Kakal once sang like Cable and Wireless: ‘You’re taking too long to come.’ But is it the PM who arrived too early? With elections constitutionally due in November of 2026, it would be beneficial for any SLP MP/Minister to sue Peep for a year’s salary if the mood in their constituency turns out to be yellow.
Whilst I was more concerned about the VAT-free day and the tease of how large the bonus would be for the year; I must admit the fever and hysteria of the moment caught up with me. And the eagerness to see how shocking or dull the election results will be is off course, another reason why the festivities tickle me.
However, it is past time we go beyond the theatrics of ringing the bell or calling for it to be rung when the Opposition feels an advantage and instead move to a Fixed-term Parliamentary Act to govern the exact length of an administration and provide potential clauses for the Act to be adjourned if earlier elections are needed. For example, in two-thirds of cases, a majority has called for the dissolution of the House, or a vote of no confidence has succeeded.
For some, this is sacrilege, as it diminishes the Prime Minister’s flexibility to call elections, in exceptional circumstances such as martial law, a political crisis, or political deadlock. The PM’s inability to call elections also limits the range of their executive power. Thus, their ability to set the national agenda and formulate policy positions is limited by this constitutional restriction, which prevents them from offering a fresh menu of ideas and approaches. This also allows unpopular governments to continue to hold power for the time it takes from the moment we recognize their massive flaws until the elections are due. Imagine the chaos of the 1979-1982 SLP government, or if the flailing UWP, post Sir John’s death in 2006/7, had mimicked 1979 even just a bit more. Would it have been feasible for the country to suffer for four more years without the ability to ‘ring the bell” to escape?
A weakened executive leader who is unable to call an election of their choosing may be viewed as more diminished than one who can do so of their own accord.
There are plenty of pros to having a fixed election date, in particular, the levelling of the playing field. Opposition politicians and independent candidates are often behind the PM in deciding when elections will be held. Being aware of when elections will be held would allow manifestos and other policy positions to be articulated well in advance. Therefore, unless significant corruption scandals or economic meltdowns are experienced, citizens have ample time to make up their minds. Moreover, citizens would not be held to a 21-day Carnival from nomination to election day to sway their minds. The absence of bell ringing would ensure fairness in the entire proceedings, prevent hasty candidate selection by opposition parties, and afford them ample time to set up their machinery. Additionally, this would impede the setting of dates that blatantly favour governing parties.
Government departments, public services, and private-sector corporations thus have the full four or five years to enact the plans laid out for the electoral term. They need not worry that a project in its third quarter will be delayed, derailed, or impeded by a change of government, as they are aware that there is sufficient time for it to unfold. Additionally, a set date would allow for the news media and other crucial NGO’s to create election news teams and programmes. Fully functional debates and other information-based services, rather than the piecemeal versions that border on ads for the varying parties.
Giving away the theatre and fireworks of it all may be difficult, but ringing the bell only after every five years may be more prudent for us all. It is a further step toward becoming a more mature democracy than we currently are.