Open Letter to the Election Commission: Opposing Its Premature and Illegal Promotion of Overseas Voting

To:
The Chairman and Members
Election Commission of Sri Lanka

 Subject: Objection to Calling for Premature Suggestions on Overseas Voting and Opposition to Granting Online Voting Rights to Sri Lankan Citizens Residing Abroad

1. Preliminary Objection – Process and Authority

This is to formally object to the public advertisement issued calling for views and suggestions on “formulating a mechanism to grant voting rights to Sri Lankan citizens abroad.” …using taxpayers’ money, the cost of which should be disclosed.

It is also unclear who, if anyone, has formally requested to grant overseas or online voting rights.

A public advertisement for suggestions, in the absence of identifying the source of the demand or legislative mandate, raises serious public concerns with the exercise being a pre-emptive attempt to normalise a non-existent right.

No voting rights presently exist in law for Sri Lankan citizens residing overseas, nor has Parliament debated, approved, or enacted any constitutional or statutory provision creating such rights.

In the absence of Parliamentary approval, there is no legal necessity, authority, or constitutional basis for the Election Commission to invite public submissions on implementation mechanisms relating to a right that does not exist utilizing tax payers money (how much did this advert cost)

2. Presumption of a Non-Existent Right

The language used in the advertisement repeatedly refers to “enabling Sri Lankan citizens living abroad to exercise their voting rights.”

This wording is legally inaccurate and constitutionally improper, as it presumes the existence of a right that has not been created by law.

The Election Commission’s constitutional mandate is to administer elections in accordance with existing law, not to:

• anticipate legislative outcomes,
• normalise unapproved policy directions, or
• create an impression of inevitability regarding the expansion of the franchise.

Such premature consultation reverses the constitutional order, where Parliament must first determine whether a right should exist, before administrative bodies consider how it might be implemented.

3. Democratic Threshold Question Ignored

Notably, the public has not been invited to submit views on the most fundamental question:

• Should Sri Lankan citizens residing abroad be granted voting rights at all from overseas – there is nothing preventing Sri Lankan citizens from arriving in Sri Lanka and voting in elections, provided their name is on the electoral list.

Instead, submissions are confined to operational matters such as registration, campaigning, voting procedures, and counting of votes—thereby excluding democratic debate on the principle of allowing online voting from overseas itself.

This framing indicates a policy pre-commitment and premature preparation of citizens for such an inevitability, rather than a neutral consultative exercise.

4. Substantive Objection – Why Overseas Voting Should NOT Be Permitted

Sri Lankan citizens permanently or long-term resident abroad should not be given voting rights from overseas/online, for the following reasons:

4.1 Absence of Direct Stake in Daily Governance

Voting is not an abstract entitlement; it is a civic responsibility exercised by those who:

• live under the laws enacted,
• bear the immediate consequences of policy decisions,
• are subject to taxation, public services, security risks, and economic conditions.

Citizens residing abroad do not experience:

• local cost-of-living pressures,
• public transport failures,
• education system outcomes,
• healthcare shortages,
• security threats,
• or economic instability in real time.

Granting equal electoral influence to non-resident citizens dilutes the political voice of residents who must live with the consequences of electoral outcomes.

4.2 Distortion of National Electoral Will

Sri Lanka has a significant overseas population concentrated in a small number of host countries, often influenced by:

• foreign political climates,
• anti-Sri Lanka activism disconnected from local realities,
• external lobbying and ideological agendas.

Allowing overseas voting risks:

• skewing domestic elections based on external narratives,
• amplifying polarisation without accountability,
• importing foreign pressures into sovereign decision-making,
• enabling foreign election campaigns to supersede local campaigning.

 International Examples:

• France:French citizens overseas can vote, but the system is carefully limited and supervised to prevent lobbying influence; even then, debates persist on whether it skews domestic politics.
• Canada:Canada allows overseas voting only under strict conditions, with concerns repeatedly raised about ballot security and external influence.
• India:Despite having millions of NRIs, India has not fully implemented online or extensive overseas voting due to fears of manipulation, verification difficulties, and foreign influence.
• United States:While absentee voting exists, online overseas voting is explicitly avoided because of cybersecurity threats and foreign interference risks.

These concerns are very much relevant for Sri Lanka as well.

4.3 National Security, Electoral Integrity, and Overseas Voting Risks

Overseas voting introduces serious vulnerabilities and challenges, including:

• Identity verification and fraud:verifying non-resident voters abroad is extremely difficult. Simply being born in Sri Lanka is insufficient to confirm eligibility, especially for citizens who may have lost residency or are dual nationals.
• Coercion and manipulation:anti-Sri Lankan communities living overseas may campaign with objectives misaligned with domestic interests, often supported by foreign political lobbies or diaspora groups.
• Vote harvesting and foreign influence:there is a credible risk of foreign governments or organisations attempting to direct voting campaigns to influence Sri Lanka’s domestic politics. Overseas voting can allow external narratives to override domestic priorities, creating policy disconnects.
• Cybersecurity and digital vulnerabilities:online voting systems are highly susceptible to hacking, malware, and data breaches. Even technologically advanced democracies (e.g., US, Estonia) face credible cybersecurity threats that can undermine election integrity.
• Asylum and accountability loopholes:granting voting rights to citizens residing abroad could allow individuals who have renounced or claimed asylum for legal protection — or those evading criminal prosecution (including drug offenses, financial crimes, or other serious criminal activity) — to exercise influence over domestic politics without accountability or contribution to the country, raising sovereignty, legal, and security concerns.
• Political funding opacity:overseas campaigning may receive undisclosed or foreign financial support, bypassing domestic election regulations and compromising fairness.
• Unequal influence and civic imbalance:overseas voters are not directly affected by Sri Lanka’s daily governance, public services, or economic conditions, yet could wield disproportionate electoral influence, diluting the political voice of residents who are accountable to domestic laws.

Even advanced liberal democracies struggle to safeguard overseas voting from manipulation. Sri Lanka, with limited verification infrastructure abroad, would face heightened vulnerability on multiple fronts — legal, security, electoral, and ethical.

4.4 Unequal Obligations, Equal Power

Sri Lankan citizens residing abroad:

• are not subject to compulsory civic duties,
• are not directly affected by governance failures,
• may not contribute economically or socially to the State in proportion to their electoral influence.

Democracy requires a balance between rights and obligations. Overseas voting grants political power without corresponding civic exposure or accountability.

4.5 Constitutional and Democratic Precedent

The Sri Lankan franchise has historically been territorially grounded, linked to residence and registration within the country.

Altering this principle is not a technical adjustment but a fundamental transformation of the electorate, requiring:

• explicit Parliamentary debate,
• national consensus,
• and potentially a constitutional mandate.

Such a change cannot be initiated through administrative consultation alone.

5. Formal Requests to the Election Commission

In light of the above, the Election Commission must publicly:

1. Clarify thatoverseas voting rights do not presently exist in law.
2. Confirm that submissions received through this consultation haveno legal force and do not bind Parliament.
3. Refrain from representing this exercise as evidence of public consent or inevitability.
4. Suspend or reframe the consultation untilParliament has first determined whether online overseas voting rights should exist at all.
5. Evaluate potential loopholes, includingasylum claims, dual citizenship complications, and anti-Sri Lanka lobbying, that may undermine electoral integrity if overseas voting is prematurely implemented.
6. Consider international precedents and lessons from France, Canada, India, and the United States regarding overseas voting limitations, security, and foreign influence.

The Election Commission’s credibility rests on strict neutrality and constitutional restraint.

The current consultation represents a sneaky attempt to normalise a right that does not exist, testing public reaction and pre-conditioning citizens for an outcome that Parliament has not approved.

Any citizen who is legally registered is more than welcome to return to Sri Lanka and vote in person. However, granting online voting rights from overseas cannot and should not be allowed, as it bypasses constitutional safeguards, risks electoral integrity, and exposes the country to security, criminal, and foreign influence concerns.

The Government, Opposition, and all stakeholders must take note of these risks before any discussion of overseas voting is entertained. Failing to do so would compromise democracy, public confidence, and national sovereignty.

We trust the Commission will give due consideration to this objection in the interest of constitutional propriety, democratic integrity, and national security.

Shenali D Waduge

9 Viewers