The Treasury on 26 September was instructed to provide an allowance of Rs. 25,000 per hectare to paddy farmers during the main (Maha) cultivation season of 2024/’25 by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, starting 1 October. The President also advised the Treasury to provide a fuel subsidy to fishermen from 1 October and for it to be credited to their bank accounts directly on a monthly basis.
However, the Election Commission (EC) had initially urged State authorities to refrain from implementing these instructions in the backdrop of Parliamentary Elections having been called for 14 November.
Subsequently, however, various programmes, including fertiliser subsidies for farmers, fuel subsidies for fishermen, salary increases for State employees, and other essential relief measures for the public that had been temporarily suspended due to the Presidential Election, have received approval to resume from the EC.
EC on permitting the projects
Speaking to The Sunday Morning, EC Chairperson R.M.A.L. Ratnayake said that the EC followed a specific directive in permitting Government welfare or development programmes: “We have a directive that we follow, which includes what can be done and what cannot be done.”
EC Additional Commissioner – Legal and Investigations Chinthaka Kularathne disclosed that while the commission had halted development projects that appeared to benefit certain political parties or candidates, it had not stopped the rest.
When questioned about all projects permitted so far, he responded: “We can’t disclose that. We have permitted several and stopped several. We have to conduct a general analysis to disclose that.”
Nevertheless, permission being granted by the commission to proceed with certain relief programmes of the new Government has been criticised by members of the previous Ranil Wickremesinghe Government, who have accused the EC of adopting double standards in permitting welfare programmes during election periods.
Several members of the former Government, especially former Minister Jeevan Thondaman, took to social media, posting official letters and documents claiming that the EC had suspended welfare programmes by the previous Government citing the election period at the time, yet had permitted welfare programmes under the new Government despite the ongoing election period.
Election monitors’ perspective
Institute for Democratic Reforms and Electoral Studies (IRES) Executive Director Manjula Gajanayake noted that during the last phase of the Presidential Election, the EC had attempted to halt most Government-funded programmes while granting permission for others to proceed.
Gajanayake pointed out that the commission was stating that decisions made by the previous Government could continue under the current Government.
He added: “There is more than one dimension to this particular question. If we stop every single development project, it could affect the future of the Sri Lankan economy. The fertiliser subsidy is an example; we know that the previous Government was trying to provide this remedy to farmers, but the EC halted the initiative.”
He further noted: “If they stop it again, as farmers have said, it could lead to a catastrophe in the future.”
People’s Action for Free and Fair Elections (PAFFREL) Executive Director Rohana Hettiarachchi also said: “During the recent Presidential Election, various Government welfare schemes, development programmes, transfers, promotions, and recruitments were halted. The EC only allows programmes that were stopped during the Presidential Election.”
He further highlighted the impracticality of stopping every development programme, given that Sri Lanka was in an election period that spanned from Presidential to Parliamentary to Local Government Elections.
“That poses a practical problem. Immediately after the Presidential Election, we are heading into the Parliamentary Elections and then the Local Government Elections will start. Therefore, we will have elections continuously for 4-6 months. If so, we will have to stop all development and welfare programmes during this entire period,” he said.
He emphasised that disallowing these programmes would adversely affect the country’s economy. “We are in a significant economic crisis. If we stop all these programmes in such a situation, it will negatively impact the country. For example, if we do not release fertiliser or resources in a timely manner, it would be pointless.”
He also stated: “Nobody should gain political advantage from this. This is not the money of politicians; this is public money being used for social welfare or development programmes.”
EC should appoint an expert committee
Gajanayake noted that the issue lay in the EC’s failure to appoint an expert panel to gain recommendations.
“My understanding is that the EC had the opportunity to appoint a committee to verify whether farmers were being truthful. If they are given permission to use Rs. 20,000-25,000 to buy fertiliser, other questions will follow: are they fully utilising that money or spending it for another purpose?” he pointed out.
He further emphasised that when the commission lacked expertise in a certain subject matter, it was crucial to appoint an expert committee.
“If it’s difficult for the EC to understand the gravity of the problem, it should engage external partners in a review process. After obtaining their insights, the commission can make informed decisions and recommendations.
“Before granting permission to distribute fertiliser, the EC had a good opportunity to appoint an expert panel. The commission members are not experts in this regard (in the agricultural sector). The EC could have appointed an expert panel to gather their opinions on whether the farmers’ claims were valid,” he said, adding: “But it didn’t do that. That’s why people are criticising its decisions.”
TISL expresses concerns
Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) Programme for Protecting Public Resources National Coordinator and Attorney-at-Law Thushanie Kandilpana noted: “According to the EC’s press statement, it has granted permission for activities relating to the administration and efficiency of Government services that were put on hold temporarily during the Presidential Election period.
“However, the justification for halting the execution of some Cabinet decisions was that those implementations might directly impact voters’ free will since the decisions would directly benefit a specific group.”
She added: “As a civil society organisation, TISL indeed intends to see the public benefiting from efficient Government services and other subsidies being divided among the public evenly.
“However, besides some urgent subsidies like the fertiliser subsidy, which needs to be distributed to farmers within the relevant season, there is no logic to justify that a party or a group of candidates will not be promoted should the EC allow the ruling party to provide various subsidies and conduct welfare activities.”
Impact on voter behaviour
Kandilpana further stated: “TISL believes that allowing any government to provide special subsidies or conduct special welfare activities that were not carried out prior to any election period amounts to promoting the parties or candidates who have the power to make such decisions during an election period, disturbing the free will of the public.
“Therefore, the EC should not provide approval for any beneficiary action that has not previously been undertaken, unless the activity is connected to an essential situation.”
However, Gajanayake pointed out that the continuation of development programmes was unlikely to influence voter behaviour.
“I don’t think it affects voter behaviour. The most important part is not the promises etc., but the positions of political party leaders,” he said.