brand logo

Collective responsibility, national liability

05 Jan 2022

The spate of removals of public officials Sri Lanka saw during the past few months has now reached a new, different level, and politicians, although seen as untouchable, are not really safe. On 4 January, senior politician Susil Premajayantha was sacked from his position as Education Reforms, Open Universities, and Distance Learning Promotion State Minister, allegedly due to certain comments he had made against the Government’s policies and certain members of the Government. As always, the Government justified this decision, claiming that it had to protect its unity, and that no member of the Government should pose a threat to that unity. Dissent from the public, Opposition politicians, and even from members of the Government is not new, and what Premajayantha is said to have stated against the Government is also not new. What is new is that the Government, which took less stringent approaches when certain other members of the Government did the same, including when three ministers challenged a Cabinet of Ministers decision openly in court, has selectively taken action against one member who expressed only verbal, and not legal, opposition. Premajayantha’s removal is not actually a matter of how valuable Premajayantha was to the Government or about whether he was a clean or principled politician; it is a matter of how the Government thinks about how different or opposing opinions need to be addressed.  It is high time for the Government to come to terms with the fact that it is not as popular or powerful as it was two years ago. The incompetence the Government continues to show contrary to the faith the public placed in it, especially in the President, has cost it its role as a saviour of the nation. Today, not only the public, but also senior members of the Government and also members of pro-Government political parties are questioning the Government’s role and performance. However, the Government seems to have not understood this reality. It appears to be under the impression that it can silence many dissenting voices by taking stern action against a handful, and that by taking action against a few selected, dispensable members of the Government, it can keep indispensable members under control.  Had Premajayantha’s removal taken place two years ago, perhaps, the said approach could have worked, because everybody wanted to be in the Government. However, these attempts at this stage to keep the Government in one piece are more likely to result in exactly the opposite, because certain members of the Government are reportedly closer to the Opposition parties than they were before. Speculation is rife that talks are in progress between certain members of the Government and Opposition parties, and similar rumours have been spread about Premajayantha as well. Even though the objectives of these discussions remain unclear, certain members of the Opposition have openly invited the Government to launch joint initiatives to deal with the economic collapse. In this context, harsh actions to retain members of the Government within the Government-imposed limits, may actually result in them wanting to break away from the Government, or worse, work against the Government while continuing to be in it. One of the quite obvious facts the Government has not realised yet is that attempts to curtail criticism or dissent often result in more criticism and dissent. In that sense, the Government is acting extremely childishly, as it seems to be thinking that keeping a few members of the Government on a tight leash by taking disciplinary actions against them and giving them warnings is a solution to the country’s deteriorating situation.  How many politicians or public officials need to be sacked to prove the Government’s power and uphold its collective responsibility at the expense of the conscience of such individuals? How many people will be harassed for expressing their disapproval of the Government? These are questions the Government must answer. Even if it could silence those under its direct control, how can a Government silence an entire nation? Amidst the economic crisis that began a few months ago, the public saw the vast difference between promises and action, and therefore, the real dissent the Government should fear comes from the public and it cannot be silenced by harsh actions against a few. Perhaps the Government must accept the obvious – silencing anyone is not going to change what caused dissent in the first place, and trying to do so is tantamount to another massive failure on the part of the Government.


More News..