DailyMirror Feature – by R KH M Fernando
The President has the task of restoring accountability in public life.
Both responsibility and accountability are displayed ad nauseam by the elite in authority almost as the raison d’etre of the air of pre-eminence and superiority increasingly displayed by them. The privileges and perks that accrue with political office are justified, multiplied and defended more with entailing responsibility and much less with accountability.
But only a few bother to ponder over what these really cost for those in authority or mean in real terms to the people at large who bear the everincreasing cost of governance. This article seeks to analyze the issue with a view to asserting how responsibility remains in the realm of rhetoric whereas accountability carries with it some liability bordering on answerability.
Political responsibility
It is observed that politicians somewhat apologetically cite responsibility as something that follows or hangs over them when they wish their views, preferences, and predilections to prevail over the enlightened views of those more educated more knowledgeable and more competent on a given issue. Bureaucrats too tend to adopt this attitude increasingly with similar arrogance but eventual accountability and answerability still act on them as meaningful checks in view of the occupational hazard of having to leave documentary trails which may bring repercussions in the form of career vicissitudes in the wake of ensuing regime changes. The so called responsibility is discharged or redeemed at political cost whereas accountability affects tellingly with financial cost and even loss of career, given the worst scenario. Even this distinction appears to fade away with the two segments of the political / bureaucratic divide joining forces to embrace the halo of inoperative responsibility and evade effective accountability. With more and more politicization of not only the administration but even other areas of community life, “political responsibility” is fast replacing management accountability.
But in Sri Lanka, with a constitutional framework and an administrative structure modeled on British tradition, responsibility has been exclusively appropriated by the political elite whereas accountability has been palmed on the bureaucracy much to the chagrin of the latter. With in-built checks and balances thrown to the winds in the wake of the new Republican Constitution and politicized administration, with every political regime, accountability has lost much of its content in the form of obligatory repercussions.
The last Public Accounts Committee was headed by a cabinet minister and almost all the government members were ministers wielding executive power. The earlier one which was also headed by a cabinet minister issued an investigative report which resulted in the minister losing his portfolio and leaving the cabinet in disgust. Thus, the committee has ceased to be a supervisory body over the executive and remains only an extension of the executive for all purposes. Accountability expected from the members of the bureaucracy has thus been assimilated with the so-called responsibility of the politicians in power. Surcharges, a telling feature of accountability are rarely imposed by the Public Accounts Committee and so far never against a minister of independent Sri Lanka. Surcharges against the local government sector politicians and employees, an effective weapon on illegal or fruitless expenditure have lost this operational effect with the 13th Amendment, as the powers of the Minister to remit or confirm such surcharge imposed by the Auditor General have passed from the national minister to the provincial minister.
President is responsible to Parliament
It is observed that responsibility though constitutionally recognized, does not have even the operational value that is exerted by accountability which is only recognized in Financial Regulations which are not even tertiary legislation. Article 42 of the Constitution which declares that “President shall be responsible to Parliament for the due exercise performance and discharge of his powers duties and functions under the Constitution …” is not accompanied by any constitutional or legal checks or enforcement mechanisms except for impeachment which is ultimately a political process and impossible with a captive Parliament.
Similarly, Article 43 on responsibility of the Cabinet of Ministers and their answerability to Parliament on the direction and control of the government lacks enforcement instruments. Articles 45 and 46 entail no meaningful liability over and above the so -called responsibility and answerability. The same is true of the exercise of supervision by a secretary over the departments of government and the institutions subject to the direction and control of his minister. The only way this supervision is charged with accountability, i.e. appointment of secretaries as chief accounting officers is successfully shut off with the emasculation of the Public Accounts Committee as earlier stated.
Going by the letter and the spirit of the Constitutional stipulations, it should be emphasized that the Parliament has no direct authority or control over private finances unless these are used against the security and wellbeing of the nation are catered to. Herein, it should however be emphasized that the state charged with the function of formulating public policy can however insist on transparency on the part of these organizations. Probity being an essential ingredient of transparency, the state can take measures to ensure that these bodies are at least accountable to the beneficiaries whom they are expected to serve. Accountability carries with it transparency, something that responsibility lacks or does not lend itself to. In the present context, where the elite of the politico bureaucracy are unable to put forth anything as price or cost of their responsibility, the courts have a promising role to play in coming to the rescue of those who invoke fundamental rights jurisdiction to take to task and punish those who fail in their responsibility. Lack of a Right to Information Act need not be a constraint here as the Supreme Court has already demonstrated.
The weak link between broad policy and specific law, regulation or rule is exploited by those who claim responsibility to pass on the ill-effects of their indiscretions to those below–often those likely to be visited by accountability as per regulatory framework in force. Thus, legislation without subsidiary legislation, leaving the nitty-gritty where fraud and corruption may occur, in the hands of public servants who are captive operators of the system is a new trend.
The environment of impunity and immunity that we see all around seems to be the cumulative effect of responsibility remaining in the realm of theory while the more effective burden of accountability is being stripped of its legal encumbrances. Thus, the Financial Regulations, the only clearly laid down procedure enforcing and ensuring accountability remain mere guidelines without any punitive effect. The several operative divisions of the Treasury are helpless in the absence of the required initiative coming from the top.
Nakedness at the national level
As every cloud has a silver lining, this saga will have to end sooner or later after running its full circle. With devolution round the corner, the powers at the centre will have to take a decision as to whether the checks and balances which they ignored and resisted nonchalantly all these days are to be enforced in the periphery, lest there will be total chaos in the entire country though at provincial level. Already, this possibility has surfaced with some Provincial Councils approving financial regulations as subsidiary legislation under their respective statutes. The nakedness at the national level is likely to be exposed in case this issue comes before the judiciary.
Whereas accountability is expected from the Executive, even the Legislature that is claiming to exercise Sovereignty on behalf of the people is prone to display irresponsibility in allowing politically driven legislation without any consultation with or participation of the relevant stakeholders on vital national issues. In countries where democratic traditions are well established, irresponsibility in the form of ill-considered legislation is prevented by pre-legislation practices such as white papers and green papers in addition to discussion and seminars with the participation of stake holders. The disastrous effects of the absence of these practices in our country surfaced last year when the Tax Default Bill was challenged successfully within the bizarrely inadequate four working days made available for the judicial scrutiny of the Bill. Had this not been challenged just within the four working days left allowing four intervening holidays, it would have been a burden on the implementing officers who are eventually accountable for the covert agendas of those ‘only responsible’.
Now that His Excellency the President has under his able leadership ended the three-decade-old separatist terrorism and also won a renewed mandate his avowed pledge to fight against corruption if carried out with determination will go a long way in restoring accountability in public life as against the ‘responsibility’ of the sycophants.
The writer was Director General of Public Finance, General Treasury