Since 1956 the political and social systems in Sri Lanka had undergone major convolutions in governance practices.  The 1956 people’s movement pushed to the forefront the entirety of the people as a wholesome entity regardless of their capacity individually and or collectively to make impartial assessments.  In the euphoria of ushering a social revolution to level off combinations of equality vis a vis societal relationships the major considerations, of the power of knowledge, of the availability of relevant information necessary to make judgments AND most importantly the practice of common decency in behavioral patterns were overlooked.  These were forgotten or perhaps considered not so important at the time. The exigencies of politics were superimposed on the system or systems and institutions in operation existing from the time of the British administration that continued with in the post independent period in the country.

Within this new order the politician and the Member of Parliament emerged as prominent personalities, the important source of all power, to be acquired and delivered.  People gradually moved from their local leaders, the village elders, the headman and others of the same ilk and looked for assistance/relief for their problems to the politician, their MP.  The earlier power icons receded on the scale of strong personalities in the calculations of the people.

  Even as these changes were taking place the quality of the personae of those that enter parliament also stood in sharp contrast to the pre 1956 period; the politicians of later period show up as being more self -centered and less people focused.  The Shakespearean echo of

“To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day,  thou canst not then be false to any man,” has been substituted by “Make hay while the sun shines” .

The latter has come to stay and many seem to be more than comfortable with this approach.

To Begin at the ‘Beginning’

Earlier men and women elected to Parliament through periodic elections entered the political arena with the earnest desire to improve the lives of their people.  This was the objective and goal of elected members and politicians in general. In the post ’56 years it soon became but a forgotten credo.  Those selected to become ministers from amongst the total number of elected members to parliament, are –“charged with the direction and control of the Government…… shall be collectively responsible and answerable to Parliament.” Collective responsibility extends to all decisions taken by the cabinet irrespective of whether he or she was in active support of the subject or not.

In the case of ministerial responsibility a minister when appointed to this position is expected by convention and by law to keep a close watch over his ministry and the departments within the ministry. ‘Where there is ministerial responsibility, and where mismanagement is shown up or culpability raised or proven the minister concerned is expected to take the blame and ultimately resign.’ This obligation does not extend to the rest of the government. The judicial process applies to the culpable in that he can also “face criminal charges for malfeasance under his watch.” Personal errors in judgement or impropriety can be causes for resignation.

Thus, what comes out in big letters is that a minister is not at liberty to be negligent; he has to remain alert at all times to overview if all actions taken under his watch are in keeping with the constitutional precedents and conventions of the time. The rationale behind is that there has to be responsibility, accountability, answerability/transparency in all actions and decisions undertaken within the ambit of his official assignations.

Integrity has to be the umbrella within which ministers and officials must operate in their official duties and in their financial administration. The obligation to follow established conventions is not obligatory but binding by convention and by the constitution. The above becomes of great concern in a developing country overly constrained with issues of financial stringency along with the disciplined use of public resources.

Post 1956, the differentiation between personal and private interests and that of the government business as well as that of official administration became increasingly diffused. The ministers and the bureaucracy were able to overcome any problems they countered with the compliance of the political party in power, whose overriding interest is to stay in power and not shake the stability of the government with individual resignations which might be indicative of poor governance, among other factors. During such eventualities opportunism replaces concerns of disciplined management.

Good governance is substituted to the wily requirements of the politician. Awareness by the public of the pitfalls of poor governance raises the need to reintroduce civics to the school curricula.  Not having civics as a subject in schools has resulted in poverty of information to the youth in this country. The young are left with no specific access to information as we of the older generation had on citizenship rights, duties and obligations towards social relationships between one’s family and with the rest of society. Consequently, many are not sure of what their response should be when a minister is called to vacate his official position following accusation of culpability vis a vis the minister’s conduct relating to the requirements of his office – accountability, transparency,  and the commitment to his office for personal responsibility regarding his actions. The public is not aware of the questions that must be raised and the answers that they must seek.

During the last couple of weeks a situation arose where the atmosphere was rendered with calls for resignation of a minister “after a witness gave some apparently damaging testimony against him at the sittings of the commission inquiring into alleged bond scam at the Central Bank”  and it was a question of the minister going, going not gone yet.

It also came to light during the examination proceedings that the minister was the recipient of a luxury apartment through  a questionable mode.

There were strong suggestions of culpability though not conclusively proven.  The public were not aware of the questions that must be raised and the answers that they must seek. There was however the nauseous feeling of ‘something is rotten in the state of ….’ At last under pressure from the public, the media , colleagues, the joint opposition cabal, prime minister and the president the inevitable happened. The minister resigned in his words ‘with pride’ motivated essentially by the need to keep the government intact and the political party he belonged to intact.  It would then seem that he does not see the justification in the reason for the call for resignation by the government, public and private sources. This is another situation which calls for  ‘not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.’

The resignation made ‘in the name of the new political culture …protection of the Yahapalanaya government and democracy in this country calls for further investigation of what should be the  basis for resignation of ministers from their ministerial portfolios.  Since there is no clarity ministers resign, those who resign are re-appointed, and there is expectation of ministers who resign being reappointed at another time to another ministerial post as in the latest appointment to the position vacated by the foreign minister.

A study done on this subject recommended the following to maintain a healthy financial responsibility.

  1. There has to be public awareness that ministerial accountability is the first principal of good governance.
  2. Systems must be created to have transparency and reportage to parliament on a routine basis.
  3. Financial management must form a part of the entire bureaucratic system within the ministry.
  4. Internal external audit is a part of maintaining the stringency in the accounting system.

 It is around this time that a few activists working on issues of good governance bemoaned the removal of civics as a subject in the schools.  This article may help aspiring young citizens to glean a little bit of information which will encourage them to read on the subject a little more extensively