|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Monday, 18 October 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
"The nation, civil society and responsive governance" by M. D. D. Pieris Excerpts from the Keynote address delivered at the BMICH on August 13, 2004 at the Inauguration of the Annual Sessions of the OPA.
The first question that I would ask myself is this. In the 56 years since Independence, have governments been responsive? That is, to the welfare of the people and the long term sustainable development of the country. Here, we are basically looking at the conduct and functioning of our political class. Although it is popular in present times to berate politicians and question as to what they had done, it would be important to be neither cynical nor irritable. There have been over the years undoubted achievements in several fields - Education, Health, Agriculture, Human Settlements, Infrastructure Development and so on, which have led to the betterment of the lives of the people, particularly when viewed from the perspective of the human development index. Considerable and sustained investment in irrigation, land development and land settlement, rural housing and other infrastructure have to my mind prevented a major national problem from surfacing, in slowing down over-rapid and concentrated urbanization leading to huge shanty towns and what in South America are called favelas ringing our major cities. In Sri Lanka rural development in the broadest sense of that term has to a considerable extent helped to retain people in accustomed areas of habitation. I am aware that one should not be too simplistic. There are issues of the desirability of greater mobility and other social interests. But overall, we have succeeded in minimizing some intractable social problems. Development in various sectors, particularly in Education and Health, have also succeeded in reducing our annual population growth to about 1.2 percent. There are other things we can talk about, but enough has been mentioned I believe to persuade ourselves that we should not regard the condition of Sri Lanka as all gloom and doom and one of unparalleled non-achievement. Here we come to the next issue which is distinctly worrying, and that is, the price we have paid for these achievements. Have we evolved a mechanism to build on these achievements? Made necessary and timely adjustments and worked to build a national consensus to place the country on a path of sustained economic growth which would provide the capacity to address, for instance the central issues of unemployment and poverty? In these I believe, we have been considerably deficient. At this point we have to ask ourselves many questions. Why have countries that were considerably below us in economic and social development in the 1950's and 1960's now gone substantially ahead of us? Why is our per capita GDP still below even US$ 1000? Why have we got to a point of stagnation in almost every field of endeavour? Why is our income distribution so badly skewed? Consider the current figures. The share of the highest income decile in total income is as much as 38.6 percent. The share of the lowest income decile is only 1.7%. The highest two income deciles together account for as much as 53.7% of total income, while the lowest five deciles account for only 19.6% of total income. Put another way, the relative share of the lowest five deciles in total income is only about one half of the income share of only the top decile. These figures are from the latest Annual report of the Central Bank, and warrant deep contemplation. Then, look at the issue of poverty in Sri Lanka using the international measurement. Currently, about 7% of the population are in the income category of below US$ one per day, while 45% are below US$ 2 per day. Therefore, 52 per cent of our people are in distressful poverty. Or look at the issue of regional development; the imbalances there. The average per capita income of those in the Western Province is around US$ 1200, which is above the national average. The other Provinces range between US$ 400 and 600, half or less than half of the Western Province. The Vice President of the World Bank for the South Asia region, Mr. Patel on a visit to Sri Lanka in July this year, referred to this issue. "Much of the growth in the last decade," he said "has been concentrated in and around Colombo which now produce over half the country's GDP. Meanwhile, in the rural areas, poverty has hardly declined and in the estate sector it has increased by 50 percent. Unless this problem is addressed frontally not only will the country fall short of its growth potential, but also the stability of this once equitable society may be threatened." Should we be surprised at the vagaries of election results in this country? Aren't they a cry for attention? Have we contemplated wisely on Lenin's enlightening observation that "The head cannot understand the agony of the stomach?" Macro economic indicators do not mean much unless they impact the lives of the large mass of the people. In the quest for reform and modernization you cannot leave the people behind. The Newsweek magazine of 24th May, 2004 commenting on the Indian General Elections had this to say. I quote: "Last week's elections upset in India was a wakeup call to the Nation's elite, clear evidence that economic reforms and high-tech growth have not improved the lives of tens of millions of urban and rural poor." I now come to another area, an area which has much to do with attitude, psychology, confidence and self-respect. In my view, responsive governance also means among its many attributes, enhancing the standing, honour and dignity of the nation and the self respect of its citizens. The governing class taken in the broadest sense of that term must conduct the affairs of state soberly, responsibly and with dignity leading to the advancement of the credibility and the standing of the country. Indeed, that was so in the past, including the not too distant past. Sri Lanka's influence in the world far outpaced its size or economic strength. But over many years now, under different administrations, there have been a visible erosion in these areas. There has progressively grown an increasing psychology of dependency. We have now reached the point that practically every domestic difference is referred to foreign embassies and foreign countries, to foreign experts and foreign consultants for advice, guidance and support. Even inter party disputes are being referred to foreign arbitrament. These foreign groups are increasingly becoming controllers of our national destiny. We are now getting to the point of out sourcing government. I do not see this happening in any other country, including our neighbours. Perhaps, we are getting to the point of saying, we will for the present keep the ownership of the country but we will hand over its management to a consortium of countries and multilateral agencies and of course in the process not fail to ask for foreign aid to pay the management fee! I do not know how many in our political class of all colours and hues are aware of the growing public anger on this issue. I have myself heard people of various strata asking the question as to whether we have any national governments anymore. I am sorry to dwell on this subject at some length. But we must admit that over a number of years our political class both through their personal behaviour and through their policies have devalued this country. This has got to the point that for instance, when a citizen of this country goes to a foreign embassy to obtain a visa he or she is not only kept standing for long periods of time, very often from long before the break of dawn in the sun and rain in queues outside, subjected to the blandishments of touts and underworld characters, but according to numerous stories that are related, often treated curtly and disrespectfully, at the interview. Some of them interview you through a one-way visibility glass. You don't get to deal with a human being. You address a glass. It is as if you are a dangerous criminal under special interrogation. Possibly this is implementation in 2004 of elements contained in George Orwell's novel, "Nineteen Eighty Four." There isn't sufficient time to list other humiliations suffered in other areas. But when we behave like supplicants and mendicants we are naturally treated as such. Remember Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake's refusal to share a coach at Queen Elizabeth II's coronation in London, and his threat to return to his country as a protest at impending improper treatment. A separate coach was of course hastily found. That was Ceylon in the 1950's. But this I suppose is Sri Lanka. This is indeed a central issue. There is overwhelming evidence of how leaders of countries regard the maintenance of national dignity as fundamental and non negotiable. I will stop with one recent example. Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa in a June 2004 article in the Washington Post had this to say: "On this, all surely can agree. Africans will be objects of compassion and contempt until such time as we have become demonstrable masters of our own destiny.... We must be able to set our own priorities based on our own realities, experience and needs, rather than those of foreign donors and the organizations through which they channel their funds." What all this points to is the need for a leadership that will give the nation pride and self-confidence. We also need a leadership that is almost fanatically implementation oriented. The public's interest cannot be served unless civil society defines and articulates minimum acceptable standards relating to public conduct. Standards to which they themselves are willing to submit. The term public conduct does not refer only to the behaviour of the political class or segments of government. An increasingly disillusioned public also expects basic standards of conduct from all the actors whose acts of omission or commission impinge on their welfare and their well being, be it the judiciary, the media, the private sector or the NGO community. They are becoming more sophisticated and more aware of those transitions where diplomacy ends and deceit begins, where euphemisms reflect evasions and where the truth becomes a continuing casualty. They have often heard of the term the public's right to know, and they are increasingly asking the question now what? And whether what they are to know is the doctored, slanted, self-serving and evasive propaganda that cannot be dignified by applying to it the term "information". They are indignant and repelled by the operation of double standards, well-concealed personal agendas, the decline in responsibility, the erosion of courage, moral delinquency and the near collapse of leadership. Over one hundred and fifty years ago, Abraham Lincoln said; "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." How many wielders of power in our society could stand up to the scrutiny of this test? Everyone must understand, therefore, that the people are increasingly sceptical and untrusting and do not take anybody's bona fides at face value. Bona fides have to be established to the satisfaction of the public. The public perception of credibility is the critical issue, and we must remember that in the end perception is all. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
