Political accountability in economic policies
Election time is promising time. Promises range from bringing the cost of living down, jobs for the unemployed, no privatisation, better bus and rail transport, better education, better health facilities, to better everything. Ironically these are promises of doing what they themselves have been unable to do when they were in power. This is especially so as both parties ruled the country within the last eleven years and indeed even within the last five years. An enlightened electorate would judge the candidates not on the basis of their promises alone but their recent record as well.

Apart from promises on economic issues, bringing peace and ensuring the unity and integrity of the country and other important political matters would be among the promises. Furthermore, as the tempo of political activity gains momentum, it is most likely that ethnic and other emotional issues and mudslinging would occupy centre stage. Lee Kuan Yu once characterised Sri Lankan elections as an auction in which the rivals keep raising their promises.

There has been little change since he said this a few decades ago. In fact his observation may have gained in veracity in the intervening years. Political accountability in economic policies and promises have been noticeably absent in the run up to elections in Sri Lanka. A fundamental principle of democratic government is that those aspiring to power must declare their policies and conform to them when elected. Policies in general and economic policies, in particular, have financial implications. Promises made at an election would be empty if their economic and financial implications are not part of the declared policies. Unfortunately most of the electorate have a false concept that a government has inexhaustible resources. They are unaware that the money spent by the government is their own money; that money spent is money obtained as revenue from the people. Some think that the government has unlimited resources through printing money. They are unaware of the inflationary impact of increasing the money supply and the rising cost of living as a consequence.

There is a distinct difference in mature democracies and developed economies. When parties and their leaders promise benefits, in countries like Japan, the United States and United Kingdom, they have an obligation to indicate how they would find the finances. Would they cut other expenditure? Would the government increase taxes? Which taxes would they increase? These questions are hardly asked except in general by rival political candidates and parties as part of the thrust and parry of election debate. No serious consideration is given to these. The electorates in developed democracies know the truth of the Milton Friedman saying that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Ours is a political culture that believes in asking for free lunches in the belief that these are not funded by the people themselves. The long-run impacts of these policies have been serious impediments to higher rates of economic growth.

There are some added complexities to this issue of political accountability in the Sri Lankan political context. Under the constitution the President wields executive power. He is also the head of a party and often the head of a coalition. Therefore there should be conformity between the Presidential candidates’ election promises and the parties’ policies. Where a coalition is involved the parties to a coalition must have an agreed policy stance that is clearly stated. Therefore even if there isn’t a general election it is still mandatory for all parties to declare their policies at this most important juncture of another Presidential election that would elect an Executive President for the next six years.

Coalition politics render political accountability ever so difficult. Electoral alliances could be only for the single purpose of electing one candidate as the lesser evil to the constituent parties and defeating the other candidate. The constituent parties could then be pressurising their elected candidate to follow their different policies. This could seriously undermine the promises made and the wishes of the majority. Recent events have also shown that coalition governments have not followed the principle of collective responsibility. Consequently government policies have not been implemented owing to the opposition from within. Government policies have been opposed by the constituent elements of the government rather than the opposition.

Another important issue is that when party leaders make pronouncements and promises they should consider the economic and financial possibilities of implementing their policies. For instance one of the Presidential candidates has made a categorical statement that he will not privatise any state enterprise. That is a clear statement of policy. Yet has he considered the implications of such a policy? Would the dire state of public finances require the selling of some state enterprises? Isn’t the privatisation of some state enterprises a condition for aid? Can the government manage without such aid? These are questions that must be addressed now. Otherwise the policies pursued could be very different to those announced at the elections.

Therefore it is incumbent on civil society organisations such as the Centre for Policy Alternatives, Marga, International Centre for Ethnic Studies and other similar organisations to pose the questions regarding policy stances of the Presidential candidates and political parties in the fray. It is equally important to know the manner in which the policies and promises would be financed. The press and electronic media too have an important role to play in insisting on political accountability in economic and other policies.

Back to Top

Back to Columns

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.