President Anura Kumara Dissanayake during his speech after he was declared elected as the President at the Election Commission’s auditorium said the very conducting of the Presidential election this time was a victory for the people.

With that statement he was recalling how the former President attempted to postpone elections – local government elections and the just concluded Presidential election- using his executive powers. He practically scuttled the local government elections even after the Election Commission had fixed a date for the poll, by arbitrarily refusing to release funds to the elections and the Supreme Court later ruled that it was a violation of fundamental rights of the people.

One might recall how the Opposition parties were restless in early July this year when the day on which the Election Commission was empowered to declare the Presidential election was approaching, owing to the deep suspicion that something might happen to postpone the Presidential polls before that date. 

All these incidents point to the powers that an executive President enjoys to interfere with one of the fundamental rights of the people – the use of the franchise, despite it is said that the Election Commission was the ultimate authority in respect of elections. 

We have experience of Presidents summoning the members of the Election Commission while an election has been announced to negatively pressurise the Commission. Also, we can recollect incidents where ruling party Parliamentarians abusing the Parliamentary privileges apparently on the instructions of the executive threatened the Supreme Court judges to summon them before the House, for issuing orders in favour of people’s suffrage. 

In Sri Lanka, Presidential elections are held allowing the incumbent Presidents to contest personally or to field one of the members of his party, while being in office, going against the principle of equality. Also timing of provincial council and local government elections are determined in practical sense by the executive. None of the nine Presidential elections that have been held in the country so far since 1982 has been held in an environment with a level playing field, since one of the candidates or his party leader had already been empowered as the incumbent President to mobilise the entire state machinery, including the police, the armed forces, all ministries and departments during such elections. Except for the former President D.B.Wijethunga, all other Presidents utilised their executive powers against the rivals of their party at successive elections.

In the just concluded election, it must be recalled the salaries of estate workers were increased during the election campaign, ignoring the Election Commission’s instructions on using state powers and institutions for the election. Candidates whether they are incumbent Presidents or not, would give various promises – practical or pie in the sky - to the voters, which is not illegal. However, if an incumbent President gives promises through Cabinet decisions as recently happened, he is using his powers which the other candidates do not enjoy. 

In India these restrictions on the incumbency are strictly enforced during elections. Especially, during the tenure of the iconic former Chief Election Commissioner T.N.Seshan politicians feared to breach election laws and guidelines. In one case, polling was suspended in a Madhya Pradesh constituency where a serving Governor campaigned for his son, ultimately leading to the Governor’s resignation, while in Uttar Pradesh, a minister was forced to quit the dais at a rally as the campaign period had just ended. 

A poll was suspended in Tamil Nadu also once when Chief Minister Jeyalalithaa Jayaram announced a development project after the declaration of an election. The Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh was taken to task for issuing an advertisement in a newspaper at the cost of public exchequer. Seshan famously remarked once that he “ate politicians for breakfast”. 

In fact, announcing and implementing such projects and programmes, announcing concessions as Cabinet decisions or executive directions during elections amount to bribing the voters and abusing power. The new government whose leaders have been affected by this incumbency powers and privileges for the past four decades since they first faced an election (the District Development Council elections in 1981) have a responsibility to bring in laws to do away with this injustice.