By Jehan Perera –

Jehan Perera

The government prevailed at the no confidence motion against Minister of Energy Kumara Jayakody by a large parliamentary majority. The vote was 153 against and 49 in favour, a majority of 104. The significance of this debate and vote lies not only in the numerical strength of the government, but in the larger questions of credibility and consistency that it has brought into public view. Behind the margin of victory were two significant factors. One was that the opposition parties joined together in their vote against the energy minister. The second was that the government had 159 seats in parliament. However, the real issue is not whether the government can win parliamentary votes, but whether it can sustain the moral authority on which its mandate rests.

The motion itself was based on two principal charges. The first related to the indictment filed against the minister by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) over his previous role as Deputy Procurement Manager at Lanka Fertilizer Company Limited. The charge is that he caused a significant loss to the government by conferring an undue advantage on a private company during a procurement process. The second charge concerned the present controversy over coal procurement for the Lakvijaya power plant, where the importation of inferior quality coal has adversely affected electricity generation and increased costs to the country. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake himself acknowledged in Parliament that the importation of substandard coal had adversely impacted electricity generation and increased costs.

There is no doubt that the government has won wide public appreciation for its determination to make a break with the corruption of the past. This has been one of its strongest points from the time it came to office. The public has especially welcomed the action taken against members of previous governments, some of whom have been arrested, remanded, or indicted by the Bribery Commission. It is precisely because of this commitment that the present controversy needs to be handled with special care. A government elected on a platform of transparency and anti-corruption cannot afford to give the impression that they are being applied selectively. The same standards that are used in dealing with former members of government need to be seen in relation to those who hold office today. This is not because guilt has been established, but because equal treatment under the law is the essence of public confidence.

Retaining Credibility

For a government that came to office promising a decisive break from the practices of the past, its credibility depends above all on the urgency and transparency with which it confronts failures in the present. With regard to the defective coal it has decided to investigate how such procurements have been done in the past as well. On the surface, this signals a willingness to address long standing irregularities within the system. However, an investigation into past practices by other governments cannot be a substitute for immediate accountability by this government. Any inquiry into past wrongdoing should follow, not precede, a clear accounting of what has occurred at the present time. The coal controversy has become the acid test of whether the government is prepared to hold itself to the same standard it has demanded of others.

The public admission by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake about the importation of substandard coal creates an opportunity for the government to reinforce the image it has built as one that is willing to face facts directly. The government defended its position that proper procedures were followed in the tender process when the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) took up the issue at length in Parliament. There is merit in demonstrating procedural compliance. But the purpose of having a procurement policy is not merely to show that steps were followed. Its deeper purpose is to achieve an outcome beneficial to the government and to the people it represents. If the result is a large financial burden, damage to energy security, and additional environmental cost, then procedure alone cannot be the end of the matter.

The government’s reluctance to even temporarily remove Minister Jayakody from his position may reflect the political reality in Sri Lanka where there is no tradition of ministers taking responsibility for the calamities they preside over. It may also reflect the government’s desire not to concede ground to an opposition that has sought to convert this issue into a broader political attack. It is ironic that many in the opposition who voted in favour of the no-confidence motion against Minister Jayakody did the reverse when a no-confidence motion against Minister Keheliya Rambukwella in the former government was brought up. The best course may be for the government may be to persuade Minister Jayakody to step aside temporarily until the matters in controversy are clarified in court and by the relevant independent authorities. This temporary stepping aside is not an admission of guilt, but a safeguard for both the individual and the institution

Preserving Trust

The application of the principle of accountability to Minister Jayakody can be framed as a measure that protects both the integrity of the minister and the credibility of the government. This is especially important because the government has also signaled its intention to widen the inquiry into coal imports over a longer period. Investigating past wrongdoing is both necessary and justified. However, if this retrospective probe is prioritised before there is full clarity and accountability on the current controversy, it risks being seen less as a search for truth than as a deflection from the issue at hand. The government should be careful not to allow such a perception to take root. In politics, perception can harden into public belief faster than official explanations can undo it.

The present government’s greatest political asset has been the belief among the people that this is a government that will hold itself to a higher standard. Once that belief weakens, the moral authority it has gained in pursuing corruption cases against former governments will also weaken. The larger national interest lies in helping the government preserve the trust it has earned. The defeat of the no confidence motion gives the government parliamentary space. What it now needs is moral and political space in the eyes of the people. That can come from showing that the same principles applied to the past will be applied in the present as well. In the end, governments are not judged by the strength of their parliamentary majorities, but by their willingness to subject their own members to the same scrutiny they demand of others.

If the government takes that path, this controversy can become an opportunity for it and not a political setback. It can deepen public trust in the government’s commitment to clean governance. In the end, the people are likely to judge it not by whether it protected one of its own in the short term, but by whether it showed that no office bearer is beyond scrutiny when public interest is at stake. That is the real test of a government that came to office in the name of change. It is also the surest way by which it can preserve the moral authority that gave it its mandate and carry the confidence of the people into the more difficult challenges that lie ahead in areas such as economic reform and national reconciliation.