“Public service became the ground for the political spoils and efforts were made to politicise the public service by granting full political rights to all public servants. They could now be mobilised for support of the election campaign of the politician. Some were enlisted as party members and even chosen as candidates. Their service conditions were safeguarded since they could come back to the service if they were defeated.”______________________________
by R. M. B. Senanayake
(April 08, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The 17th Amendment to the Constitution, which was passed last week, is not a satisfactory solution to the problem of patronage in appointments to the public service. Whether it would lead to any improvement in the present situation is doubtful. Self-interested behaviour by ruling politicians has increased enormously since 1956.
In the beginning it was only a trickle but now it is a stream of corruption and abuse of power. Why and how did this situation arise? Not because of the open economy as some say. But rather because the checks and balances and structures introduced at the time of Independence under the Soulbury Constitution were done away with.
The earlier institutional constraints on selfish opportunistic behaviour of ruling politicians were buttressed by a politically neutral public service, which acted fairly and without discrimination on grounds of party affiliation, without discriminating in favour of the ruling party supporters. The public servant stood apart from the politician at arms length. The public servants who conducted the elections displayed commendable fairness and maintained the integrity of the process according to the provisions of the law.
But the politicians railed against the public service raising various battle cries like the allegation against the former Civil Service that it was a Brahmin caste and that the higher administrative posts should be thrown open to everyone. They accused the public servants of being an obstacle to development. These were all self-serving allegations made with a view to grabbing absolute power to the Ministers. So the politicians dismantled those structures that ensured independence and fair play in the conduct of public business.
Public service became the ground for the political spoils and efforts were made to politicise the public service by granting full political rights to all public servants. They could now be mobilised for support of the election campaign of the politician. Some were enlisted as party members and even chosen as candidates. Their service conditions were safeguarded since they could come back to the service if they were defeated. With such institutional safeguards disappearing the stage was set for one-party government, which would turn out to be a tyranny.
The only check on the behaviour of individual politician is now his own conscience if he had one. Has the 17th Amendment made any worthwhile change? The composition of the Constitutional Council is certainly a blunder as pointed out by the Sihala Urumaya. If three members are to represent the ethnic minorities who will represent the majority race they ask rightly. We are no doubt a plural society. The central question for such a society is who takes care of the common good. The common good cannot be left to emerge from the clash of conflicting interests. There is no invisible hand here.
A pluralist group whether based on ethnicity, religion or even some cause like that of environmental protectionists, is concerned with a single cause only. Its strength lies not in numbers but in the singleness of purpose. What is needed in a body like the Constitutional council is an ethos where they act in the common good, not the interests of any ethnic group be it a majority or a minority. That is why such institutions have to be outside the political process in order to perform for the common good.
Of course there will be those who say that the public service should be under the control of the political Executive to enable them to implement their policies. But there are also other values like the need for a meritocracy in a plural society, a feature that was grasped by Lee Kuan Yew learning from the Sri Lankan failures after 1956. Since 1972 the political Executive had untrammelled power over the public service and what effective executive action has resulted except to create anarchy.
- Sri Lanka Guardian
Post a Comment