Columns

Sri Lanka’s parliament celebrated 70 years of parliamentary democracy on October 3 with a ceremonial sitting. The speeches made by parties representing all shades of political persuasions had plaudits as well as serious criticisms of the seven decades of parliamentary practice. This in itself is a tribute to democratic freedoms of a parliamentary democracy.

However during these seven decades the ethnic conflict that was the most serious setback to the economy was no doubt enabled by several acts of parliament. The Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe told the special session of Parliament to celebrate its 70th anniversary: “We started 1947 as a united people, but over the past years we had an ethnic conflict … to the point of a civil war”. The ethnic conflict that was no doubt brought about by legislation and actions of governments was the most serious threat to economic development. Nevertheless, as the Prime Minister said, “We safeguarded democracy through all that, but we are yet to provide a political solution and unify the country”.

Parliamentary control of public finances
This column has repeatedly stressed that the lack of ethnic harmony has been the most serious obstacle for economic development. While several parliamentarians made references to this, there were only indirect allusions to the serious erosion of one of the fundamental tenants of parliamentary democracy: the parliamentary control of public finances. There has been a very serious deterioration in parliamentary control of public finances and public accountability has deteriorated exponentially. Today’s column focuses on the public accountability of finance that is a fundamental tenet of parliamentary democracy that has been eroded over the past seven decades.

The issue of accountability in the use of public funds that came into sharp focus and public attention with the verdict in a landmark case last month when very high officials were found guilty of diverting funds from a public utility for a political purpose which was by no means an isolated instance of violation of the principle of accountability of public funds. Accountability of public funds that has never been exemplary in independent Sri Lanka, has been blatantly violated in latter decades of the country’s parliamentary history. There has been a progressive deterioration and brazen violations in the accountability of public funds more recently, especially since 2005.

That those in positions of authority should publicly account for their decisions and use of public resources has long been a tenet of democratic theory. Aristotle in his Politics encapsulated the concept of public accountability succinctly in these words :‘…to protect the Treasury from being defrauded, let all money be issued openly in front of the whole city, and let copies of the accounts be deposited in various wards…’

The concept of accountability
In a democracy, political accountability requires political leaders, political parties and individual members of the legislature to account to the people. Especially important, is that the political executive that is the cabinet of ministers, their deputies and state ministers, must account for their actions to the legislature. Administrative accountability is the need for the bureaucracy to account to its ministers and the legislature and the hierarchies of internal accountability within the bureaucracy.

Political accountability involves a vast range of formal and informal activity including elections, referendums, relationships within and between political parties, the release of information and public debate. Administrative accountability is often precisely defined and includes formal systems of auditing and financially accounting for the utilisation of public resources. Although political and administrative accountability can be separated both conceptually and in terms of mechanisms for accountability, in practice each is an important determinant of the nature of the other.

The concept of accountability incorporates both ex ante and ex post dimensions. The former involves consultation so that ‘the people’ (as individuals or in associational forms such as interest groups) can influence public policy and are informed of the nature of policies that are to be pursued. The latter involves reporting for the outcomes of policy and the resources utilised and an appraisal process. This permits, at least in theory, ‘the people’ to judge the quality of policy, facilitates the identification of mistakes or casualness in policy-making and exposes corruption and abuses.

With regard to ex ante accountability, one must also note the critical issue of sanctions: that is, what sanctions exist to penalise those who are judged to have not discharged their responsibilities fully (through negligence or intent) and how effectively are these sanctions applied?

Good governance
The information revealed by systems of accountability, it is argued, will permit the electorate to judge the quality of policies and the integrity of implementation so that the most able and honest can be selected to govern. More recently, the notion of accountability has been linked to that of economic development as a central element of the ‘good governance’ that some believe to be positively associated with higher rates of economic growth and improved levels of human welfare. Public accountability, it is postulated, leads to the selection of policies that will promote development and ensures that public resources are used to yield their greatest return on investment.

There is an international consensus that accountability is important for economic development. Despite this importance of accountability there has been a deterioration of public accountability in the processes of governance in Sri Lanka over the 70 years. Political and administrative accountability in Sri Lanka has deteriorated since independence, particularly with respect to public expenditure. Accountability has eroded steadily since the early 1970s, there has been a rapid deterioration since 1989 and a massive deterioration from 2005 to 2015.

Conclusion
If the deterioration in accountability of public funds could be arrested and funds allocated by parliament are spent in a responsible manner, it would have a beneficial impact on the country’s public finances. Public accountability of government expenditure could cut wasteful expenditure and ensure prudent management of public finances.