Playing politics with perks and privileges of politicians

The financial and non-financial benefits afforded to politicians, both retired and active, have been a huge talking point coinciding with the Aragalaya movement. The JVP/NPP politicians for ages have been driving the narrative that a substantial amount of taxpayers’ money is spent on maintaining the lifestyles of ministers and MPs and the taxes levied on essentials can be brought down or removed altogether if such entitlements are done away with.

The NPP during the election period vowed to abolish the pensions of former MPs and take over the official residences of ex presidents in addition to getting rid of many other perks of the political class. The ruling political outfit has been able to cultivate feelings of severe anger in the minds of commoners towards the entitlements given to politicians by virtue of their designations.

The notion that a substantial amount of money can be saved by removing the benefits of MPs and former presidents is nothing but a flawed viewpoint. To provide more clarity into the matter, the total Government expenditure and net lending in 2023 was about Rs. 5,357 billion. What is the percentage of Government expenditure that can be saved by abolishing the emoluments and other material benefits to the political class? Does it account for a sizeable portion? In 2023, only Rs. 92.2 million was allocated for former Presidents and their spouses.

No doubt, there needs to be a limit and control with regard to the benefits offered to public representatives. However, it is patently clear that a substantial saving of public funds cannot be realised by limiting the perks of the political class as incorrectly pointed out by various pundits and analysts. 

Meanwhile, the retirement benefits of former presidents have become the subject of public discussion in the aftermath of the recent public speeches of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake. Granting facilities and financial assistance to former presidents and premiers is observed worldwide. In the US, former presidents are provided with a wide range of comforts from taxpayers’ money, including a pension as well as allowances for office space, equipment, staff, travel, entertainment and supplies. Further, all former American presidents and their spouses get lifetime Secret Service protection unless they decline.

Even in India, outgoing presidents and premiers are offered a host of benefits such as rent-free accommodation, a monthly pension, a secretarial staff, free highest-class travel by rail or air. Likewise, in Sri Lanka too, the 1986 Presidents’ Entitlements Act provides for a former President to be granted a rent-free place of residence, a monthly secretarial allowance, transport facilities, and a monthly pension including for the widow/widower in the event of a former President’s demise.

Interestingly, although the JVP/NPP politicians are synonymous for their profound opposition to the extensive benefits offered to political representatives, they too have obtained privileges from the same schemes they criticise. Despite severely moaning about the pensions of former MPs, many of the current NPP MPs received pensions from 2020 to 2024 when their party had only three parliamentary seats. This raises doubts about the genuineness of their antagonism towards politicians enjoying comfortable lifestyles at the expense of taxpayers.

Adding to the irony, as per the recent guidelines issued by Secretary to the President, the package of resources and financial offerings Ministers and Deputy Ministers can access represents an increase compared to the facilities given by the Wickremesinghe administration. Earlier a minister in Western Province was entitled for a fuel quota of 500 litres of diesel and 600 litres of petrol. But under the current framework, every minister is entitled for a fuel quota of 900 litres of both petrol and diesel irrespective of their provinces.

The extent to which politicians should be looked after through retirement benefits and other resources is a worthwhile discussion. But using such perks and privileges as a tool to drive baseless arguments and mislead the general public to achieve narrow political gains needs to be countered.