As Sri Lanka passes mid-point of 2024, focus is shifting from reform to political survival. However, the island cannot afford to take its foot off the pedal on state sector reforms, especially those that impact archiving better governance. Many are of the view that poor governance was at the heart of Sri Lanka’s economic crisis. One of the key areas which need improvement is transparency.  

Transparency is important to improve accountability and prevent corruption and as such, is part and parcel of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) programme Sri Lanka is part of. Sri Lanka is also the first Asian country to have had an IMF-led Governance Diagnostic Assessment as part of the assistance programme. The ongoing reforms process is a hard one, and as such is deeply unpopular. Sri Lanka has taken difficult measures to put the country on a long-term sustainable footing and comply with the IMF commitments.  The public can only comply with regulations and procedures that they can understand. Sri Lankans deserve and demand openness, transparency, and accountability from their leaders as the reforms process moves forward.

Despite this, there seems to be little political will to improve transparency. Firstly, there is a need for improved fiscal transparency. Sri Lanka has a long road ahead for economic recovery. As of earlier this year, public debt was at approximately 130% of GDP and according to the IMF targets, it is to be brought down to 95 percent by 2032. The challenge remains revenue collection and Sri Lanka has a formidable task ahead on this front. Fiscal transparency, accountability, and implementation are key.

Another side of the issue is that there is little or no transparency about the bureaucracy and lawmakers we vote into office. Sri Lankans have collectively failed to shine a light on those who we vote for, over decades. For several years, Sri Lankan have tried to obtain asset and liability declarations of current MPs. However, there has been multiple bottlenecks and passing the buck, when it comes to implementing such transparency initiatives. It seems that there is an efficient mechanism in place to prevent information about such matters from coming to light.

The issue of asset declaration of Members of Parliament (MPs) is a test case which highlights the entrenched imperviousness of Sri Lanka’s governance when it comes to acceptability. While there is a mandate that requires lawmakers to disclose their assets, access to these declarations are often stonewalled and shrouded in secrecy. A number of requests under the Right to Information (RTI) Act for the disclosure of MPs’ asset declarations have been met with resistance and legal smokescreen. The reluctance of the Parliament and other governmental bodies to release such vital information scuttles efforts to promote transparency in Sri Lanka. If the highest forum of legislation acts in such a despicable manner when it comes to transparency and accountability, what more can one expect from other state institutions on good governance? Even when legal action results in judicial directives such as the Court of Appeals instruction to disclose assets declaration of MPs, there are delays and the state institutions seem to be dragging their feet. Such delays and efforts to not release the information is indicative that Sri Lanka’s political class is not willing to act on transparency, and as such, will muddle the water on accountability in the process.   

This reluctance, and at times, the deliberate action to deny access to such information, which is vital for transparency in governance, not only nurtures the long entrenched culture of impunity but also erodes what little public trust there is in the Government. The same can be said about state officials, they too are reluctant to disclose their assets, raising questions about accountability of public officials and their commitment to serving the public interest.

Another clear example of this culture of impunity and lack of transparency came to light with the issue of citizenship of the former State Minister Diana Gamage. Even post the Supreme Court ruling, it seems the law enforcement and immigration regulatory bodies are still slow to act on this matter. If a foreign national can enter the Sri Lankan Parliament through fraudulent means and hold office as a State Minister, what national security or national interest has been protected by the state?

As such, it is now incumbent on the public, to ensure that transparency and accountability mechanism become a key political topic and an election issue, it may be the only way to keep enough public pressure on the political class of Sri Lanka to introduce such legislation, put in place the mechanisms and enact the changes we need. If not, good governance may once again be but a footnote in an agreement, or a political promise on the election stage. The public must keep putting pressure for results.