When Parliament was dissolved at the height of a raging global pandemic on 2 March, the writing was on the wall that it would only be a matter of time before the pandemic hit home. And less than 10 days later, it did when the second Covid-19 patient and the first Sri Lankan to contract the virus was detected on 11 March. The first patient was a Chinese lady who was detected in January and subsequently cured with much fanfare.

With the country going into lockdown by mid-March, the prospect of an election being held on the announced date of 25 April seemed doomed from thereon. The curfew imposed in the Districts of Colombo and Gampaha at the time – the two most populated districts in the country – is still continuing to date, two months later. This resulted in the next date being announced, that of 20 June, which too seems doomed going by the submissions of the learned counsel representing the Election Commission (EC) before the Supreme Court (SC), which is currently hearing the fundamental rights (FR) petitions filed by seven individuals and parties challenging the proposed election date.

Consequent to the 2 March dissolution of Parliament, the EC has got caught up in a political storm by default, as according to the provisions of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, it is the exclusive responsibility of the EC to act on the presidential proclamation and conduct the election that has been called for. That it has not been able to do so even three months later is not due to any lapse or fault of theirs but the prevailing unconducive health situation in the country.

The Government, whenever it has been confronted with the timing of the poll, has shifted the blame onto the EC, stating it is they who are responsible for the delay, conveniently forgetting that the multiple dates need not have been declared if an election was not called for in the first place.

Given these circumstances, it is unfair to blame the EC for the current constitutional gridlock, as for all intents and purposes, the Commission has to operate within the parameters outlined by the Constitution as well as be guided by the health authorities and the ground realities.

The EC in its submissions before court last week had stated that it would take a further period of two months to conduct an election due to the added health and safety precautions that need to be taken in view of the ongoing pandemic. This declaration has further infuriated the impatient Government with one politician publicly declaring on national television that the Commission is politicised. However, according to the Commission, it is only acting in the people’s interest as additional time is required to put in place new sanitary measures at polling and counting centres.

Considering the fact that it is better to be safe than sorry, one can empathise with the task before the Commission which now will have to plan and adopt new procedures to mitigate the health risks posed by our colonial era voting system that includes the practice of marking the little finger with indelible ink, use of a single pencil to mark ballot papers, etc., which in turn could pose serious health risks, while also having to consider the safe transportation of ballots as well as the counting procedures thereafter.

One aspect that will certainly add to the time factor is the procurement of personal protection equipment (PPE) for thousands of officials who will be on election duty through the lengthy and cumbersome tender procedure in accordance with government financial regulations. It has been estimated that these additional measures will result in the doubling of the election cost from the estimated Rs. 7 billion to a hefty Rs. 14 billion – by far the most expensive election ever held in this country.

Coming at a time when the Government is scraping the barrel to pay salaries of 1.5 million government servants and the Rs. 5,000 grant to nearly five million without an income, the enhanced election cost will be a heavy burden to bear.

According to news reports, the payment of the Rs. 5,000 grant for May will be made by obtaining a Rs. 16 billion short-term loan from the local banking sector, for which Cabinet approval has already been granted. The Samurdhi Fund has been kept as collateral for this loan facility.

Meanwhile, Cabinet Spokesman Minister Bandula Gunawardana, who landed in hot water over his cricket ground project in his home base of Homagama, stated that there will be no further grants after May as the EC has ordered a stop to the disbursement.

However, the Commission has been quick to retort that it did not order the programme to be halted but only requested the distribution process should not be politicised through the involvement of government politicians at the local level, as it has been flooded with complaints in this regard.

With elections unlikely for another two months, the constitutional requirement of fulfilling the three-month window from dissolution to the first sitting of the new Parliament is now up for interpretation by the apex court as a result of litigation initiated by the United National Party (UNP) on this matter last week.

Interestingly, no country in the world has had a dissolved parliament right throughout the pandemic period with the only exception being Sri Lanka. Even though the authorities have been on top of their game in countering the virus, in the democratic world, perceptions matter and perpetuating the status quo of a dysfunctional democracy could result in unwarranted attention and nullification of the splendid job done so far by the President and his hand-picked team of state officials.

At the end of the day, the flow of investment from the West is dependent upon a set of critical indicators, of which political stability takes precedence. Therefore, the ramifications of delayed elections compounded by a non-functional Parliament for an extended period of time could be rife with risks that could deter long-term investment. The fact that foreign funds have been net sellers in the now bullish stock market could be a foreboder of things to come. Investors for the most part rely on ratings from international rating agencies to guide the flow of funds. Therefore, last week’s further downgrade of Sri Lanka’s national credit rating to B- by S&P will not help the cause.

In the traditional sense, in a pre-election scenario, most investors are likely to adopt a “wait-and-see” attitude. However, the post-Covid world will be anything but traditional and the clamour for limited financial resources on offer will undoubtedly be intense. This is why Sri Lanka needs to get its act together to ensure it is counted as a functioning, fully-fledged democracy so that it avoids having to deal with the long-term ramifications of missing out on the opportunities in the global post-pandemic revival.

For the next couple of days at least, the beleaguered EC can breathe easy until such time the apex court decides the way forward for Sri Lanka.