Columns

Those who followed the intense campaigns ahead of the two elections in 2015 to oust Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government from power will probably recall the promises made with gay abandon by those who sought change.

Those who really believed the promised changes would come and clean government installed, must surely be wondering now whatever happened to the good governance that was to replace the autocratic regime of Rajapaksa with the attendant ills of nepotism, cronyism and clannishness that characterised it.
Among the plethora of pledges that was to turn Sri Lanka into a real wonder of Asia instead of a fake was the promise to make meritocracy the guiding principle in appointments to the public service and other state institutions.

It might be recalled how often Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe underlined the importance of meritocracy in the selection of officials to keep the mills of administration functioning efficiently and effectively.

One of the state institutions that suffered from nepotism and cronyism over the years was the Ministry of Foreign Affairs mandated to run the country’s diplomatic service. Career diplomats who had entered the service after passing relevant examinations and worked to acquire higher educational qualifications and language skills often found themselves shunted aside.

Instead relatives, friends and political supporters with few, if any, qualifications and even less understanding of diplomacy and the country’s foreign policy were planted in important diplomatic positions that should really have gone to persons who had worked their way up in the service and some due to retire shortly.
This is not to say that all career service officials make capable diplomats or that all political appointees were rotten to the core and an unbearable burden on the country. There were those who made demands, which were often readily granted by the ministry because of their political or family connections.

Shortly after the January presidential election the newly elected foreign minister Mangala Samaraweera ordered the recall of political appointees functioning as heads of missions and later recalled other political appointees in lesser diplomatic posts. Many believed that at last meritocracy would prevail and many of the career officers who had been sidelined to make way in our missions abroad for the ‘Chosen Ones’ would now regain lost opportunities.

Lakshman Kadirgamar as foreign minister worked out a ratio system whereby career officers fill 70 % of the top posts and 30% would be filled by non-career persons, generally nominees of ministers or others politically connected. It was thought that Samaraweera would wipe the slate clean and appoint professionally competent and qualified career officers languishing in Colombo to most of the posts vacated by those who were recalled at his behest.

If it was thought that the diplomatic service would be transmogrified into an efficient and professional service run by intelligent and capable officers such hopes were quickly shattered. Meritocracy was ditched even before it was tested. One set of unqualified individuals enjoying a happy life abroad at state expense was replaced by another set of generally lacklustre individuals. The story goes that some of them hardly knew what diplomacy meant, that several knew little or nothing of world affairs.

Some wag said that some of the newly appointed had to consult a world map to find out where they were going to spend the next couple of years.
It is well known that some career officers played footsie with politicians or with the politically-anointed heading diplomatic missions and benefitted hugely from such relationships.

Cut-throatism is not uncommon at the foreign ministry or in missions abroad where some career officers have tried to undermine their own colleagues to gain favours or to discredit their colleagues with false stories planted in dubious websites as happened about three years ago.

But by and large career officers have added professional competence to the missions they worked in especially when politically appointed ambassadors and high commissioners have had little or no understanding of their roles or lack the competence and the intellectual vigour to make competent diplomats.

Even a cursory look at our diplomatic lists today will show that the Kadirgamar formula which was intended to be fair by career officers without closing the door entirely to political appointees, has been stood on its head. My own inquiries show that of the 66 diplomatic missions Sri Lanka maintains 34 are currently headed by political appointees as ambassadors, high commissioners or other grades. Only 30 missions have career officers at the head. Two of the missions were still vacant one month ago.

The last career officer appointed as head of mission was A.L. Ratnapala who was made ambassador to Cuba. Since that appointment on January 1 this year, seven political nominees have been made ambassadors or high commissioners. Right now we have no ambassador in Washington, an important mission for Sri Lanka. It will come as no surprise if another politically-chosen individual is sent there now that Prasad Kariyawasam has returned to Colombo to head the foreign ministry.
While the public would be aware of the names of some of our heads of missions what is not generally known is the extent to which the government has intervened to fill lesser posts in our missions abroad.

My inquiries have elicited the information that since the yahapalanaya government assumed office 195 others have been posted to the 66 missions we maintain. While public attention has generally focused on the appointment of ambassadors and high commissioners little attention has been paid to the goings on at the foreign ministry and our diplomatic missions. This is mainly because unlike in most other ministries diplomatic activity does not impact on the daily lives of the people.

That is all the more reason why it is necessary for the media to delve into the activities of the ministry and the functioning of our foreign missions. My inquiries into these activities over the last three years or so have unearthed some interesting data and information that are hidden from public view, all of which cannot be revealed here for lack of space. For instance the foreign ministry has a transfer board that ostensibly decides on which officers should be sent to missions abroad and related matters. This board was reconstituted recently. The irony is that a recent appointee to the board, back from a foreign posting a couple of months ago, is one who had regularly violated accepted norms relating to transfers by seeking and receiving extensions of service thereby denying the opportunity of an assignment abroad for colleagues who are due for overseas postings.

While the usual period of service for a career officer at the same post is three years, this individual had got himself several extensions allowing him to spend five years at the same post. He might have stayed a year or two longer had the request for another extension been granted. Questions are now being asked how an officer who had scant regard for ministry norms and deliberately flouted them to further his own career at the expense of others could be appointed to a committee that is intended to deal fairly and equitably with transfers and postings. In the corridors of the foreign ministry questions are being asked these days about the wisdom of the official who nominated him to the board for such wanton actions only diminish any faith others have in the ministry and its higher echelons.

Talking of wisdom, it surely escapes understanding how at a time when European politics is undergoing significant changes and the UK is negotiating the pull-out from the European Union, whose idea it was to post three political appointees to the three most important capitals in Europe – Berlin, Paris and London. Maybe some diplomatic panjandrum could explain whether it is the practice to appoint a foreign citizen as the confidential secretary to a head of mission. As the designation indicates a confidential secretary would handle confidential documents and correspondence some of which could be vital to Sri Lanka.In this case it would be mainly correspondence between the foreign ministry and the high commissioner to which a foreign national would be privy including confidential circulars and instructions from the ministry. How was this high commission allowed to recruit a young individual without much experience and most of all a British citizen to the post of confidential secretary? And why is her full family name not disclosed in messages she sends out? Who in the foreign ministry or elsewhere approved such an appointment? It will surprise no one here if another such appointment is made soon. The usual practice as far I remember was for secretaries or PAs to heads of missions to be sent from Colombo or cross posted from another mission because of the confidential nature of the work.

Apart from this being a safety measure it also provided an opportunity for home based individuals to get a posting abroad. Now the resort to recruiting foreign nationals from the country of posting results in home based staff being denied serving overseas. Career officers lament that if they are posted as heads of missions it is to less important capitals while the political appointees secure the plums of office. But when there is an opportunity to post administrative officers and secretaries abroad, the ministry succumbs to pressure and opts for a foreign national who has little or no loyalty to Sri Lanka. What is the rationale for allowing foreign citizens ‘entre’ to confidential material without posting from Colombo reliable Sri Lankans with attachment to their country?