The JVP is not making unfair demands:Vijitha Herath

Q:The JVP is insisting that the abolishment of the executive presidency must be part of the reforms package and is opposing the reforms primarily on those grounds. However, the PSC has made it clear that it has no mandate to make such recommendations. Why then does the JVP continue to make such demands?

Yes, we have been insisting that any change to the system must include the abolishment of the executive presidency but the Select Committee is refusing to recognise this very critical factor. They are not even considering it as an issue! We made numerous representations to the Chairman but he has refused to accommodate our demand. It may be his point of view that there is no such mandate, but our view is entirely different. We’re only insisting that there should be a comprehensive change to the system and that is not an unfair demand.

Moreover, the proposed reforms are not favourable to individual political parties. For example, if one party gets around 8% of the total votes, the party can only secure around 5% representation in parliament. That, in our view, is not justifiable. Those are the two main reasons behind our decision to oppose the recommendations made in the interim report.

Q:But would you agree that reforms need to be ultimately favourable to the people of this country, and not necessarily to political parties per se? In other words, shouldn’t political parties be willing to compromise if democracy stands to gain?

We too want better democratic representation for the people of this country. In fact, the present system is favourable to our party but in considering the difficulties it entails and the need for greater democracy, we have stressed on the need for reform. We could have opposed reforms altogether, but we didn’t stand in the way taking into account the larger interest of democracy in this country.

Q:Do you disagree with Minister Dinesh Gunawardena’s assertion that the choice of the voter will be better reflected in parliament?

Yes, we disagree with that completely. One of our main concerns is that the party which has the most number of seats in parliament can obtain executive powers as well. That is not healthy for a democratic set-up. In fact, it seems that the government’s aim is to create a system whereby they will get a very strong majority whilst retaining executive powers.

Q:Are you alleging that the whole exercise is politically motivated?

We think there is a hidden political agenda behind the move to introduce reforms so hurriedly. The SLFP wants to get majority representation in parliament while making full use of the executive presidential powers. Their actual aim seems to be to revert to the kind of administration that we saw under President J. R. Jayewardene.

Q:Even if that’s the case, given that there is a dire need for reform is there no possibility of further engaging the various parties to reach a some sort of a compromise?

We think this issue should be further discussed. These are not the kind of reforms that can be pushed through over night; it requires serious deliberation. The fact that all the opposition parties as well as those who are part of the present administration, are against the proposals show that the majority of people in this country are against the system. Of course there is a need for reform but we can’t give a wrong remedy for that. Without obtaining the consent of all political parties, the government should not table the report in parliament because they will not be able to make any constitutional changes without the required majority.

Q:Even though you say that reforms are being rushed, the PSC has already spent over 1 ½ years of public time discussing this issue to little avail. Don’t you think it’s high time for the Committee to put forward its final report?

No, it is not a waste of time because this is a very important subject which has to be studied in great detail. Those of us in this country waste so much of time on useless pursuits, and such wastage goes unquestioned. But given the importance of this matter, one cannot consider it a waste of time. We should have more meetings in the future, get ideas from experts in the country and formulate a fresh set of proposals. If we submit a new system for the country, it must be better than the past one.

Q:What kind of system does the JVP consider to be the most suitable arrangement for this country?

The JVP has not put forward any system as the ideal one. We feel that all parties in the country have to discuss this issue and arrive at a decision together. As a party, we haven’t recommended any system as the ‘ideal’ one.

In terms of promoting gender equity in elected bodies, does the JVP view the recommendations made in relation to female representation as adequate? For instance, there has been no push to introduce a quota system for females even though many of our Asian neighbours boast of this feature.

We cannot limit the participation of women through the introduction of percentages. That should be left in the hands of the party’s executive committee for decision-making. While I agree that female representation is insufficient, a quota system is not the answer to that. In this context, it must be recognised that women in Sri Lanka are subject to certain social pressures which prevent them from participating in politics and those pressures need to be addressed first. That being said, I must add that recommendations have been made by the Select Committee to include a certain percentage of female nominees, even though there is no specified figure.

In addition, we have seen a trend where most of the women who come forward are the widows or daughters of famous political figures in the country. In my view, that trend should be changed as it is not good for the country. If there is a female who is intelligent and capable, she must be given the necessary backing to contest. It must be noted that our founder leader Rohana Wijeweera’s wife did take to politics. Our emphasis should therefore shift from dynasty to individuality.

Q:The TNA has taken up the principle position that ‘piecemeal approaches’ should not be the way out. Do you agree with their position that electoral reforms have to come as part of a package aimed at resolving the ethnic conflict or do you see it as an urgent necessity?

There is no linkage between the ethnic problem and electoral reforms. I think there must be a hidden agenda behind this. No doubt we have to take into consideration the ethnic distribution of our people, but I don’t think it’s fair to tie it down to a political solution to the ethnic conflict at all. I suppose their plan is to have their own system of elections in the so-called state of Eelam, which is their actual goal.

Q:If there is a reversion to FPP do you think that you would lose your strength in Parliament?

Our party will be strong under any system, so long as elections are held in a free and fair manner. There is nothing for us to be fearful of. In 2004, we joined with the Sri Lanka Freedom Party to form the United People’s Freedom Alliance and canvassed for preferential votes from the people for the first time. It was the JVP which obtained the highest number of preferential votes from all districts.

Q:Leaving aside the JVP, do you think that the present proposals help smaller serving minority interests?

I think minority parties will lose out and that can lead to unwarranted tensions. Minority parties should have the right to express themselves. There are also other some ideologically-oriented parties who don’t have mass appeal but they propound new, very important ideas. If this country is to develop, there must be a chance for new ideas to come in. What we would recommend is the abolishment of the executive presidency and the introduction of reforms that will reflect the actual strength of minority parties and ideologically-driven groups. That is what true democracy is all about.

This is the third in a series of interviews giving voice to diverse viewpoints on the proposed electoral reforms.