I plan in the three hours of this workshop to cover a lot of ground, which I hope will lead to much discussion, and to some understanding of the principles of government, and actual practice in Sri Lanka. This will require being direct, but the criticisms I make will I hope provoke thought, and encourage efforts at reforms that are essential.
Of all countries that have a long
democratic tradition, Sri Lanka has perhaps the most dysfunctional
structure of government.
If you look at constitutional dispensations
elsewhere, there are essentially two. The first, springing from Britain,
and known as the Westminster model, combines the Executive and the Legislature. All Ministers come from Parliament, and report to it directly.
The second is based on the doctrine of Separation of Powers,
and was first put into practice in the United States of America. The
Executive is entirely separate there from the Legislature. A directly
appointed President selects a Cabinet to run the various Departments of
Government. Parliamentarians, in addition to passing laws, also however
play a role with regard to the executive, in that they are in charge of
the budget that finances the work of the Executive. They are also meant
to monitor its work through the financial controls they exercise, and to
contribute to policy through Committees.
Our Constitution is a hybrid of these two
systems. Though it is claimed that it is similar to the French, where
there is a Prime Minister in addition to a President, the differences
are immense. Though the President in France must appoint a Prime
Minister in terms of command of a majority in Parliament, he can appoint
anyone from outside Parliament to this post, and to any executive
office. Anyone who comes from Parliament, including the Prime Minister,
must give up his Parliamentary position before becoming part of the
Executive.
Thus the Executive concentrates on
getting things done, without the demands of legislation or constituency
requirements. And it has no role to play in oversight. Correspondingly,
at Parliament can exercise its oversight function without being
dominated by the Executive branch. In Sri Lanka all aspects of
Parliament are controlled by Ministers. They chair all Committees,
whereas even in Britain, though members of the Cabinet are obviously
more equal than others, Committees are left to backbenchers.
Given the
influence of Ministers and the lack of influence of non-Ministers,
everyone in Sri Lanka wants to be a Minister and it is difficult for a
President, dependent as he is on a Parliamentary majority in a country
with several examples of crossovers, to resist requests. In the United
States the number in the Cabinet is fixed in the Constitution, which
makes sense for an Executive President who can thus allocate
responsibilities systematically. But in Sri Lanka we have a
proliferation of Ministries, which sometimes requires areas of
responsibility that should go together to be divided up. To give you
some examples of the wanton multiplication that takes place, we have
Ministries of Plantation Industries and
of Minor Export Crop Promotion and of Coconut Development & Janata
Estate Development, Ministries of Culture and the Arts and of National Heritage, Ministries of Local Government and Provincial Councils, of Public
Administration and Home Affairs, or Productivity Promotion and of Public
Management Reforms.
Despite the many issues on which such
Ministries should work together, there is no formal system of
coordination. It was in recognition of this, I thought, that the
President, two years ago, established a system of Senior Ministers, with
responsibilities to coordinate. But there seems to have been little
logic when the Senior Ministries were demarcated, and overlap almost
seems to have been institutionalized, with for instance four Ministers
supposed to coordinate work in Education (which has been allocated
amongst others to the Minister for Urban Affairs, but not to the
Minister for Rural Affairs). I can see then why, though the Consultative
Committee of the Ministry for Public Management Reforms proposed to
work out subjects that should be addressed by each Ministry, this was
not taken further.
Though all ten Senior Ministers have been
active in various ways, only one of them seems to have developed a
National Policy and to have worked on an Action Plan. Unfortunately,
this function does not seem to have been included in all job
descriptions, and perhaps it would have been impossible, given the
overlap, with for instance one Minister responsible for Consumer Welfare
and another for Food Security. And there is no one with responsibility
for coordination with regard to legal matters or administration, where
Justice and Prison Reforms need to work together, as well as Public
Administration and Local Government.
But the setting up of Senior Ministries
seems to have been yet another ad hoc measure, designed more to ease the
process of retirement than contribute to administrative efficiency.
There was no planning, or decisions based on principle, which is perhaps
why Sri Lanka has achieved yet another first, in having a Senior
Minister who is also a Junior Minister, when it was recognized that
Sarath Amunugama, far from being ripe for retirement, was essential for
financial management and explication.
The process that was initiated when
Senior Ministers were appointed should have been based on a clear
identification of sectors, on a practical basis. For this purpose we
could have taken a leaf out of the Indian book, in terms of the way in
which they have structured their Departmentally Related Standing Committees
in Parliament. Whereas we have one Consultative Committee for each
Ministry making over 50 altogether, the Indians cluster theirs, so that
matters requiring coordination are discussed together. So Food, Consumer
Affairs and Public Distribution come together, as do Science and
Technology, Environment and Forests. Personnel, Public Grievances, Law
and Justice are together as are Social Justice and Empowerment, and
Transport, Tourism and Culture.
India, like most other countries whether
they follow the Westminster Model or the Presidential one, does not have
Ministers chairing Committees, and indeed I do not think they are
members of these either. In Sri Lanka however such a situation would be
unthinkable, for most MPs think Committees are where their individual
problems must be solved. Thus much time is spent on particular
appointments, while there is hardly any discussion on general issues and
policy.
Some of my colleagues seem to understand
this lacuna, for when I was being criticized last week for not having
voted for the impeachment resolution, on the grounds that this was the
duty of a National List MP, one of them noted that I made great
contributions in Committees. But I can also understand why MPs who have
to keep vast numbers of constituents happy under our preposterous
election system, have neither time nor inclination to think of
principles.
In a more functional system, there would
be time set aside for MPs to meet Ministers or their Secretaries in
their offices to sort out individual problems. The Consultative
Committee would decide on policy, and suggest legislative and other
reforms, based on common problems that need to be resolved. Ministers
would not be members of the Committee, but they or their officials would
attend for clarifications that are required. They would also attend to
introduce legislation they propose or policy changes they wish to
implement, and only go ahead with these after thorough discussion.
But let me now encourage some input from
you, through analysis of the present situation. I will give you a list
of the Ministries we have, and I want you to decide which can be
combined. I will also give you a list of the Senior Ministries we have,
and I want you to decide whether these make sense, or whether there
should be different ones, and if so which Ministries should be
coordinated by each of them.
Ministries
Ministries
- Buddha Sasana and Religious Affairs
- Irrigation and Water Resources Management
- Health
- Petroleum Industries
- Livestock and Rural Community Development
- Water Supply and Drainage
- Traditional Industries and Small Enterprise Development
- Local Government and Provincial Councils
- Industry and Commerce
- Power and Energy
- Construction, Engineering Services, Housing and Common Amenities
- Justice
- Economic Development
- National Languages and Social Integration
- Higher Education
- External Affairs
- Public Administration and Home Affairs
- Parliamentary Affairs
- Postal Services
- Technology and Research
- Environment
- Child Development and Women’s Affairs
- Labour and Labour Relations
- Education
- Plantation Industries
- Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Development
- Lands and Land Development
- Social Services
- Private Transport Services
- Agriculture
- Mass Media and Information
- Transport
- Youth Affairs and Skills Development
- Co-operatives and Internal Trade
- Rehabilitation and Prison Reforms
- Indigenous Medicine
- Minor Export Crop Promotion
- Foreign Employment Promotion and Welfare
- Coconut Development & Janata Estate Development
- Culture and the Arts
- Disaster Management
- Resettlement
- Public Relations and Public Affairs
- Sports
- State Resources & Enterprise Development
- Telecommunication and Information Technology
- National Heritage
- Productivity Promotion
- Public Management Reforms
- Civil Aviation
Senior Ministries
- Good Governance and Infrastructure
- Human Resources
- Rural Affairs
- Food Security
- Urban Affairs
- Consumer Welfare
- National Resources
- Scientific Affairs
- International Monetary Co-operation
- Social Welfare (Text of lecture at a workshop at the Kotelawala Defence University – 20 January 2013) RW