The recent Presidential Election brought about both praise and controversy. While the Presidential Election was one of the most peaceful and well-organised Elections in history, certain issues emerged along the way. A few officials from Government agencies were removed for allegedly engaging in political activities, and there were concerns about an alleged premature counting of preferential votes. Despite these issues, election observers, both local and international, commended the Election Commission’s (EC) efforts, for several steps such as promoting accessibility for disabled voters and ensuring fairness.
In an interview with The Daily Morning, the EC Chairperson R.M.A.L. Rathnayake discussed the challenges faced during the Presidential Election and the ongoing preparations for the Parliamentary (General) Elections set for 14 November.
Following are excerpts from the interview:
At the beginning of the Presidential Election, some officials were removed from Election duties for allegedly supporting political parties. After the Election, there were allegations that some officials started counting the preferential votes before receiving instructions from the EC. What were these allegations about?
When the Presidential Election approached, it was reported that officials in some districts were involved in political activities. These officials were not part of the EC but were from other Government agencies involved in the Election process. We then removed them from Election duties. No accusations were made against EC officers. After the Election, it was alleged that some officials began counting preferential votes before receiving our instructions. We instructed the counting of preferential votes after we had received and tabulated the results from all the districts. We discussed this with the representatives of all political parties present at the EC. It was also claimed that the counting of preferential votes started before the results of some districts were out, but, that was not the case. There was a delay in the media reporting of the last few results. Since no candidate received 50% of the votes, we instructed the officials to count preferential votes. Some political party representatives had left certain counting centres by that time. However, representatives were present in others. We had also advised that everyone should stay until the counting was completed. Despite all of this, the counting of preferential votes was conducted correctly without any issues.
A significant number of people did not have enough knowledge about marking preferential votes. Do people have enough understanding about it this time?
A: In the Election, preference marking is done with the digits 1, 2, and 3. This has been the practice in every Presidential Election, and hence not a new feature. We made efforts to inform the public through the media and district-level initiatives. We also displayed large advertisements at each polling station explaining how to vote and mark the preferences. It is possible that the rural people may not have fully understood this, but, we informed the public of the matter through the media on many occasions. We have not received special reports about issues with preference marking. There won’t be a problem with marking preferences in the Parliamentary Election, which requires marking with crosses. Voters can mark ‘X’ in front of the party/group, and ‘Xs’ atop numbered boxes. This time too, we will inform the people about how to cast their vote when the Election is close.
Have there been any complaints with regard to any misconduct on the part of EC officials during the Presidential Election?
No complaints were received against any of our officers during the Election period. All officers performed their responsibilities impartially and correctly.
Is there statistical information on first-time voters in the Election?
We cannot obtain information specifically about first-time voters. We only get general voting data. Our system does not separate information by gender or age. However, 76,019 newly registered voters were there, and I believe that the majority of them voted. It isn’t possible to provide more detailed information.
The visually-impaired persons was given the opportunity to vote in the election. Was the programme successful? Were disabled persons provided with adequate opportunities to vote?
We created a system for the visually impaired to vote. It was not Braille. We tried using a Braille system, but, many visually impaired people didn’t understand it well. Instead, we used a tactile ballot method. This allowed them to vote without help from anyone for the first time in history. Many praised this system. We distributed tactile ballots at every polling station. Some visually impaired people were reportedly not informed about it, but, we hope to improve awareness for the Parliamentary Election. We also provided voting opportunities for other disabled communities. We also ensured wheelchair access to polling stations. There were complaints of people in wheelchairs not having been allowed into polling stations, and we addressed them immediately.
When the election results were released, the EC Commissioners/Members including you and the other officers seemed very tired. How does having to hold two national elections in close succession affect day-to-day life?
For almost two months before the Presidential Election, we had a lot of work to do. Everyone involved, including the EC Commissioners/Members and officers, Returning Officers, and Government officials, worked hard and were very tired. Due to the dissolution of the Parliament, we have now had to hold the General/Parliamentary Election as well. True, it’s exhausting to hold two national elections close together, but, we are all committed to this task. After the Parliamentary Election, we have another election because the Supreme Court has ordered that the Local Government (LG) Elections be held as soon as possible.
During the counting of election votes, a curfew was imposed suddenly, even when no violence was reported. What is the EC’s opinion on that? Were you consulted before this decision?
The security forces informed us that it was appropriate to impose a curfew when the vote counting was ongoing. They asked for permission to impose a curfew for a few hours due to concerns about possible disturbances. We said that we needed to discuss this with the political parties first. After those discussions, we granted permission for the curfew. Why we consented was to maintain law and order, even though the environment was peaceful at that time.
What is your opinion about the behaviour of the print, electronic, and social media during the Election?
I appreciate media organisations for supporting us by following the EC’s guidelines. Most media organisations reported responsibly, although we had to issue warnings to a few. We called some media representatives to remind them of the guidelines and standards that they should follow. Overall, the media fulfilled their responsibilities well. We worked hard on tackling irresponsible social media campaigns since their parent companies are based abroad. We contacted the relevant companies before the election, which helped control hateful and slanderous content on social media.
What support did/do you receive from candidates and other parties in the Presidential Election and the upcoming Parliamentary Elections?
We received a lot of support from candidates and parties during the Presidential Election. They followed the rules that we set. While there were some incidents of State property misuse, we intervened to stop these actions. We treated all political parties equally, and there was no difference in the way that we treated the ruling party and the others. Most parties acted responsibly, and if they were to do something questionable, they sought our approval. This cooperation helped us conduct a fair Election.
Election candidates have submitted their campaign expenditure reports? Were those reports submitted correctly?
Two types of expenditure reports should be submitted to the EC: one for candidates and another for the political parties and voters who nominated independent candidates. By the deadline, 35 candidates submitted their reports, while three submitted late. We will treat those as late and refer them for legal action. Ten political parties have not submitted their reports yet. We plan to display these reports at the EC and District Secretariats and they will also be published on the EC’s website.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake said that a system could be prepared for groups such as prisoners, migrant workers, and journalists to vote only after the Presidential Election. Is the EC hopeful of such a system at least by the LG Elections?
I requested the President to amend the relevant provisions quickly to ensure voting rights for all, including prisoners, when announcing the Presidential Election results. I don’t think that we can provide that opportunity in this Parliamentary Election due to the time constraints. We hope that necessary measures will be taken in the future. Some proposals we presented are with institutions like the Attorney General’s Department and the Legal Draftsman’s Department. I’m not fully confident that these legal provisions will be amended before the LG Elections, but, we will try to provide all voters with the chance to vote.
Election candidates and politicians often face harassment on social media platforms. Is the EC aware of this?
The EC is working hard to control hateful expressions on social media platforms. We lack enough technical support for this, but, we discussed this with knowledgeable organisations and launched a special programme with support from social media companies such as Facebook, YouTube and TikTok. We requested them to remove many harmful posts, some of which were taken down. Even when we request removals, companies act based on their rules. Those issues are there, but, we try our best.
Some political parties had promised nominations to individuals to contest the Parliamentary Election, but did not follow through at the last moment. Although this is not directly under the EC’s purview, do you have any observations about this?
If a party doesn’t give a nomination to someone, it is a matter of the party’s moral standing. The EC cannot legally intervene in such matters. We have received various complaints about this, but we cannot take action.
