• Economists, MPs, and public servants note the need for reforms to law and political culture to prevent wastage and corruption

BY Sumudu Chamara   Despite promises by successive governments to make scientific appointments of Ministers and Ministries, in Sri Lanka, subjects and institutions assigned to ministries are subjected to change constantly, and in many cases, are unrelated. In a context where this has considerably increased the time and cost of the Ministries’ operations, in the ongoing discussions regarding Ministers’ qualifications and the high number of Ministries, this aspect should also receive attention.  This situation and the types of change necessary to address it were discussed during an online discussion titled “Is it possible to maintain an illogical Cabinet of Ministers anymore?” organised by the National Movement for Social Justice (NMSJ). It was attended by Verité Research Executive Director Dr. Nishan de Mel, Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) Opposition MP Ajith P. Perera, and former Ministry Secretary Sunil Hettiarachchi – all of whom noted that urgent steps, including Constitutional Amendments and changes to Sri Lanka’s political culture, are necessary in this regard.   Politicised ministerial appointment process    During the discussion, Perera described the role of political agendas in appointing ministers and deciding on institutions or subjects that come under ministries. He stressed that this process, in most cases, is highly politicised, and that Sri Lanka’s existing political culture allows for and supports this practice. “No political party can form a government by itself. Most often, a government is formed through alliances between political parties. In such a context, political parties enter into agreements regarding how many ministerial posts should be granted to each political party that forms the alliance – this is a very detrimental situation.” He added that in this process, those who take such decisions disregard the qualifications of those receiving ministerial posts and their relative fields of expertise, and instead, focus on the number of ministerial posts that are granted in proportion to the support that political parties have extended. He added that sometimes, there are even signed agreements between political parties in an alliance as to how many such posts are granted to each of them. Perera further pointed out that in the past, certain public institutions were weakened after they were brought under ministries that were unrelated to the subjects of those institutions. According to him, this is a result of the highly politicised nature of the process of structuring ministries and appointing ministers. “It is not practical to list all State institutions under various ministries, because the nature of those institutions and ministries change. However, it is possible to mention a specific number of Cabinet ministerial portfolios, and also that related subjects should come under one ministry; an example being the subjects of power, renewable energy, cooking gas, and petroleum coming under one ministry. If you look at the education sector, there are several education-related ministers for primary, secondary, and higher education, and even a different State Minister for Piriven Education.  “These types of appointments are intended to give certain privileges to various persons. There should be some sort of proper structure for this process. Those who have power allocate institutions to ministries that are unrelated to the subjects of those institutions when the operations of those institutions involve huge monetary transactions. These are examples of corrupt governance.” “The increasing number of ministerial posts is also a concern,” Perera said, adding that the changes that the country needs in this regard include limiting the number of Cabinet ministerial portfolios, and the removal of the allowance granted through the Constitution to appoint more ministers than the stipulated number in the event of the formation of a National Government. He further said that through a future Constitutional Amendment, the functions of a non-Cabinet Minister should be specified. He added that in India, there are even prominent ministerial portfolios that exist as non-Cabinet Ministerial portfolios. He referred to this as the “Indian example”, and added that India’s governance system gives even non-Cabinet Ministers certain recognition and important responsibilities.   With regard to Sri Lanka’s Cabinet, Perera said: “The Cabinet should be shrunk down, and non-Cabinet ministers should be given opportunities. I have a question as to the use of State ministerial portfolios – I think that they are akin to deputy ministerial portfolios. A country should have Cabinet ministers, deputy ministers, and non-Cabinet ministers with full powers to perform their duties if it is necessary to go beyond the specified number of Cabinet ministers for special purposes. However, the procedure necessary for non-Cabinet ministers to present their Cabinet papers and express opinions to the Cabinet should be introduced through a Constitutional Amendment.”   Public officials’ roles and responsibilities   Meanwhile, Hettiarachchi, as a former public official, pointed out how the illogical appointment of Ministers affects the fulfilment of the duties of ministries and public officials. He said that even if ministerial portfolios were illogical, public officials still have to connect with ministers and work with Cabinet to implement Cabinet decisions and perform co-ordination-related aspects pertaining to the Cabinet’s policy decisions. “I think that as public officials, we have very little opportunity to intervene in the manner in which the Cabinet is appointed. The most important matter when appointing ministers is the number of ministries and the subjects assigned to the ministries. Due to this situation, there are difficulties in focusing on the relevant subjects, which is the main issue faced by public officials today.  “At the same time, the appointment of more ministries causes cost allocation-related issues. The lack of co-ordination and the fragmentation of ministerial subjects affect the fulfilment of duties and the State institutions under these ministries. This situation also affects the efficiency of the implementation of policies and accountability for the country.  “Although within the democratic framework, a Cabinet should exist, the country has to pay attention to avoiding the illogical nature pertaining to the composition and size of the Cabinet. Even with the existence of an illogical Cabinet, it is more important to ensure efficiency and accountability when performing duties.” Hettiarachchi opined that the result of the said situation is that the country is at a point where it questions whether it needs the public service. He explained: “The Constitution says that a secretary to a ministry should perform their duties in accordance with the advice and guidance of the relevant minister, which means that the secretary and the other staff members have to work on the basis of the minister’s conduct.  “In such a context, issues are likely to arise with regard to the country’s development, the flow of funds, and accountability. A proper framework for the appointment of ministers is therefore important.”   Logical nature of appointing ministers   Meanwhile, Dr. de Mel opined that the motives underlying the formation or dissolution of a Cabinet is one of the main concerns in this discussion. He added that the logical nature or the illogical nature of these appointments depends on whose perspective is taken into account, because although ministerial appointments may be illogical for the people, they may be logical for the politicians whose political objectives have a lot to do with them. He explained that when deciding on ministries in Sri Lanka, usually, two types of factors are taken into account, i.e. factors pertaining to political needs and objectives, and factors pertaining to economic and social needs and efficiency. “Today, political needs have become the priority, while attention towards the country‘s development and future growth has significantly reduced. This is not a newly discovered fact. Reports dating back to 1998 have said that an issue has arisen in the country due to the increase of ministries. This is a structural issue. The country has appointed and changed ministers in a way that makes it impossible for the Government to function in a structured manner. This is a threat to the country’s existence. The three main areas where there are issues in this regard are the increase in the number of Cabinet ministries, the frequent changing of Cabinet ministries, and the lack of a scientific or logical foundation on which the ministries are appointed.” He explained that the lack of logic or science can mean both separating related subjects – for example, school education, vocational education, and higher education – and combining unrelated subjects – for example, sports, foreign employment, and telecommunication. The reason in most cases, he said, is that ministerial subjects are decided based on the personal interests of ministers, and not based on the country’s interests. The consequences of such decisions include increased delays, increased costs, decreased accountability, and above all, constant changes to ministerial subjects, which result in a lack of accountability in continuing policies and other related decisions taken by ministries that affect the country negatively, according to Dr. de Mel. Constant changes to ministerial subjects and institutions, he said, could be viewed as arbitrary decisions taken by the country’s administration. He noted: “What should actually happen is that we should determine legally as to how many ministries are needed to run the country successfully. We should also look into the laws and institutions that are necessary for those ministries to function properly, and establish stability in these ministries.” According to statistics that were presented during Dr. de Mel’s speech, several Cabinet ministers that were appointed since 2014 saw highly fragmented, unrelated subjects coming under their purview. He pointed out that during the 2010-2014 period, the Cabinet was changed on 11 occasions, and that during the 2015-2019 period, the same was the case on 32 occasions. In addition, since 2010, Ministry subjects have been changed on 81 occasions – nine times during former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s tenure, 28 times during former President Maithripala Sirisena’s tenure, and 44 times during former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s tenure up to 2021.  “In a context where the structural centre that exists to govern the country – i.e. Cabinet – is being subjected to such massive changes, it is no wonder that the country is in a difficult situation. These are changes that are unrealistic, unnecessary, and detrimental to governance,” Dr. de Mel stressed, adding that constantly changing the ministries under which certain subjects are managed is harmful to the country, and negatively affects the Government’s management of those subjects.