The upcoming parliamentary poll has had the positive effect of generating some discussion on the uses of the National List (NL) as an instrument of enhancing the quality of our central legislature and we believe such deliberations should be both continued and taken cognizance of by the people and the government. This is on account of the obvious fact that the NL intake of people’s representatives, depending on their quality, impinges substantially on the national interest.

In its original conception, the N L was geared to bringing into Parliament, the men and women, who, in the thinking of political party leaders and managers, could make a positive contribution to national life. Its fundamental purpose was to incorporate into the legislative process, individuals with specialized knowledge and skills, who could help in giving laws the content and substance that are of utmost relevance to national needs and their realization.

Accordingly, theoretically speaking, those entering Parliament on the NL, would need to be a cut above the rest of parliamentarians on account of their general accomplishments. If the norms regarding this crucial parliamentary intake are to be closely followed, we would be having among these inductees the best minds and talents this country could offer.

The continuous disregard of these principles by political parties has made the NL a somewhat laughing matter among local electors and they cannot be blamed for this. If some political discards, dregs, ragamuffins and the like have been inducted into Parliament under the NL over the years, the conclusion is inescapable that political party leaders and managers have reduced this conceptually sound legislative mechanism to a travesty of democratic governance. Hence, the popular amusement the NL generates.

But it is our view that this should not be so and rather than laugh over how the NL is used, we sincerely believe that there is much to grieve over in this regard. For, while some of the worst riff-raff of the land have entered our highest law-making body by courtesy of the NL, many a chance has gone a begging to make use of our best talents for the national good.

We need to think on these things and very seriously, in view of the approaching parliamentary elections. It should be the endeavour of political parties to put the NL to the purposes for which it was fashioned and make it the pride of the country, rather than make the NL intake the laughing stock of the public.

This too is a matter of good governance. If some of the worst dregs in the country have been figuring in the legislature, by being inducted on the basis of the NL, then, we have no choice but to conclude that NL provisions have been blatantly abused by power-wielders seeking to rake-in short term political gain at the expense of the national good, and that the norms of good governance have been brazenly violated. We call on the responsible sections to put this ignominious past behind by putting the NL to the uses for which it was designed.

We are reminded of the importance of these original purposes by the news that NDB chairman Eran Wickremeratne would be put forward by the UNP as a NL candidate. It is indeed laudable that Wickremaratne has opted to serve his country at the expense of a highly lucrative job in the banking sector and our hope is that his capabilities would be put to good use. Other major political parties too need to think on the same lines and use the NL to bring in the best in Sri Lanka rather than use it to bring into Parliament those who have been given the thumbs-down, for instance, by this country’s voters.

By being forthright on these issues we do not intend to make out that all who have entered Parliament through the NL thus far, have been huge disappointments and write-offs of the worst kind. Far from it. The late Lakshman Kadirgamar P.C., K.N. Choksy P.C., and Prof. G.L.Peiries and Tissa Vitarana for instance, are NL Members who are proved national assets.

But such worthies are not always given their due by their parties. There were the cases of Maithripala Senanayake and W.Dahanayake, for example, who were on the NL in their time but were not inducted into Parliament as a result of not being included in the final lists. Thus, the country was deprived of their services. It is our contention that the NL intake should be preserved for the cream of our public persons and that petty political considerations should not be brought into play in NL selections.

In a way, the NL intake functions like a Second Chamber in the legislature. In the history of democratic governance, the Second Chamber has had in its ranks the best minds and spirits of the land in question, although it has also projected itself as a bastion of privilege and feudal interests. But in this context, it behoves us to highlight the positives in the system and suffice it to know that the Second Chamber in a bicameral legislature, has brought in valuable expertise, besides helping to counter-balance any excesses the Lower House is capable of.

The one-time Senate in local legislative history played the role of a Second Chamber, and not everything about the Senate was objectionable. For instance, inadequately represented minority opinion was incorporated into the Senate and this helped to rectify any imbalances in the representation of ethnic minorities and special interest groups. Needless to say, such arrangements accrued to the national interest.

A Second Chamber, which is bound to eat further into the public purse, would not be needed if the NL is used wisely by our political parties. The best in the land and nobody but the best must be brought in through the NL if the public interest is to be served. Besides, the NL must be used to enable sections, such as the national minorities and special interest groups, to have a strong voice in public affairs.