16 February, 2025

Blog

Post-Election Dimensions Of Governance – Revival, Reconstruction & Reconciliation

By C. Narayanasuwami

C Narayanasuwami

There has been substantial discussion in recent weeks on what follows next after a convincing victory by the JVP/NPP. Informed and analytical articles have appeared in the country’s main media outlets outlining the varied tasks at hand for the new government to fulfil its mandate to the people. This Paper is intended to highlight a few priority areas for initiating development guided by the principles of good governance.

Components of Good Governance

Good Governance has been singled out as the most important criterion for sound development management. A world Bank Report on Governance and Development (1992), states that “good governance is central to creating and sustaining an environment which fosters strong and equitable development”.  This concept has been reiterated several times subsequently in recent years. The components of good governance are identified as follows; (i) an effective policy framework that incorporates both growth and equity-oriented policies, (ii) a corruption free management system that rewards good performance, (iii) a well-founded institutional framework, including a good public administrative structure with sound recruitment and retention policies for civil servants, (iv) a qualified, competent and skilled workforce at different implementation levels and an (v) overall politico-legal framework that supports non-discriminatory policies, and promotes initiative and dynamism in project and program execution.

Sri Lanka has suffered substantially in upholding many of these requirements/values in the last few decades largely due to the adoption of ill-conceived policies and implementation structures, which combined with entrenched corruption in the entire body politic, seriously undermined effective execution of planned development interventions. Today we are at the crossroads because of the rampant misuse of public funds, flagrant violations of the rule of law and inefficient delivery of public services.

Prioritising and formulating developmental interventions

The tasks that lie ahead are formidable- the government must start working on areas requiring immediate intervention. The writer offers his views based on his own personal experience as a senior public servant in Sri Lanka and as an international civil servant who offered his services to 24 countries in the Asia- Pacific Region as a senior professional of the Asian Development Bank (ADB). The suggestions that follow may evoke controversy but every citizen has the right to offer his/her thoughts on subjects of national importance.

In his first policy speech in the Parliament, the President identified key areas that require intervention, specifically drawing attention to agriculture, rural development, poverty reduction, fisheries, tourism and elimination of corruption, among others. The state of the country warrants simultaneous action on many of these areas. The question that arises is whether the country’s current implementation framework and public service orientation will be conducive to support initiatives in this regard without system change.

System change was strongly endorsed during the elections and remains the key issue for the government today. Changing highly entrenched practices and procedures require commitment, accountability and a high sense of integrity. As the President himself noted in a recent public speech, corruption has seriously undermined the effectiveness of even the Anti-Corruption Watchdog. Several interrelated issues must be addressed on an urgent basis if system change is to become a reality.

Reforming Public Service

Reforms cannot be instituted unless systems inimical to change management and development are drastically modified or changed. Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, former Singapore Prime Minister is credited with the statement that a “little bit of totalitarianism is essential to develop countries which have remained lethargic for years”. This is undeniably an apt statement in the context of Sri Lanka which needs to adopt strong policies to make the public service deliver.

There was a recent statement that the public service is overstaffed with around 750, 000 of the 1.3 million staff considered redundant. A ‘needs review’ should be undertaken as soon as possible to carefully evaluate the scope for reduction and possible retirement and redundancy payments. This should be done in consultation and coordination with staff unions to ensure that the overall scope for redundancies is mitigated by reemployment in new ventures, transfers or changes in roles.

The issues relevant to this phenomenon have been addressed in several documents in the recent past-the writer addressed this problem in a Paper published by the Centre for Policy Alternatives, Colombo in April 2016 entitled, “Public Administration in Sri Lanka and the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution: Prospects for the Future”. This was further elaborated in his book, ‘Managing Development: People, Policies and Institutions’ published in 2019. Several strategies were identified to redeploy and retrain superfluous staff, merge staff functions and retire unproductive staff through ‘Golden Handshakes’ or similar incentive filled approaches. Unfortunately, very little has been done up to date.

It may be prudent to look at the historical context and learn from lessons to determine changes required to deepen developmental thrusts.

Phases in Sri Lanka’s Development Trajectory

The history of Sri Lanka’s development is characterised by several phases closely following the thoughts and actions of leaders who controlled its destiny since independence.

The immediate post-independence period, 1948-1956, under the first Prime Minister, Mr. DS Senanayake was the first development phase. This phase arguably was the period of agricultural reawakening with priority accorded to the renewal of the tank civilization-several initiatives were taken to build, renovate and revive ancient tanks for agricultural development. Simultaneously, colonization schemes or tank-based settlements were established in hitherto underdeveloped areas such as Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa. Epoch-making changes in the social sphere such as the establishment of the free education system and an equally accessible health system greatly beneficial to the citizens of Sri Lanka, created new opportunities for revitalising the tradition-bound social structure.

The second phase from 1956-1965, turned out to be a period of mixed development in agriculture and industry with a substantial loss in the tempo of development due to the 1958 racial riots, the Sinhala only bill, and poor political leadership which undermined social cohesion and economic stability.

The third phase -1965-1970, saw some progress in accelerating agricultural production with emphasis given to both plantation and domestic agriculture. No concerted efforts were made however, to address some of the fundamental problems affecting the industrial sector.

The next phase-1970-1977, witnessed some success in enhancing agricultural productivity with equal emphasis given to paddy and subsidiary food production. This period saw the country moving toward self-sufficiency in subsidiary food production but unfortunately it did not last long because of rebel activity – JVP insurrection and LTTE activism- resulting in increased suppression and damage to life and property island wide.

The 1977-1989, phase was a turning point for private sector involvement in development activities which embraced garment industries, telecom and tourist-oriented ventures, in addition to development of small and medium scale enterprises. The private sector emerged as an engine of growth for the first time. Despite these positive developments, the country had to encounter significant downturn in agricultural productivity and social mobility, again due to civil conflicts and insurgencies, both in the north and south. The burning of the Jaffna Public Library, an insensitive and abhorrent event in Sri Lanka’s history, added to increased ethnic tensions.

The ensuing phase-1989-1993, witnessed continued civil conflicts leading to subdued development activities. The major thrust in development during this period was in state sponsored housing and urban development.

The next phase 1993-2004 and thereafter from 2005- 2020, could be categorised as the infrastructure era with roads, railways and airports given considerable investment support along with substantial private sector investment in export-intensive garment industries and agricultural products. Despite these efforts, the country’s growth remained stagnant because of corruption and mismanagement particularly after 2005, altering the pace, direction and durability of investment operations. This led to significant decline in valuable international goodwill and support. Variations in governance, including diminished trust and accountability in government operations, and the establishment of less impact projects such as airports created widespread dissatisfaction among the general populace.

Lessons of Development Learned during the past seven decades

The foregoing analysis suggests that during the past seven decades Sri Lanka witnessed uneven, isolated and disjointed development efforts and substantial break up of social cohesion that led to significant exodus of the population to western countries in search of greener pastures. The level of dissatisfaction and disenchantment was convincingly proven in the overwhelming support given by the people to JVP/NPP and Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) in particular, at the recent elections.

The major lessons of development could be summarised as follows:

a) Development operations were centred on programs and projects that reflected the ideals, political philosophies and the entrenched thought processes of the ruling elite and was not assessed in a holistic manner taking into consideration the diverse needs of a multi-ethnic nation. There was no long-term vision although several 10 year and five-year plans, and a ‘Regaining Sri Lanka’ planning document were prepared-the tragedy of planning in Sri Lanka was that at no time did any of the development plans enlist all-party support and were not viewed as development visions representing overall national perspectives.

b) Planning and executing development projects require mature skills in project development and consistency and continuity in implementation. Malaysia adopted a singularly successful monitoring system in the sixties and seventies-relevant operations came under the direct purview of the then Prime Minister of Malaysia. The establishment of an ‘Operations Room’ in the Planning Secretariat of Sri Lanka in the late 1960s to monitor implementation, including identification of shortfalls with a view to taking remedial action, was an innovation that was adapted from the Malaysian model. This worked well initially but the momentum declined in subsequent years when enthusiasm waned with the change of governments. The concept was revived in 2022 but its operational performance has not yet been evaluated. It is widely recognised that development requires continuity, enlightened monitoring strategies and thoughtful mid-term interventions for achieving good outcomes.

c) The three-decade civil war led by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) severely damaged development operations, and the impact of this was noted in destroyed infrastructure, dilapidated irrigation systems, neglected agricultural activities, and destruction of small-scale industries, all of which resulted in increased poverty and distress among the affected population.

d) Social cohesion was destroyed, and ethnic tensions had a pernicious effect on communal activities destroying peace, trust and happiness among well-bonded village communities.

e) Unbridled corruption was pervasive from the level of the grassroots level institutions to heads of institutions/departments making investments costly, unattractive and less profitable. This has had serious repercussions making investors run away from future investments-this was epitomised by a recent statement made by the departing Japanese Ambassador. The result unfortunately was less development and more social dislocation and suffering.

The above analysis confirms how governance approaches, including contradictory socio-economic policies, and lack of a long-term vision contributed to less effective and disjointed development over seven decades.  The country continues to remain a developing nation while some of its neighbours have graduated to a first world status-Singapore followed by Malaysia are two examples of countries which had similar beginnings like Sri Lanka but developed fast to overcome their developing country status. Times have changed and a new mandate has been given to revive, review and reconstruct a nation bedevilled by past policies of mismanagement. Past mistakes should serve as solid lessons to promulgate a revitalised approach to development.

*To be continued..

*The author is a  member of the former Ceylon Civil Service and Retired Senior Professional of the Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines

No comments

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 5 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.