerbated by the other function of Parliamentarians, which we

It is true that in theory Parliamentarians are allocated to particular constituencies,

I should add that there is a simple solution that could be implemented

But while obviously it would be good to have more thoughtful people in

One obvious remedy is better familiarization sessions for parliamentarians when

Committees in Parliament are meant to look at policies, assess legislation,

a) We need to change the electoral system

b) We need, pending that, to focus the attention of candidates, and of parties in

c) We need to encourage parties, in selecting candidates, to be aware of the

d) We need to make committees effective by setting them at a manageable size

f) We need to ensure the effective functioning of parliamentary processes, with

You might also like