This week, Sri Lankan policy makers will vote on the much-talked about agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). There will undoubtedly be debates surrounding the austerity measures and reforms the agreement proposes. However, the Government appears to have taken an uncompromising stance to go ahead with all terms and conditions of the agreement, while the Parliamentary Opposition remains sceptical and critical about a range of socio-economic changes and challenges that result from the agreement.

However, now that the country has signed the agreement after finding itself in a situation where it had to seek the IMF’s assistance for the 17th time, all discussions surrounding the agreement should be about how to not fail this time. Sri Lanka’s success, or whether the decision to enter into this agreement is a wise one, depends largely on how Sri Lanka utilises the support it gets from the IMF.

This is a responsibility that lies with the country’s political authority. Sri Lanka needs to regain the trust of the international community, its creditors and possible investors. To do so, it needs both political consensus, bipartisan support for the terms of the agreement and discipline to follow through with the plan. Party-based divisions and decisions should have no room at this critical juncture. Understanding the simple fact that it is too late to re-engage on the country’s deal with the IMF, when the Parliamentary debate on the IMF agreement takes place, policymakers must prioritise their primary role, i.e. representing the public best interest. As such unity in support of the agreement, and finding ways to overcome any issues the agreement may have, will be a signal to the world that Sri Lanka has leant from its mistakes. The Parliament should endorse the agreement with strong bipartisan support. This is needed, because Sri Lanka is trying to regain stability and move towards economic recovery after an unprecedented economic crisis.

Further the political authority has a moral obligation to support and wisely utilise the IMF’s assistance, because the country found itself in this economic crisis due largely to policy inconsistencies, short-sighted, unscientific decisions, corruption and politicisation of national goals and development. Poor policy making and policy inconsistency were clearly seen in the cases of the light rail transit (LRT) project which was cancelled under questionable circumstances, and the about-turn with the Colombo Port Eastern Container Terminal deal with Japan and India which Sri Lanka cancelled. Another example is Sri Lanka’s energy security crisis, which would not have happened if decisions were not politicised and the early absorption of renewable energy was carried out. However, plans for renewable energy are still going ahead at a snail’s pace and in a questionable manner. Prolonged inaction on several internal issues, especially on loss-making State-owned enterprises and debt servicing, are also major factors behind Sri Lanka’s plight.

The policy makers across the political divide should understand that this is an opportunity for Sri Lanka to show domestic political stability by endorsing the IMF agreement, which will send a positive message to the international community, creditors and also potential investors that Sri Lanka is dealing with the factors that created an economic crisis by ensuring policy consistency, curtailing corruption and other inadequacies and by fulfilling its obligations to the IMF.

The reforms that come as a part of the IMF agreement are in fact reforms the country should have implemented a long ago by itself. They are painful, but at present unavoidable. Therefore, it is the duty of the Government and all political parties to work together to reduce unnecessary and wasteful State expenditure, and improve the social safety net for the vulnerable communities who have been affected severely by the crisis. It is this political discipline which is geared for the benefit of the citizenry that can only revive the economy, but also mitigate the brain drain, which undoubtedly will create more problems in the future.

This is not a time for a political tug-of-war, but an opportunity to find common ground and build consensus about the future direction of Sri Lanka. The political leaders have an opportunity to behave as national leaders, by comprehending the gravity of the crisis it created, and understanding that this is an opportunity to take the IMF assistance seriously to correct our systems and institutions, so that our future generations will not need to seek another bailout.