Balancing the cabinet

Cabinet making must necessarily b e a balancing act as various interests, including ethnic and religious, must be satisfied together with seniority claims and personal ambitions. The president and prime minister must be congratulated for limiting the number of cabinet ministries, that had assumed obscene proportions in the past, to 25 including the prime minister although the 19th Amendment provides for 30 such appointments. It was possible to go much higher, as the Sirisena – Wickremesinghe administration did, by titling itself a “national government” comprising several parties. The incumbents have not succumbed to that temptation although the pressures to do so would have been tremendous. But the 39 state ministers and the new class of District Coordinating Committee Chairmen have added to the numbers which for a country like ours have swollen to unaffordable levels.

All these appointments are going to cost the taxpayer a very pretty penny as each appointee will be backed by support staff and will be provided numerous perks and privileges including the ubiquitous chauffeured official vehicles. Hopefully, those who ride them will not make spectacles of themselves as many of their predecessors did in the past with pilot and backup cars and lighted torch-wielding security squads waving other road users out of the way to make room for their lordships. Such habits made ordinary people want to push such personages off their pedestals as has happened at several elections. Convoys tearing down the roads have been less visible from the time President Gotabaya Rajapaksa was elected with the Head of State setting a good example of unpretentious conduct both in dress and deportment.

Looking at the new cabinet and other appointments, we have not seen many that inspire confidence (or optimism) of outstanding performance. Several old faces are back in the saddle (though in the same ministries as earlier) despite a few ‘demotions’ here and there. Given that neither of the two contending parties took any notice of the public demand that those against whom there were serious allegations, were under investigation or had visibly demonstrated rowdy behaviour should be fielded as candidates. But many were including Mervyn Silva from the UNP’s Ranil faction. The available choices therefore were not great. The fact that the voters re-elected most of them, warts and all, gives credence to the proposition that “the people deserve the government they get.” While the legal maxim that “a man must be deemed innocent until proven guilty” cannot be ignored, we must not forget that the rate of conviction in our courts is as little as six percent. That does not mean that the other 94 percent were squeaky clean.

Our voters have also not taken sufficient notice of the fact that an unacceptably high number of our politicians have played the game from both sides of the fence, personally benefiting from defections that are now more a rule rather than an exception in the national politics of this country. We saw what happened in 2010 when President Mahinda Rajapaksa asked the electorate for a two thirds majority to enable amending the constitution. What he failed to get electorally, he got via defections. The 18th Amendment, abolishing the two term limit of the presidency was the result. But Rajapaksa’s third term bid failed in 2015 when Maithripala Sirisena, running as a common opposition candidate stunningly defeated him. It would be a useful exercise for a researcher to publish a list of who these defectors are, from what sides they were elected and the various offices that have been conferred on them as a result.

The proportional representation system of elections President J.R. Jayewardene bequeathed to this country included anti-defection clauses that have proved useless. Such provisions were most necessary as the voter is first required to choose a party (or independent group) and then mark his preferences from a list of that party’s (or independent group’s) candidates. But JR permitted one way traffic, with crossovers to the government side permitted – we remember an Eastern Province heavyweight who defected from the Federal Party and was rewarded with a portfolio – but not the other way round. The anti-defection provisions permitted MPs expelled from their parties to appeal to a Parliamentary Select Committee or the Supreme Court and although there have been many defections, no MP had lost his seat as a result.

Whether the president and the prime minister have plans for former President Maithripala Sirisena, who was believed interested in Mahaweli and Environment Ministry, is not known. Sirisena was present at the Audience Hall in Kandy when the ministers were given their letters of appointment but he was not among the recipients. The media pounced on that and his exclusion was a major part of the new cabinet story along with the comment that the SLFP he leads had only been served crumbs. Governmental leaders have chary about speaking on the subject suggesting that something may be in the offing as cabinet slots are still available. But we must wait and see.