• This was the first election held under the new electoral system which was introduced to give the opportunity for the community to be represented by community-based leaders on a ward basis – instead of the proportional representation system which benefited local elites and those with close connections to political parties – and thereby strengthen representative democracy in local government bodies.
• The Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP)/ Joint Opposition (JO), whose election campaign was fronted by former president Mahinda Rajapaksa, won a great majority of the local government bodies by defeating the partners of the present coalition government, i.e. the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP)/ United Peoples’ Freedom Alliance (UPFA) and the United National Party (UNP)/United National Front (UNF).
The prime objective of this article is to examine the said local government election process and its result, to find out whether the main purpose of introducing a new electoral system has been achieved, i.e. strengthening representative democracy in local government bodies. As a secondary objective, the multiple implications manifested during the election campaign and in its result are identified. I focus on four research sites where controversial events took place during Mahinda Rajapaksa’s presidency. These field study locations are:
• Uma Oya project affected areas: electoral wards of Makulella, Egodagama, Kirioruwa, Diganatenna, Liyangahawela and Dulgolla of the Bandarawela Pradeshiya Sabha; Bindunuwewa and Kinigama of Bandarawela Municipal Council; and Heeloya, Dowa, Ella, Balalkatuwa and Demodara of Ella Pradeshiya Sabha.
• Aluthgama anti-Muslim violence affected area: electoral ward of Dharga Town in Beruwala Pradeshiya Sabha.
• Paanama land-grabbing affected areas: electoral wards of Paanama West, Paanama Central, Paanama North, Paanama South and Shastrawela of Lahugala Pradeshiya Sabha.
• Weliweriya-Rathupaswala contaminated drinking water affected area: electoral wards of Rathupaswala, Nedunagamuwa and Weliweriya in Gampaha Pradeshiya Sabha and Sivuralutenna of Mahara Pradeshiya Sabha.
2. Observations on the Campaigns The Election
Commission announced the date of the Local Government elections on 01 November 2017, and the SLPP/JO, launching its election campaign led by Mahinda Rajapaksa, held its first mass scale election rally in Anuradhapura on the 17th of the same month. Thereafter, the SLPP frequently organised such massive rallies in different places. In comparison to this, smaller election rallies of the UPFA/SLFP, which were attended by President Maithripala Sirisena,commenced on 10 January 2018 while the election rallies of the UNP/UNF, which were attended by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, commenced on 18 January 2018.
What was reiterated at SLPP/JO events was that this election should be turned into a referendum on the present coalition government; and thereby used as the first step towards toppling it. The main slogan which could be heard over and over again throughout their campaign was Mahinda agamethi karamu (“Let’s make Mahinda the Prime Minister”). The election propaganda of the SLPP/JO entirely took the nature of a national election. Locally important needs of the relevant local government areas were hardly ever expressed during this campaign. The UPFA/SLFP too made national level issues as the main topic of their campaign. The President’s levelling of accusations continuously against the UNP, regarding the bond scam in particular, was one of the key features of its campaign. The UNP/UNF in its election rallies, accused the Ministers who have joined the coalition government representing the SLFP, of having obstructed legal actions against the crimes and corruption that had been committed during Rajapaksa’s regime. The electronic and the print media allocated a greater proportion of their daily news bulletin to express views on these national level issues of the main political parties. Thus the atmosphere reminded people of a national and not a local government election.
3. Observations from the Field
The SLPP/JO held large-scale election rallies, with the participation of Mahinda Rajapaksa, in the main cities related to all the above mentioned sites (Uma Oya; Dharga Town; Paanama; and Weliweriya. The SLPP/JO was the only party to have a mass rally in the main town related to the Uma Oya site (Bandarawela). In these rallies, Mahinda Rajapaksa and the national-level leaders of that party acted as the key speakers; and the candidates who contested in the relevant local government bodies hardly had the opportunity to speak. This situation was worse particularly in the ward of Dharga Town where the two candidates of the ward did not get any opportunity during the entire election campaign period to speak at any of the pocket meetings in the area. All those opportunities were made use of by Rohitha Abeygunawardena and Piyal Nishantha De Silva, SLPP/JO supporting Members of Parliament of the same district (Kalutara).
Compared to the other parties during their election campaign, the SLPP/JO gave minimum effort to speak to community members through house-to-house visits and pocket meetings, and to introduce their candidate in the relevant ward to the community. Their main election propaganda strategy was to promote the image of Mahinda Rajapaksa through massive rallies and poster campaigns. Even the local candidates of that party always requested people to vote for their party considering it to be a vote cast for the former President.
There are many incidents which clearly show that voters accepted this request and voted accordingly in the election. For example, people elected the candidate from SLPP for Dowa electoral ward of Ella Pradeshiya Sabha, despite his having died of a heart attack during the campaign and prior to election day. In certain other areas, there was competition between candidates to display who is closest to Mahinda Rajapaksa. The candidate who contested for Dulgolla ward of Bandarawela Pradeshiya Sabha under Independent Group 2 had a poster campaign using the photograph of the former president under the title Mahinda Samaga (“Together with Mahinda”). He was even able to out-poll the official candidate from the SLPP. Eventually, he won that ward defeating candidates from all the other parties including the SLPP. Meanwhile an SLPP candidate in Paanama continuously highlighted during his propaganda campaign that he is a relation of Mahinda Rajapaksa on his mother’s side. The SLPP candidate for Walatara ward in Beruwala Pradeshiya Sabha celebrated his sister’s wedding during the election campaign with the participation of Mahinda Rajapaksa and a large number of invitees from the area spending a huge amount of money.
Six out of seven local government bodies in the field sites were won by the SLPP. One female candidate from the UNP explained this situation:
“The contestants of the other parties were village-level community leaders. The Pohottuwa [Bud symbol of the SLPP] presented a former president. The result is clear. How can a village leader contest against a [former] president?”.
Although the UNP made considerable effort to include persons who are locally active and have a local voter base onto their candidate list, sometimes there were doubts on its genuineness. Several leaders of the ‘Movement to Protect Panampattuwa’ – who worked with great commitment in the Paanama land struggle – had been given nomination by the UNP.
But most of them had been included on the proportional representation list, rather than given the opportunity to contest in the wards. This can be seen as a strategy to obtain the support of the village leaders with a community base in the area, but to get the traditional party candidate elected from the ward.
This was made clear when the UNP awarded bonus seats (allocated on the basis of total number of votes received) to the defeated candidates on the proportional list from Hulannuge and Lahugala wards; instead of village leaders from the Paanama wards (which the UNP won). The chief organiser of that area took this decision with the ulterior motive of using candidates on the proportional list of Hulannuge and Lahugala wards to organise his propaganda campaign in the forthcoming Eastern Provincial Council election campaign, later this year.
In the field research locations there were two occasions where the agreements that had been reached between parties at national level had a negative impact on providing opportunities to local leaders.
In this election, as in the August 2015 parliamentary election, the Jathika Hela Urumaya ( JHU) contested jointly with the UNP/UNF. Due to this national level agreement, a member of the JHU in Paanama without a base in the community had to be given candidature on the UNP list without giving such opportunity to an active youth who is very popular in the community. For this very reason, Paanama North electoral ward, which the UNP could have easily won, was secured by only 10 votes, according to one local informant.
Meanwhile Patali Champika Ranawaka, the Leader of the JHU, was a speaker at the UNP/ UNF rally held in Beruwala. The Muslim community in Dharga town feel that he justified the involvement of the Bodu Bala Sena in the attacks targeting Muslims in 2014 (during the Rajapaksa government of which he was a prominent member). Many UNP supporters of that area were of the view that due to Ranawaka’s presence on the UNP stage, a number of (Muslim) UNP supporters abstained from voting.
4. SLPP Setbacks
In Bandarawela Pradeshiya Sabha (Badulla district), of the electoral wards affected by the Uma Oya project (commenced by the Mahinda Rajapaksa government), all except for Dulgolla (see above – which was anyway secured by a Rajapaksa loyalist) were won by the SLPP. Of the remainder of the wards in that Pradeshiya Sabha (that is, those not affected by the project), all except for Nayabeddawattha were also won by the SLPP.
In the Bandarawela Municipal Council, the SLPP did not contest under its own party symbol. Instead, it fielded an independent group jointly with the SLFP and the Ceylon Workers Congress (CWC). This independent group secured all the wards in the Municipal Council. However, the SLPP was defeated in three out of five wards in the Ella Pradeshiya Sabha that are affected by the Uma Oya hydro and irrigation project i.e. Ella, Ballakatuwa and Demodara.
In Beruwela Pradeshiya Sabha (Kalutara district), the SLPP was defeated in the ward of Dharga Town that came under attack of Sinhala Buddhist extremists in 2014 (during the previous government). However, except for the wards of Welipitiya, Maggona and Malewana, the rest of the wards in Beruwala Pradeshiya Sabha were won by the SLPP.
In Lahugala Pradeshiya Sabha (Ampara district), out of the five wards in which there are people affected by the Paanama land-grab (which began during the Rajapaksa government), the SLPP was only able to secure Paanama Central ward (the UNP won three and the SLFP one). Apart from the wards in the Paanama area; the remaining six wards in Lahugala Pradeshiya Sabha (that is those not affected by the land grab) were won by the SLPP.
In Gampaha Pradeshiya Sabha (Gampaha district), the SLPP was able to secure an overwhelming victory in the wards which experienced the contaminated drinking water issue in Weliweriya (during the Rajapaksa government), as well as those in Mahara Pradeshiya Sabha, with the exception of just one ward (Enderamulla-1) in both Pradeshiya Sabhas.
5. Reading the Result
According to the election results described above, it is clear that – except in the area subject to the Weliweriya – Rathupaswala drinking water controversy and brutal attack on protestors – in Bandarawela, Beruwela and Lahugala, the SLPP has failed to secure the landslide victory depicted by their overall island-wide result. Therefore, it could be assumed that people in these field survey sites still bear a grudge against Mahinda Rajapaksa for the harms suffered by them which took place during his presidency.
However, in order to understand the underlying reality, the ethnic composition of the wards that the SLPP has lost should be studied. The majority of the population in Nayabeddawatta ward that the SLPP lost in Bandarawela Pradeshiya Sabha; as well as those of the wards of Ella, Ballakatuwa and Demodara in Ella Pradeshiya Sabha, are Hill-Country Tamils (who overwhelmingly supported the Sirisena candidacy in the January 2015 presidential election and voted for the UNP/UNF in the August 2015 parliamentary election). Similarly, the Muslim community forms the majority of the population in the wards of Dharga Town, Weliwitiya, Maggona and Malewana that the SLPP lost in Beruwala Pradeshiya Sabha. This minority community also opposed the previous government in 2015. Likewise, Enderamulla-1 which is the only ward the SLPP lost in Mahara Pradeshiya Sabha, is the only area where Sinhalese are a numerical minority (it is a Muslim majority electorate).
It is true that in Lahugala Pradeshiya Sabha, where the majority of the population in the five wards that faced the land-grab issue in Paanama are Sinhalese, the SLPP lost in four out of five wards. However, this result should be interpreted in the context of the result of previous elections in that division. Traditionally, this area is a UNP stronghold and it won all the five wards in the 2011 Local Government election. This time they won only three wards; while one ward was won by the UPFA and the other by the SLPP. According to the views expressed by residents of Paanama, the SLPP result is not a setback but an advance in a former UNP stronghold.
“We thought the UNP would win this ward by a great majority. However, they won only by 10 votes. More people voted for Mahinda than expected.”
By the manner the SLPP executed its election campaign in areas of multi-ethnic composition it is clear that it has realised it is difficult to win the support of non-Sinhala communities. For instance, the strategy adopted by the SLPP to win the Beruwala Pradeshiya Sabha was to focus on winning the Sinhala-majority wards by a great majority; rather than making efforts at getting more votes in wards such as Dharga Town where the numerical majority are Muslims.
In their election propaganda in Sinhala majority wards, the SLPP charged the present government with being one formed with the support of minority communities and thereby dancing to their tune rather than the wishes of the majority community. The SLPP appeal to the Sinhala majority was to strengthen Mahinda Rajapaksa in order to recover that community’s lost superiority.
Bandarawela Municipal Council, where Muslim and Tamil communities are usually decisive in deciding elections, was won by an independent group backed by the SLPP, SLFP and the CWC (thus gathering votes of non-Sinhala communities supportive of the SLFP and CWC candidates). The leader of that independent group is currently a strong supporter of Mahinda Rajapaksa; and previously held the office of Mayor for over 20 years representing the UNP.To explain this confusing scenario, this independent group were not official candidates of the SLPP. Thus, none of their candidates participated in the SLPP election rally in Bandarawela town which was addressed by Rajapaksa. Neither did the former president call upon people to vote for that independent group, despite some of his supporters contesting on that independent list.
6. Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and Bandarawela campaign
The JVP had formed an organisation named ‘Peoples’ Front Against Uma Oya MultiDestructive Project’ with the support of community activists from affected areas. It also organised many protests including a highly successful Hartal which brought Bandarawela town to a standstill and led to the direct intervention of the President in mediating this issue.
At the 2018 local government election, this movement contested as an Independent Group in the Bandarawela Pradeshiya Sabha and Bandarawela Municipal Council. Instead of an election campaign similar to that of the mainstream political parties, based on nationallevel power politics and needs, the approach the JVP took was to highlight the crucial issue of people in the area – which is the destructive consequences of the Uma Oya project on their homes, land, livelihood and water supply.
Also the Peoples’ Front presented a local development plan for the two local bodies. Although this movement was clearly backed by the JVP, in the submission of nominations, the opportunities to contest were equally divided between the JVP’s own supporters and nonJVP leaders of the movement. There were no large-scale rallies in its election campaign. Their approach was to raise awareness among people by explaining their future plans through houseto-house canvassing and by holding pocket meetings in different places. Although the JVP organised rallies throughout the island, none were organised in Bandarawela. Instead the Independent Group decided its own strategy which was to campaign using community networks.
However, there were occasions where some persons (particularly a Buddhist monk) who participated as speakers in the pocket meetings of the Independent Group made contradictory statements. The monk emphasised that every vote cast for the Independent Group was a vote for the JVP. Such statements undermined the positive approach of the JVP towards the Independent Group. In fact, the JVP’s approach in Bandarawela should be appreciated in terms of the promotion of representative democracy at the local government level. This unique step taken by the JVP enthused people elsewhere and raised expectations of a victory against the mainstream parties in the Bandarawela Pradeshiya Sabha. Unfortunately this hope was not reflected in the election result. It was the SLPP that gained an overwhelming victory in Bandarawela Pradeshiya Sabha. This result is a blow to those who believed that the new electoral system allows for local aspirations and local people to come to the fore in local government.
7. Waiting for Mahinda mahaththaya
In its election campaign the SLPP repeatedly asked people to make use of this election as an opportunity to protest against the coalition government. It further requested people to make this the first move to bring Mahinda Rajapaksa back into power.
From the election results in the four field research locations, it is clear that many people have indeed taken the chance to express their displeasure in the present government. There are multiple reasons for such disappointment.
People in Paanama are disappointed in the present government’s failure to give any solution to their demand for return of their land. After the change of government, they accused a powerful UNP minister of planning to continue the proposed hotel project on their lands.
People in Dharga town are frustrated that the present government has failed to bring any of the Sinhala Buddhist perpetrators of the 2014 attacks before the law.
People of Weliweriya are angry with the broken promise of the present President, who visited them during the 2015 presidential election campaign and promised to solve all their problems. But up to date he has failed to make any positive intervention; even regarding the cases that were filed against the villagers by the company allegedly responsible for the contamination of water.
People affected by the Uma Oya project in Bandarawela are furious with the present government for proceeding with the destructive project. Although it was initiated by the Rajapaksa government, only 20% of the project had been completed by the end of 2014; whereas the remainder has been implemented by the current government.
Further, the residents complain that most of the damage was caused by the sudden halting of the excavation of the tunnel for a few months after the change of government in 2015 (when all development projects associated with the previous regime were suspended). They also believe that the present government failed to take immediate steps to stop the water leakage inside the tunnel. Moreover, dissatisfaction about payment of compensation for cracked and damaged houses; problems related to payment of compensation for destruction of cultivation; and the reduction in fertiliser subsidy by the government, too have become major factors to the political disadvantage of the present government. In summary, the people have expressed their displeasure over the failure of the coalition government to work out practical solutions to their problems.
Nevertheless, the paradox is that people in these four sites, who are unhappy with the actions and inactions of the government, have expressed their sentiment by resorting to vote in favour of the very person who is responsible for beginning or adding to their troubles.
Significantly, what was revealed through our interviews is that the majority of the people have no faith or confidence in Mahinda Rajapaksa’s ability or interest in bringing them better solutions. Instead, what people expect from him is simply a change – even if it is negative in nature – in place of a government that has failed to make any meaningful change to their lives. It seems that the reason for people to reach this conclusion is that they believe Mahinda Rajapaksa to be a strong leader who is authoritative and action-oriented. This is connected with the image his supporters always attribute to him, i.e. as “the hero who won the war.”
The quotes below illustrate the perceptions and thinking of persons in the field research locations towards the Rajapaksa comeback campaign in the 2018 local government elections:
“This government did nothing. The only person who can solve this issue is Mahinda mahaththaya. He is the one who created the problem [of land-grabbing by the military]; and he is the only one who can solve it. If he doesn’t solve this, we will have to give up our struggle and forget about all this. At least it is an end to our suffering” – one who lost lands in Paanama
“The [glove manufacturing] factory had to be removed from the area because Mahinda mahaththaya instructed to do so. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have been removed. We were attacked but Basil [Rajapaksa] is responsible for that” – villager in Weliweriya
“Even this time, I voted for Maithri[pala Sirisena]. That is because we were attacked [for protesting against water contamination]. However, I respect Mahinda for ending the war” – leader of Siyane Environment Protection Movement
“Our fight against the factory was not a political one. The factory was constructed in 1994. We voiced our grievances from time to time. It was [Gampaha district SLFP leader] Reggie Ranatunga mahaththaya who supported us those days. Then it was Prasanna Ranatunga mahaththaya. It is true that we were assaulted, but compensation was paid. Mahinda mahaththaya himself solved the problem” – person active in the Siyane Environment Protection Movement
“We received some compensation [for property damage from the Uma Oya project] because Mahinda mahaththaya drilled the tunnel” – villager in Kolathanna, Bandarawela
8. Conclusion
Karu Jayasuriya, Speaker of the Parliament, when placing his signature on the Local Authorities Elections (Amendment) Bill to assent to its enactment, said in the presence of the media in October 2017, that the most significant feature of this new electoral system is that it provides voters a direct opportunity of electing a representative for their area; and is therefore a vital step in taking representative democracy to the local level.
After the local government election that was held under the said new electoral system, Member of Parliament Bandula Gunawardana (who supports the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna/Joint Opposition), stated at a press conference that this result is a victory for former President Mahinda Rajapaksa. He further said that even if a coconut husk had been presented as a local candidate by the SLPP, it would have won through the charisma of Mahinda Rajapaksa.
This statement obviously implies that the new electoral system, which was created exerting a lot of effort over a long period of time, has failed to strengthen representative democracy. The way the political parties of this country acted in the election process shows that they have taken action to subvert those expectations. The mass media too has made a considerable contribution in that regard.
Further, this election result reveals that the SLPP, which intends to gain the governing power in future (most probably in 2019/20), places confidence in its Sinhala voter base. This election result too, has proved that Mahinda Rajapaksa is not attractive to non-Sinhala ethnic communities. Further, (Sinhala) people choose Mahinda Rajapaksa not because they always expect goodness and justice from him, but because he is considered to be strong and decisive as against the weakness and wavering of the coalition government.
Thus, it is not wrong to analyse the political change that people expect to achieve in 2019/2020 as a complex expression of utter disappointment in the present scenario.
Vidura Prabath Munasinghe
Click here to subscribe to our weekly newsletters in English and or French. You will receive one email every Monday containing links to all articles published in the last 7 days.