Demanding accountability of national leaders is a citizen’s right

 Our vote is our most powerful weapon in electing accountable leaders 

– Pic by Shehan Gunasekara

Parliament has lost its credibility and trust. Despite this sub-optimal situation, the citizens, including the so-called paragons of intellect, who are often adulated for their transparency and forth righteousness, have done extraordinarily little in expressing their dissatisfaction. As Martin Luther King Junior said, “The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.” We, the citizens, have failed to hold national leaders accountable for our economic and social disasters. In fact, we have affirmed our acceptance of the deficient performance by re-electing politicians and leaders who have failed us time and again

Sentence the guilty through your vote

Sri Lanka will not escape its economic and social doldrums until we, the citizens of this country, demand accountability of our national leaders and public officials as a part of our constitutional right. Acts, directives, regulations, laws, policies and procedures are of little, or no, value if they are not applied and enforced. In a similar vein, performance management is not effective unless there are positive consequences such as continued employment, recognition, praise, rewards et cetera for achievement and/or negative consequences such as termination, negative feedback, loss of rewards, warnings et cetera for non-achievement. The entrenchment of a performance culture is therefore very dependent on enforcing the ‘consequences.’ 

In this respect, there is nothing more powerful in our possession than our VOTE and we must use it wisely in rewarding the achievers and rejecting the failures. We must elect those who have displayed, and display, a keenness to uphold accountability and reject those who have not performed for the benefit of the country and for its citizens. 

The International Monetary Fund’s (IMF’s) Governance Diagnostic Assessment (GDA) of 30 September 2023 summarises the state of our nation. It paints a sorry picture of Sri Lanka’s governance mechanisms and adduces the country travails and tribulations to the non- adherence by the State, and its officers, to established policies and procedures. While commenting on the several governance weaknesses and the corruption vulnerabilities which arise therefrom, it highlights the macroeconomic impacts emanating from budget credibility, expenditure control, public investment management, public procurement, management, and oversight of State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs), transparency of revenue policy and the integrity of revenue administration, just to name a few. 

The report implies that accountability at Government, and Government-controlled institutions, is woefully weak and notes that there have been no ‘big ticket’ sanctions against national leaders and other public officials who have exceeded permissible limits of authority and/or have been at the forefront of reckless and irresponsible spending. The Fiscal Management Responsibility Act, (FMRA), No. 3 of 2003, which was enacted to achieve fiscal discipline through greater public scrutiny is an example of an unenforced Act. This Act prescribes limits on budget deficits, the total liabilities of the Government and the Government’s contingent liabilities. 

Whilst the limits on total liabilities and contingent liabilities have been conveniently amended at regular intervals to accommodate fiscal profligacy, the budget deficit limits have been continuously transgressed. Parliament has turned a blind eye either through disinterest or through incompetence. I believe it to be both. Concerns raised by the Auditor General have fallen on deaf ears. Parliament, filled with selfish, “yes-my lord,” individuals has consistently failed to hold the relevant members and their line reports responsible for set targets. It has neither castigated nor penalised the offenders for non-performance and/or non-conformance. 

Citizens have lost faith in the effectiveness of Parliament

It is therefore not surprising that the citizens have lost faith in the effectiveness of Parliament. Parliament has lost its credibility and trust. Despite this sub-optimal situation, the citizens, including the so-called paragons of intellect, who are often adulated for their transparency and forth righteousness, have done extraordinarily little in expressing their dissatisfaction. As Martin Luther King Junior said, “The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.” We, the citizens, have failed to hold national leaders accountable for our economic and social disasters. In fact, we have affirmed our acceptance of the deficient performance by re-electing politicians and leaders who have failed us time and again. Let us ponder on a few of such failures. 

The Mattala Airport ($ 210 million spent – with $ 190 million coming from high-interest development loans from the Exim Bank of China), the Hambantota Port (Estimated spend of $ 360 million with $ 307 coming from a 6.3%, 15-year commercial loan from Exim Bank of China), the Magampura International Convention Centre ($ 15 million spent) and the Lotus Tower (Estimated spend – $ 67 million) are just a few examples of the ‘white elephants’ which Sri Lanka has created because Parliament, and other approving institutions/authorities, did not follow the policies, principles and guidelines established by the Department of National Planning (NPD) for effective Public Investment Management. Neither did they employ the rigorous analysis and robust questioning which such projects deserved. 

Further, there are umpteen instances where the Cabinet/Government has approved projects which have not been in the Public Investment Program (PIP), this being a rolling four-year investment plan which aligns public investment with Government policy priorities. The PIP is intended to bring some order to an area which, most of the time, is oversubscribed by funding requests. The deliberate disregard of such governance guidelines compels one to conclude that approvals of non-PIP projects were, and are, part of a greater scheme to facilitate bribery and corruption. 

Irrespective of whether the approvals arose out of blind obeisance, sheer ignorance, lack of skills and knowledge or an intention to defraud, it is abundantly clear that leaders, members of parliament and approving authorities were not commercially savvy and did not have the courage to ask the tough questions. They did not display the probity to distinguish between value accretion and value dilution. The private sector shows little tolerance of those who break the rules or fail to perform. The transgressors are either shown the door or penalised for their failure to meet operating objectives. So, why should we not insist that a similar approach be adopted in Government and in the State sector?

It is acknowledged that public sector infrastructure projects are principally aimed at enhancing public well-being and that their effectiveness is linked to enabling economic growth, improving the quality of public service, and adroitly using scarce budgetary resources, and therefore, cannot be evaluated using the methodologies typically adopted by private sector. However, it must be accepted that the principles used in comparing alternatives remain the same. In Sri Lanka where, even at a basic level, the ends are many, but the means are limited, it is critical that scarce resources are put to best use. It is, therefore, a downright crime when funds, however generated, which could have been more effectively used in upgrading the infrastructure of public transport, public health, public education, public utilities et cetera are used in projects which do not produce commensurate public benefits. 

Self-aggrandisement

A closer scrutiny of these projects will confirm that they have been driven by self-aggrandisement and for other reasons which are not based on logical merit. When the king says – “do,” the subjects just obey. These are the behaviours which we have encouraged by our loathing in demanding accountability. Rubbing salt in the wound, at election time, rather than sentencing the guilty, we reward the very leaders who have brought our resource rich, beautiful country to its knees.

A high-level introspection of the country’s procurement practices reveals an array of violations from the awarding of contracts to the actual purchasing of goods and services. From road development contracts (studies reveal that highway construction costs in Sri Lanka are three times more than global averages), agreements on coal and power purchases to the purchase of drugs and medical equipment and to the purchase of excise duty stickers on liquor bottles, - malpractices, bribery and corruption abound. Despite most of these being highlighted by parliament appointed watchdog committees such as Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) and Committee on Public Finance (COPF) and the print and social media, the callous disregard of policies and procedures continues.

Little or no corrective, or punitive, action is taken by the leadership against the offenders who are often fronts of powerful politicians. The leaders, who themselves, are guilty of similar wrongdoings, do not take decisive action because they fear losing their majority in the parliament. It is difficult for the pot to call the kettle black! Recent revelations regarding the importation of counterfeit immunoglobulin using forged documents evidence the loopholes which are created when the authorities, in this instance the National Medicines Regulatory Authority (NMRA), adopt work arounds such as ‘waivers of registration’ and when the frequency of such adoptions make them more the norm than the exception. 

Livealth, who is identified as the manufacturer in the various import documents, has stated that they do not manufacture the subject products. One would reasonably expect that the NMRA would, in addition to having a list of ‘qualifying’ registered suppliers, would also have a system of internal checks and balances where random calls are given to suppliers in confirming that they are indeed the supplier. This has not happened. At time of writing, no arrests have been made despite the severity of the offence i.e., forged documents. The lackadaisical, no-care approach taken by the heads of approving institutions, regulatory authorities, and law enforcement officials, is confirmation of the absence of a tone from the top and more importantly the absence of negative consequences for wrongdoing, non-conformance, and non-performance. 

The IMF’s DGA of September 2023 highlights other instances such as SriLankan Airlines’ dealings with Airbus, the reduction of sugar tax in 2020 which enabled specific organisations to make windfall profits and the issuing of bonds in 2015 which generated significant profits for third parties, where high-level public officials escaped sanctioning despite the extensive availability of information. The aforesaid are natural corollaries of an environment which we, the citizens, have aided and abetted in creating by not demanding accountability. 

Gluttons for punishment

As voting citizens, we are so blinded by the short-term convenience of the present day promises that we forget the transgressions of the past. We clamour for the very leaders who have put us in hot water. It is so annoying when people are heard to say that we have no alternative contenders for critical leadership posts than the usual suspects! Are we implying that we cannot find new leaders from among the eligible adults in our approximate 22 million population? What lazy thinking! We are gluttons for punishment – are we not?

It is, principally, the lack of force, focus and determination in our demand for Government accountability, as described before, which has resulted in Government accumulating a debt of Rs. 26,916 billion (approx. $ 86 billion) by the end of June 2023. We, the citizens, have fiddled while Sri Lanka drowned. The external debt of Rs. 10,955 billion (approx. $ 35 billion), and the domestic debt of Rs. 15,961 billion (approx. $ 51 billion) are the outcomes of our inaction and lethargy in demanding Government accountability. It is its inability to service this debt, particularly the external debt, which compelled Sri Lanka to declare bankruptcy. 

Over and above the shenanigans and the malpractices, which contributed to the massive debt burden, leaders, and State officials, failed to recognise the impact on Sri Lanka’s debt servicing ability when it had to borrow at commercial rates following its upgrade from a low-income country to a middle-income country. When Sri Lanka was a low-income country a large share of the foreign debt came through concessionary funding from multilateral organisations such as the World Bank, Japan International Cooperation Agency, and the Asian Development Bank (ADB). These borrowings were at low interest rates – approximately 1% or less, and enjoyed longer repayment periods ranging from 25 to 40 years. This situation enabled a more relaxed view of the viability of mega projects and debt servicing. 

Irrespective of whether the approvals arose out of blind obeisance, sheer ignorance, lack of skills and knowledge or an intention to defraud, it is abundantly clear that leaders, members of parliament and approving authorities were not commercially savvy and did not have the courage to ask the tough questions. They did not display the probity to distinguish between value accretion and value dilution. The private sector shows little tolerance of those who break the rules or fail to perform. The transgressors are either shown the door or penalised for their failure to meet operating objectives. So, why should we not insist that a similar approach be adopted in Government and in the State sector?

Further, the longer repayment windows assisted in the systematic management of foreign exchange reserves. The commercial loans, mainly, in the form of International Sovereign Bonds (ISBs) carried interest rates of 6% and above and were of shorter durations of repayment, ranging from 5 to 10 years. Based on where we are today, it appears that the various ministers of finance, finance ministry officials, the cabinets, and members of parliament since 2007, being the year when Sri Lankan ISBs were first issued, misread the impacts of the new drivers. Most of them lacked the competence, the skills, and the insights to understand these nuances. They lacked, and still lack, the overall knowledge to ask the right questions from the executive experts. Those who did have the competence decided to stay quiet. Do we, the citizens, wish to prolong our agonies by continuing with our lukewarm response to non-performance at the top? 

A bloated debt, ever increasing utility bills partly arising from inefficiency and wastage, the disproportionate burden of tax on a compliant few, an appalling quality of public health services, pot-holed roads, inefficient public transport, lowered service standards, poor education structures and a dying spirit of entrepreneurship et cetera are the rewards which we have received for our silent acceptance of Government inefficiency and our reluctance in demanding accountability.

As stated at the outset, our vote is our most powerful weapon in electing accountable leaders. Our vote can be used only if there are regular elections. We, the citizens, must, therefore, control our leaders by requiring them to submit to regular and periodic elections in line with the Constitution and in a spirit of democracy. After all, elections are a great platform for the discussion of public issues and for the expression of public opinion. Elections provide political education for citizens and ensure the responsiveness of democratic governments to the will of the people. Elections also reinforce the stability and legitimacy of the political community. 

Voters must note that accountability can be undermined when elected leaders belonging to a party, or a coalition, which is so dominant in parliamentary representation, do not care about their electors till the next election. 

Reasonable balance between government and opposition members

I am a believer in having a reasonable balance between government and opposition members. This promotes natural checks and balances, and robust debate, in making decisions which are in the best interest of the country. We, by our voting actions, must signal to the opposition that it must not oppose simply for the sake of opposing. We must vote for individuals based on their stand on issues. Among the other things we could do in facilitating the demanding of accountability is to make better use of social, television and print media in expressing our views and in understanding the technical issues underlying Government proposals. We must demand our freedom of expression and our right to information. 

Chambers of Commerce, professional bodies and associations, accounting, and technical institutes et cetera can also play a vital role in enhancing a citizen’s knowledge in demanding accountability. These associations can stop being the proxies, or bootlickers, of the government in power and can provide clearly articulated balanced views, i.e., the pros and cons, of a Bill or an Act or a Directive or a Policy before it is debated in Parliament. This will enable the simple Toms, the Dicks, and the Harrys to convey their personal positions to their members of parliament and/or provincial leaders. In this way, citizens will be better armed to demand accountability. 

While the past is behind us, the future beckons. We must adopt a different approach if we are to alter the course of our destiny and prevent a recurrence of the past. Democracies work best when the citizens of a nation hold their government accountable. As John Locke, the influential English political philosopher stated, “In democracies, the people must take responsibility for their government, its actions, and its laws, because it is they, the people, who brought the political leaders into power.” A legitimate political Government is the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the Government in exchange for a stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. Therefore, governments exist by the consent of the people. Taking the argument further, governments which do not protect the rights of the people and fail to promote public good must be resisted and replaced with a new government.

Quoting Dr. Idah Pswarayi-Riddihough, World Bank Country Director for Sri Lanka and the Maldives, “Let us start with the what. What does good governance require? It requires credible and trustworthy institutions built on principles of transparency and accountability. Accountability goes beyond the mere responsibility of delivery of a task or service. It also means answerability if a service is not delivered in a timely and efficient manner such that it becomes a burden. It is the citizens right but also their duty to demand it.”

Yes – if we must demand accountability in setting a benchmark to sentence the guilty. 

(The writer is a Leadership Coach, Mentor and Consultant and boasts over 50 years of 

experience in very senior positions in the 

corporate world – local and overseas. www.ronniepeiris.com.)