By Sumadhu Weerawarne
How would you define good governance? What it means is the method by which the state or an institution is being administered, and the checks and balances that are in place to ensure that the best value for money is achieved.

People seem to think that governance is about procedures and the fact that the money that has been allocated has been spent accurately. But today governance is seen differently, not whether things have been right, but whether the right things have been done. So there is a lot of focus on the right thing and what it is, is the question. So in today’s world not just the corporate sector, but the state and local government sectors want to ensure that the right things are being done. If you take the city, very often people are consciously looking at how the money is being spent. Say if an allocation is made for the ministry of defence or health, its effectiveness is seen in terms of the amount that is allocated. But no one bothers to find out whether the function for which the allocation was made has been achieved. We say so much of millions have been allocated for a hospital, and such has been spent. There is a tendency to think that this is the measurement of the effectiveness of that organisation. But nobody bothers to find out whether the function that has to be achieved by that Ministry has been finally achieved. The Health ministry may say that we have spent a few million rupees, but the rate of Tuberculosis has gone up, and both Malaria and Polio are still prevalent. Somebody can ask the question why on earth are we spending this money?

There are many countries where they are looking at the outcome. What is the outcome that you want to achieve? What are the outputs that you want to achieve? And the department or Ministry or any type of body is judged by the outcome of its work. For example you find that in New Zealand the Treasury enters into an agreement perhaps with the Minister of Police Affairs when an allocation is made. It is agreed that for the funds that are provided, that the crime rate in terms of murders or whatever are reduced to such and such a number, or that the rate of accidents must be reduced etc. So targets are set to find out whether the particular body has achieved what it has set out to achieve. This is to ensure that the money given achieves what it is intended to achieve. But here once the money is given there is no real evaluation of how it has been spent. It will be said we have opened up 20 police stations but it is of no value if the crime rate has not decreased.

Transparency is another important factor, that is the amount of information given to the public. In the US already the financial report of the United States government is already out. But you find that in our provincial governments that financial statements that are being discussed today are those that relate to 1995. This will not help us go forward. The aspect is that of accountability, no one is accountable for anything. If a train knocks down a car at a railway crossing, no one bothers. There is no one accountable and everyone can easily wash their hands off matters. But today all over the world there are elements to ensure that there is accountability relation to all types of activity. An example would be the city of North Carolina. Here all activities that the state carries out are listed, from storm water management to the management of cemeteries. And persons are listed as being in charge of those activities. So if something goes wrong you know who is accountable. When such a system is in place the those responsible will take greater care in how they do their work.

It would seem that even an impossible system can be made to work if the necessary spirit is in place. And what matter is not so much the system as the policy that underlies its operation. Do you think that the problems of governance in Sri Lanka are systemic or have they more to do with the general ethos of our culture?

You may have a point there, but there is something that goes deeper. Those in authority in Sri Lanka think that they are on a pedestal and those around them are being given favours by them. For example getting your EPF withdrawn is your right, but there are those who see it as a favour that is being granted. There is a confusion between rights and favours. Because of this attitude in those in authority, the average person too is reactive. There is a tendency to go behind a politician to get things done. So the need is to strengthen the institutions themselves and of course their general attitude. One must move away from general disdain towards the public to treating them as the customers of whatever state departments. There was an occasion where I had to make a compliant with the Police because somebody had knocked my car. This was in New Zealand and on new year’s eve. There was a lady there who took down the complaint. She immediately gave me a copy because it was noted down in duplicate. In Sri Lanka one would have had to go to the Police station several times to get a copy of the complaint. There is such a simple process to ensure that there is not much hassle. This is because they treat the person who comes to the Police station as a customer. This is a principal problem with our culture. But it can be changed and there are government institutions where this has been done effectively.

What would you identify as being the shortcomings in the system. If you were asked to list the ten shortcomings what would they be?

This is not in order of priority, but the first would be the apathy of people, we are happy to take any rubbish that is thrown at us. The next would be that there is no sense of responsibility on the part of those who provide a service. The third is the lack of innovation— we are comfortable to do today what we did twenty five years ago: our sewerage lines would remain notwithstanding the fact that the number of people have increased, the road or railway network has improved very little since the time of the British. The next is that we are not sufficiently looking at the changes that are taking place worldwide especially in governance. In other countries there is a constant search for improvement from the standpoint that better service is a right of the citizen. The next is the single focus of a particular department. Today there is a system of balanced scorecard, where improvement would be sought not in just in one area. Another factor is that there are no performance indicators to measure who is doing well and who is not doing so well. For example in the US the states compete with each other and they are given rankings in the different areas of service. Then very few of government institutions have long term goals or strategies. There is no vision and the path forward too is not identified. There is also the need for education and training— education for the receiver to be aware of his entitlement and also the provider on what he should provide.

Do you think that decentralisation of administration as has been experienced so far and indeed governance has improved the manner in which things are run, or has it merely duplicated the indifferent system of the central government?

All over the world there is a general move towards devolution, which I think is a good thing. This is because the power is then given to the levels at which one function or another should be carried out. This is good from a development perspective. But there is the question of unequal development, where one province or state due to a relative lack of resources can do less well than another better endowed state. But if one creates necessary competition, that is in terms of the incentives that are provided to attract investment or what you will there can be development.

But I would that in terms of the experience of decentralisation, it has been a failed exercise for several reasons. I do not think that the system is bad, but it is in the working of the process that there has been shortcomings. It is rather like the case of a very good vehicle, if you don’t know how to drive it, you can go and knock it. I think we have not really understood what local administration entails. Actually the Chief Minister of a province is like a Prime Minister. They have the power to do lots of things, but very often think of what cannot be done, rather than what can be done. There are 38 areas bestowed on provincial government where they can undertake projects, but they still speak in terms of what they cannot do. For example the Western Province has at least 50 percent of the major portions of tourism in this country, the Kalutara. Colombo and Negombo coastal belts. But you would notice that the province itself never markets tourism. But of course their marketing budget is something like Rs 1.5 million, which is a very small amount. So there is no innovative thinking to boost areas that have potential. Fishery, infrastructure development are other areas. We can make Colombo into a mega city if so desired, instead of which we have 50 per cent of our population living in very poor housing conditions. The pattern of expenses is very telling: 85 per cent of budget is on recurrent expenditure, like petrol charges, salaries etc. This is really not the fault of the system but that of the people who have worked the system. They have given it a bad name.

It is your contention that the fault is not in the system but in how it is worked. If it were in the system improvement could have been effected by way of legislation, but where it has to do with the spirit of those who run, change becomes that much more difficult. How can you seek the change that you envisage in such a scenario?

I have always believed that it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. And I have found that the one candle that one lights helps others to be lit. So with this in mind my main focus has been in changing the mindset. This is what I did with the Chartered Institute. I made those involved understand that we are a service organisation and I explained what that service is. Within I found without spending a cent, the attitude towards their work changed. Generally people are unaware of the business of a particular business. There is a general tendency to think that if you are with the municipality, you are only approving building, or collecting garbage. There is no realisation that the task is to keep the city in a livable state, and this is the most important thing. I am confident that if you explain to those working with you what the objective is they understand and respond. This sets the cycle in motion. Training is another important factor. It is not enough to give someone a title and give them a board. For example Sanath Jayasuriya is the best cricketer that we have, but if he gives up training for two weeks he will not be able to meet world standards.

You spoke of the general attitude of those in government and even in Parliament as being benefactors granting boons to the public, as opposed to giving the people what is their due by right. An example would be the opening of a housing scheme where the minister or the MP would personally hand over titles to the property, it would seem to invoke a sense of personal loyalty towards him in those who are benefitted by the exercise. Don’t you think that this perpetuates the system of political favours as opposed to people’s rights, and should therefore be desisted?

That is certainly how it should be. At Kadugannawa there is the Dawson’s tower in memory of the engineer as I recall, who did the road network, and again at the Kalutara bridge the name that is given is that of the engineer and not that of the politician who opened it. But today we have the name of the politicians who in any case is using the money of the people, and he is given the recognition for the construction. This is wrong. If at all where a building is constructed the credit must be given to the architect. As far as we are concerned we are only the instruments through which an allocation is made and therefore should not take any credit. Recently I was invited to open a waterline constructed with allocations from my de-centralised budget where there was a plaque to source the funds to me. I was quite upset and asked that the board be removed.

On the notion of corruption there is a perception that one cannot do away with corruption altogether, and that for the sake of an efficient system a degree of corruption is okay. What is your view on this from the perspective of good governance?

I am a realist. I will not work towards a dream or an ideal and use all my energy to remove something from the face of this earth. I know that as long as there are people, corruption will be there. We have to ensure that corruption is minimised. We can do this by providing for as much transparency as possible. Even if someone doesn’t take a bribe in cash form , it can be in some other form. Here too it is a balanced score card that we should try to achieve. If we utilise all our efforts trying to fight corruption, we would not be doing anything else.