Even though many had high hopes about the Government’s determined plans to strengthen social welfare schemes in response to the ongoing economic crisis, the implementation of the newly-introduced Aswesuma welfare scheme has thus far been a damp squib. With emerging allegations of irregularities in the implementation of the scheme, especially in the selection of eligible beneficiaries, many express fears as to whether this scheme’s objectives would be defeated by favouritism supported by the influence of powerful figures including politicians.

During the past few weeks, political figures of both the Opposition and the ruling parties as well as the people, especially self-proclaimed rightful beneficiaries of this scheme, came forth, claiming that the scheme’s selection process is seriously biased and flawed. Their main argument was that the selection process had left out those who actually deserve the benefits of this scheme and had included well-off families in the scheme. The overall number of beneficiaries that are to benefit through this scheme is also a pressing concern, as there are allegations that the scheme is not capable of supporting impoverished families to a considerable extent.

What all those who are pressing the Government, including its own members, are demanding is that this scheme be streamlined and be implemented only based on factual, scientific factors relating to potential beneficiaries’ financial and income related situation. That is exactly what the Government should do, even if it had to provisionally halt the implementation of this scheme. In fact, the exact criteria employed to determine who should benefit through this scheme is not yet clear to the people, and it being at the centre of the selection process, it is vital to be more open and clear about it. In addition to it, how the selection process takes place, who takes decisions based on whose inputs, and what the applicable limitations and conditions are, should be information that is available to the people.

At the same time, given the fact that the Government cannot support each and every person that meets the eligibility criteria due to limited resources, in order to alleviate the tensions among those who have been selected as beneficiaries and those who have not, the Government should shed some light on how this scheme chooses one eligible beneficiary over another. The Government should be transparent about this as well, and explain the criteria applicable to this process and the decision-makers’ decisions. Without such clarity, it will be impossible to make this scheme a success, because, as long as there are disparities that the people do not understand, there will be disputes about this scheme’s selection process and its impartiality.

Another way of supporting the people, especially in a context where they have come forward with a multitude of complaints and grievances, is by making the necessary arrangements for them to convey their concerns to the relevant authorities in an organised manner. This would allow those complaints to be evaluated methodically, and the people to deal with the issue in a more effective manner that goes beyond protesting. The investigations relating to complaints need to be handled by a dedicated entity in order to ensure transparency.

We cannot ignore the practical aspects of all the abovementioned steps, as Sri Lanka has a reputation for having good plans that result in no progressive outcomes owing to poor implementation. Not only in this scheme, favouritism, political influences and unscientific decisions are rampant in various Government-led programmes, and such have been reported even in social welfare schemes such as the Samurdhi scheme. In this context, the Government should understand that the efforts that should come from it should focus not only on the proper implementation of this scheme, but also on rebuilding the trust of the people mired in the economic crisis.