Bureaucratic blunders

I refer to the statement by State Minister Range Bandara under title “Government Officers shouldn’t fear to perform duties.”

He cited the imprisonment of Lalith Weeratunga and Anusah Pelpita. The issue however is quite different to what underlies his thinking. It is the interference by the MPs that has brought on the current situation where the public servants are waiting for political guidance before doing their duties. The MPs were elected as legislators never mind if they lacked the academic knowledge or background to do so. They were also expected to hold the Executive to accountability for good governance through the Legislature.

This was to be done through asking questions in Parliament including the criticism of the working of departments. But they were not to intervene directly in decision making of the departments. Their role and functions were a post- event examination and review of the actions of the executive arm of the government which included both the bureaucracy as well as the Ministers. But the Ministers were expected to take the responsibility for any faults or mistakes of the bureaucracy.

In 1956 we had the so-called Peoples Government or “Ape AAnduwa” where the newly elected SLFP MPs decided to directly intervene in the decision making process of the Administration in the name of the people and transformed the institution of a politically neutral administrative system to a politically driven public administration to favour themselves as the party which had obtained government power and represented the people.

Where previously the officials took no account of the political affiliation of the citizens in dispensing their services to the people and treated all the people equally irrespective of their political party affiliation; they were now called upon to show favour to those of the ruling political party and even discriminate against those who belong to or support the Opposition political parties.

Socialist Parties

This was the pattern in the Communist countries where the Communist Party became the monopoly political party. The Socialist Parties had however criticized the Communist Party monopoly on power and stood for a multi-party democracy. They recognized the importance of a politically neutral bureaucracy which was a feature of a liberal democracy as against the so-called mass democracy of the Communists where the Communist Party alone considered itself as the sole representative of the people and wanted to accord to the Party a special position and receive the favour of the Public Administrative Machinery.

So MPs visited government offices and demanded action on issues which were often controversial from the point of the public interest which alone should prevail. Other political parties were tolerated if they were minor parties but relegated to an insignificant role. Some were even subject to adverse discrimination as supposedly representing only the Capitalists.

But democracy continued to prevail and the Communists failed to gain power despite their volatile rhetoric against the so-called Capitalists except on the back of the Russian military as in Eastern Europe.

If we want to restore governance on a non-political basis which alone is conducive to good governance (the requirements for good governance are different from those for mass democracy under a single political party and this was recognized even by the Communist Party when they got power) then we need to allow for multi-party democracy.

Multi-party democracy

Here the bureaucracy has a key role to play to maintain multi-party democracy by not favouring the ruling political party at the expense of their opponents. The bureaucracy, must be politically neutral to maintain multi-party democracy. But the Communists refused to accept that the bureaucracy can ever be politically neutral. So they believed in a politically committed bureaucracy committed to Communism to satisfy their requirement for power. So they went for a party appointed bureaucracy.

But there are also certain essential requirements for the bureaucracy to deliver good governance and these include non-interference in their decision-making process by politicians. Decisions must be made on rational grounds free from political and other partisan considerations if all the people are to receive equal treatment. This is very necessary in a plural society. The decision makers in the bureaucracy must be free to make honest decisions in the public interest instead of the partisan political party interest. But the bureaucracy then needs to be protected from politicians whom they may antagonize when they seek favours and are refused by honest public officials acting in the general public interest.

So the issue of Lalith Weeratunga and party must be viewed in this light. It may be necessary to say “no” and incur the displeasure of the rulers and face even hardship. So their penalization reinforces the democratic requirement for government officials to act impartially and not get involved in promoting the governing political party. It is not easy to maintain an independent position since 1956 and particularly when dealing with the SLFP and its affiliates of the Left. I think a law is necessary debarring MPs from directly intervening in the work of the administration and to confine their responsibility to hold the Executive and the bureaucracy to account only through the Parliament.