When Sri Lanka introduced a mandatory 25% quota for women’s representation in local government through the Local Authorities Elections (Amendment) Act of 2016, it was hailed as a significant step towards inclusive governance. 

But nearly a decade later, the ambitious reform is faltering, not due to a lack of political will on paper, but because of loopholes and exceptions embedded in the very legislation that was supposed to guarantee women a place in local authorities.

The crux of the problem lies in Section 65AA of the Local Authorities Elections Ordinance, a provision that exempts political parties and independent groups from fully complying with the quota if they fail to secure a minimum threshold of seats in the respective local bodies. 

While the law was meant to ensure women’s participation in governance, the fine print allowed widespread circumvention. The result is a growing disconnect between the reform’s intent and its actual outcomes.

A legal framework at cross purposes

Sri Lanka’s hybrid electoral system for local authority elections is split between Direct Ward (DW) representation (60%) and Proportional Representation (PR) (40%). While the law mandates that not less than 25% of the total number of members elected to each local authority must be women, Section 65AA allows this quota to be bypassed if a party or group fails to meet certain vote or seat thresholds.

When consulted on the matter, Elections Commissioner General Saman Sri Ratnayake explained: “According to the act, if any independent group or political party within a local authority gets less than 20% of the seats and they have received less than three seats in the local body, they are then exempted from the necessity of complying with the women’s quota. As the provision exists in the act, we are compelled to comply with it and there is a likelihood that a number of local authorities may not give out the 25% women’s quota.”

The situation raises concerns that the quota, while statutorily present, can be legally ignored under plausible conditions. 

“It is not a contradiction between two separate enactments. It is a provision that exists in the same act, so you cannot say that one supersedes the other. It is an exception to the rule and that’s how it is being perceived. We cannot force the factions to comply with the 25% quota simply out of need, because the law also provides an exception to the rule,” Ratnayake clarified.

While the Commissioner General maintained that the exception did not disrupt the composition of local authorities in terms of governance, he acknowledged its adverse impact on gender equity. 

“You also have to perceive how this would transpire if there was no mandatory 25% quota for women. Then how would it work out? While I don’t think there is any special danger to the composition of the local authority, it would affect the 25% composition of women nevertheless,” he added.

Historical pattern of non-compliance

This is not the first time Sri Lanka has witnessed shortfalls in implementing the quota. Ratnayake noted: “Even the previous Local Government Elections were affected by this provision. Several local government bodies were affected, although I cannot give you a number at this time.”

The 2018 Local Government Elections, the first conducted under the new quota system, also fell short of achieving a true 25% representation in many authorities due to these same legislative exceptions. As Sri Lanka prepares for the outcomes of the 2025 Local Government Elections, electoral officials are already anticipating a similar aftermath.

“Of the 339 local authorities [contested at this month’s elections], there are parties that satisfy the criteria for exemption in some. Of course, we are yet to tabulate and comprehend how many such local bodies will be affected by this exception,” said Ratnayake. 

“Such tabulation cannot be completed overnight. The preliminary results must first be analysed, and thereafter the pending formalities must be fulfilled. We need more time to determine how many local authorities will be unable to fulfil the 25% quota,” he added.

Two structural flaws

Independent policy think tank Verité Research highlights two key flaws that further threaten the effectiveness of the 25% quota. 

First, there is the exemption based on vote share where parties and independent groups that receive less than 20% of the total votes in a local authority area are not required to meet the women’s quota. This legal carveout is the one Commissioner General Ratnayake refers to.

Second, Verité Research points to the disproportionate seat structure. With 60% of seats awarded through DW elections and 40% through PR, the law only requires one-tenth of the larger number of DW seat nominations to be women, and half of the smaller number of PR seat nominations to be women.

The arrangement drastically reduces the number of women actually elected, especially under DW, where male candidates are usually fielded in electorally favourable wards. Verité points out: “The continued effect of these two flaws will ensure that the number of women candidates elected to local government authorities at the Local Government Elections 2025 will fall well short of the 25% quota.”

PR lists as a patchwork fix

To compensate for the shortfall in women elected through DW seats, the law relies on PR lists to bridge the gap. But this mechanism is often insufficient.

Political parties tend to place women on PR lists without ensuring they are in winnable positions. There is no legal requirement to prioritise women at the top of PR lists. If Section 65AA is triggered or if women are not elected under DW, the PR system is burdened with the entire responsibility of achieving the 25% quota, which it is structurally ill-equipped to do.

Moreover, if the number of PR seats won by a party is too small, there may not be enough eligible female candidates on the list to meet the quota. It results in post-election adjustments that rarely rectify the imbalance.

Reworking the electoral structure

Women and Child Affairs Deputy Minister Dr. Namal Sudarshana acknowledged: “There are many flaws in this amendment and the legal loophole to guaranteeing the women’s quota is just one such flaw. We will have to completely repeal this amendment and bring out a new amendment rectifying all these errors.”

He added that the amendment had introduced several complications. “This amending act has created several new wards and representatives – in fact, more than what is necessary in some cases. There is also the complication of the bonus seats and how they can be distributed, further contributing to the issue.”

Public Administration, Provincial Councils, and Local Government Minister Prof. Chandana Abayarathna echoed similar sentiments. “There are many flaws in the Local Authorities Elections Ordinance. We have taken these up for discussion, and in future, we plan to introduce changes,” he said.

He emphasised the need to reduce the number of representatives. “We strongly feel that there are too many members under the present system. We will have to reduce this number. At the same time, we will have to create a structure where the party that has won the majority can govern without hindrance.”

Despite these acknowledgments, progress remains stalled. “There are many recommendations from the advisory committee, but we have not commenced the process of amending the law. We only have the recommendations. We will look into the flaws and commence working on a new amendment soon,” said Prof. Abayarathna, underlining that the amendment process was yet to begin formally.

Political, administrative stalemate

Electoral officials, despite being aware of the loopholes, are limited by what the law allows. The Commissioner General’s office has repeatedly emphasised that it cannot act beyond the mandate of the act. Ratnayake noted: “We cannot force compliance where the law offers an exemption. The provision itself is part of the legal structure, not a contradiction.”

That said, civil society groups and women’s rights advocates argue that Section 65AA was deliberately inserted to allow evasion, calling it a “loophole masquerading as an exception”. Critics argue that political resistance from party leadership has stalled efforts to strengthen enforcement.

The way forward

Dr. Sudarshana admitted that their hands were tied by circumstance. “We had discussions about this issue and we wanted to change it, but the problem was that elections to local authorities were already overdue. The last election was in 2018 and thereafter they wanted to hold an election in 2023, but that did not materialise. 

“There was also an ongoing case serving as an impediment. Therefore, we decided to proceed with the elections under the existing system and introduce changes afterwards. We were of the opinion that the law must be rectified first, but at this juncture, we had to provide the best possible solution and rectify the issues afterwards,” he said.

However, when questioned on whether the problem could be resolved through political intervention, Dr. Sudarshana replied negatively, saying: “That is not in our purview.”

“Political parties and the Government have no say in the outcome of the elections or problems that may arise in the composition of members of local authorities. The sole authority in this situation is the Election Commission, which will have to figure out the best way to approach this matter,” he added.

Despite the lack of immediate solutions, both Prof. Abayarathna and Dr. Sudarshana affirmed that change was on the horizon. 

“We will be definitely looking at these issues in future,” said Prof. Abayarathna. “We still have not developed any type of consensus on this matter, but we have held meetings previously and have reached an understanding on what we need to do. We will be introducing an amendment in future,” he added.

Consultation with experts and civil society is expected to shape future reforms, according to him.