Columns

The 75th anniversary of the country obtaining freedom from colonial rule has evoked mixed responses from the citizenry. Some give their verdict based on a reading of the score card of achievements and failures of the 75 years.

Others like the poor and vulnerable, who are bogged down with the current day to day struggles of eking out an existence, resulting from the economic downturn, would conclude that the post-Independence period has been an unmitigated disaster. 

It would be left to researchers to do a detailed evaluation of the achievements and failures of 75 years of post-Independence governance but it would suffice for the present if some issues that have contributed to the country’s predicament are flagged so as to take remedial action.

The argument that the scorecard of 75 years is all bad is as flawed as the argument that all 225 members of the current Parliament are bad and should be sent packing ignoring the fact that there are many Parliamentarians who are worthy of remaining members of the legislature.

It cannot be denied that successive Governments since Independence have contributed to the wellbeing of the country while at the same time have being guilty of errors of governance that have prevented the country doing as well as it should have.

The immediate crisis faced by the country is directly attributable to the poor leadership that characterised the Gotabaya Rajapaksa Presidency and the poor decision making that has driven the country to bankruptcy.

The sweeping removal of taxes which deprived the Treasury of the necessary revenue, the enactment of the 20th Amendment, that concentrated excessive power in the hands of the Executive President, removed national reconciliation from the list of the country’s priorities, the disempowering of independent commissions, the decision to ban the use of chemical fertiliser, which plunged the country to a situation of food insecurity and malnutrition, from which it may take years to recover, the heartless ban on the burial of COVID-19 dead ignoring the World Health Organisation’s acceptance of burials as an acceptable form of disposing COVID-19 dead bodies, are few of the steps taken by the Gotabaya Rajapaksa Government that contributed to the misery of people.

The extent of the harm caused by such inept governance is evident from the current Government’s lament that there is hardly any money sufficient to pay salaries for Government servants and pensions for pensioners. The recently released UNICEF report highlights the gravity of the plight faced by the citizenry as a result of the failures of the last few years.

Thus the political freedom that February 4 seeks to mark is weakened by the mismanagement of the economy that has been a characteristic of the past few years.

According to UNICEF seven million people in Sri Lanka are in need of humanitarian assistance due to the economic crisis. In its Sri Lanka Humanitarian Situation Report, issued on February 2, the UN agency said essential services for children such as health, nutrition, and education have been severely impacted by shortages of medicine, food insecurity, a lack of fuel and long power cuts.

The Humanitarian Appeal for Sri Lanka spearheaded by UNICEF has had to obtain funding for the appeal from diverse quarters including public and private donors and countries such as Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Canada, Switzerland, USAID, the Central Emergency Response Fund, UNICEF USA, Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (UK) and Global Thematic Humanitarian Funds and many others. Despite the largess of donors UNICEF has emphasised that continued funding to sustain prevailing humanitarian needs post-HNP is critical.

The support from the international community listed in the UNICEF report is in addition to the support that the Government has obtained direct from other sources both multilateral and bilateral which highlights Sri Lanka’s economic dependence on other countries.

Thus the experience of the recent past has revealed that apart from the changes necessary to improve economic management there are also structural changes needed to enhance the quality of other areas of governance as well.

Some of these are the abolition of the Executive Presidency from which stems the root of all misgovernment, institutional strengthening by strengthening of the independent commissions, ensuring high standards of accountability in governance, rooting out or minimising corruption.

Equally the public too have to exercise responsibility by exercising greater diligence in their choice of representatives. Only then the political independence gained 75 years ago will have more meaning. (javidyusuf@gmail.com)