• Former EC Chair Mahinda Deshapriya notes the several changes required to ensure a better political culture

  BY Sumudu Chamara Increasing youth representation in Sri Lanka’s politics is an endeavour that depends on several factors such as internal democracy within parties, open discourses at the grassroots level, raising awareness on what the youth can and should bring to the table, laws and regulations pertaining to campaign financing and the youth political quota, among other matters.  However, when it comes to these matters, of which the status quo should change, Sri Lanka has not been able to make much of a difference despite having progressive proposals and initiatives, some of which did not see the light of day and some of which were not completed. These concerns with regard to youth representation in Sri Lanka’s politics were expressed by former Election Commission (EC) Chairman Mahinda Deshapriya, while speaking at a discussion organised by the Youth To Lead organisation on youth representation in politics.   Youth representation in politics   Even though a young candidate, or youth, is often identified on the basis of their age, according to Deshapriya, when it comes to politics, age should not be the only criteria that should be taken into account. He noted that maturity too is important. He noted that in order to be politically active and useful, young people should have both strength and maturity. In addition, he said that young people aspiring to enter politics should have a thirst for knowledge, and should be able to absorb the qualities of a civilised society. Speaking further, he opined that the islandwide violent attacks that followed the 9 May attacks on the “GotaGoGama” protest site were largely led by young persons who had left school early, and that they showed a great deal of aggression. It was noted during the discussion that a number of prominent politicians such as former Prime Minister S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, former Ministers Dr. Colvin R. De Silva, and Dr. N.M. Perera, incumbent Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe, former President, and incumbent MP Mahinda Rajapaksa, former President J.R. Jayewardene, and former Premier Dudley Senanayake entered Parliament as young politicians. Senior politicians not showing a considerable enthusiasm in supporting young politicians to enter and excel in politics today, was also discussed during the discussion. In this regard, adding that more youth from elite families and Leftist political movements entered politics in the past, Deshapriya explained some of the obstacles and injustices youth groups faced when entering politics or a democratic framework. “Even though those from elite families and Leftist groups entered Parliament, for various Local Government (LG) institutions such as Pradeshiya Sabhas and Urban Councils, youth and rural social workers were elected. Those who won the elections kept working for the same ward, and eventually, elderly people were left in the said institutions. Even though the 1971 riots can be called one of the first political struggles by the youth, the outcomes of the 1971 riots were land rights and job opportunities for young persons, especially graduates. However, youth representation in politics did not receive much attention as part of those struggles.” Describing how neglecting youth movements, including armed groups, led to the 1981-1983 riots, he said that that is because the country did not give youth an opportunity or listened to their concerns. He added that had the 1982 referendum not been postponed, the youth parties that existed at that time would have won at least one seat in Parliament, noting that the events surrounding this incident led to youth going into hiding. Furthermore, he added that following the 1988-1989 riots, a committee decided to give a quota of 40% of LG institutions nominations to youth between the ages of 18 and 25 years. “That is when the mandatory quota for youth came into existence,” Deshapriya said, adding that however, whether or not youth representation in Parliament or any other governing institutions resulted in anything progressive is debatable. Despite the popular belief that the quota for the youth came to an end in 2017, he said, it actually happened in 2012. He explained: “The quota for the youth, which was introduced in 1990, continued throughout 1991, 1997, 2002, 2006 and in 2011 (elections). However, in the Local Authorities Elections (Amendment) Act, No. 22 of 2012, the provision which read that youth representation ‘shall’ be ensured was changed to youth representation ‘may’ be ensured. At that point, I was a Commissioner at the Elections Commission. Even though we fought against it, these attempts were futile.” Even though nominations being rejected was cited as a reason, he added that certain politicians, fearing that they would have to lose in the election if more nominations were given to young candidates, was another reason for the decision against the quota for youth. In addition, he noted that even though another chance to regain this quota for youth emerged in 2017, it was not successful, especially due to decisions taken by politicians, most probably politically driven reasons. “Ensuring youth representation in politics has become a struggle because being a public representative has become a career,” Deshapriya noted. Recently, a Gazette Notification was issued on a private member Bill presented by Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) Opposition MP Imthiaz Bakeer Markar proposing to make it mandatory to allocate 25% of a party’s nomination list for young candidates. The Gazette specified those below the age of 35 years as youth, and proposed to amend the Provincial Councils, LG, and Parliamentary Elections Acts. Noting this, Deshapriya said that earlier, another private member Bill was presented regarding the same matter by Government MP Premnath C. Dolawatte, and that the Elections Commission has also taken some measures to look into the laws regarding the same. He also raised concerns about the fact that currently, there are only around six or seven MPs below the age of 35 years, and questioned as to how many of them have gained a name as national-level politicians.   Challenges in youth entering politics   Deshapriya spoke extensively of the challenges faced by young politicians trying to enter politics, and added that there needs to be social, legal, and attitudinal changes to include more youth who are capable of fulfilling their responsibilities in politics. He noted that unwarranted influences and intimidations in elections existed for a long time, and that their medium has however changed. He further said that mainstream and social media also plays a role in altering the people’s mindsets during elections, which may be disadvantageous to certain politicians and even youth candidates. He stressed that discourses in everyday life and creating knowledgeable youth is necessary to change this situation. In regard to unequal opportunities for youth in politics, Deshapriya said that it is a common sight that certain politicians field their family members and relatives (youth) in elections, and that there seems to be a notion that politicians’ sons should also enter politics. He also noted that membership in some governing institutions is even considered somewhat of a family birthright by certain politicians. He added that in order to prevent this, the country should seek internal democracy within political parties, and that none of the political parties have internal democracy, as nomination boards are led by party leaders. He explained: “When I discussed the composition of nomination boards with the leader of a particular political party, where I suggested to include at least two females in a nomination board of five, the response I received was that there is no problem, and that even all five members can be female members – because that politician is always going to make the final decision. There are leaders who can even admit to that without fear. Although we fight demanding more youth in politics, these opportunities are usually given to relatives and family members of politicians.” What is more, he said that even though Sectoral Oversight Committees came into existence with the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which welcomed people’s involvement in governance, the country should go beyond such concepts, and opt for participatory democracy, not representative democracy. One of the matters he expressed concerns about was public representatives acting on their own accord after being elected. “There is a need for the right to recall. If we had the right to recall in our law, we can file a case against such politicians and get some relief.” Another challenge he pointed out was the unequal ability to spend for elections, which prevents the country from creating an equal ground for youth candidates. He noted that even though there are ordinary youth who are suitable candidates, it is difficult for them to compete with youth coming from powerful and rich families. To ensure an equal ground for both the parties, Deshapriya said, political parties’ internal democracy to ensure fair chances, and youth being politically intelligent and having worked at the rural level, are crucial. He added: “Laws should be enacted to look into campaign financing. Currently, there are steps being taken to present a draft Bill with regard to controlling campaign financing. As long as it does not come into existence, there will be no equal ground for election candidates. Anyone can win an election through the media, because not everyone can bear the promotional activities’ related expenses.” In addition, public funds and personal funds being spent in large amounts for elections should be a concern of the general public, he opined. While including more youth in politics is a welcome move for the general public, some of the practical matters that were highlighted during the discussion do not get adequate attention. Is being young a guarantee that they can perform their duties better than senior politicians, how are they going to bring about the changes that they promise, and whether Sri Lanka’s voters are ready to look beyond politicians’ promises and seniority, are questions that need to be answered in this discussion.