A lecture on e government that I had organized for a large number of senior government officials at the Sri Lanka Institute for Development Administration (a second in a series) was sabotaged by the ICT Agency.
Here was an entity that had been set up to be something fundamentally different from a government organization, marking out turf in crudest manner and preventing SLIDA, the premier capacity-building organization for government officials for participating in the e Sri Lanka initiative. And this was just one month and one day after the tsunami. All hopes of the tsunami shocking us out of our dysfunctional ways evaporated. I wept for my country.
I decided that day to accept a long-standing invitation from LBO to write the column because I knew that the most fundamental thing for economic reform is not good law nor effective implementation, but changes in mindsets. What I had tried to do first at ICTA, then at SLIDA, I would do on a larger canvas; not just for government officials, but for all (or at least those who like business/economics stories).
Just clever new ideas were not enough. “Ideas actioned” were not enough. People needed to understand the ideas, debate them, change and make them their own.
So for five years and over some seventy columns, I have been trying to explain tradeoffs. I suggested to Ravaya that translates these columns and runs them under the heading Vikalpa, that we should use a different title: “Ravulada, Kendada?” The Sinhala version of having the cake and eating it.
The low to non-existent level of policy debate in the just concluded presidential election suggests that I’ve barely made a dent. That perhaps the issue is not about policy choices and tradeoffs at all, but a larger question of political culture.
In a longish article that was published elsewhere (constitution )and Transcurrents, modified headline) and which has been the subject of considerable discussion, I tried to identify this underlying factor that seemed to be influencing our myopic choices since Independence.
A significant majority seems to have voted for the candidate who did not differentiate himself from the state and who over the past four years selectively ignored the Constitution he had sworn to follow; whose campaign disregarded lawful directives from the Elections Commissioner and pretty much broke every rule in the book. The vote went to the antithesis of the rule of law. My hypothesis appears confirmed.
The question now is whether there any value in continuing to write about good governance, as in Choices - statehood. There appears to be no market for this product.
Daniel Kaufmann of the World Bank has been vigorously propagating the thesis that good governance is a precondition for economic development. My writing and teaching on regulation for the most part fit into this framework. If good governance and effective regulation are preconditions, we surely are in trouble.
Mushtaq Khan of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS)advances the opposite thesis. He concludes that “fighting political corruption, or ensuring better electoral processes are good things but they will not solve the structural instability of democracy. . . . In the long run if stability can be maintained and economic growth continues advanced country variants of democracy will slowly emerge.” My recent work on policy and regulation that seeks to leverage business models resonates with this thinking.
In this light, perhaps the choice is to focus on actions that contribute to economic growth without asking too many questions about commissions and kick-backs. I do have an example Choices: Toll or troll? from what I wrote in the past five years: I documented that there are large kickbacks in the Chinese-financed highways. But, the productive thing to do is to get the highways built and provide ideas on setting reasonable tolls and other ways of efficiently managing them and not carp excessively about the commissions.
What do my readers think?
Perhaps the column’s time has passed. There is a time and a place for everything. Perhaps this is not the time to be discussing policy tradeoffs. Perhaps Sri Lanka is not the place.
Rohan Samarajiva heads LirneAsia, a regional think tank. He was also a former telecoms regulator in Sri Lanka. To read previous columns go to the main navigation panel and click on 'Choices' category.
Salaries and living standards in USA have fallen continuously for the last 10 years.
US is trying to portray India, their ally in this part of the world, as a super- power. One only has to compare a Railway station in China( space age -- like something out of star wars) with one in India( ramshackle) to realise how far behind India is. By the time UK took to build Terminal 3 at Heathrow( 20 years), China has built over 20 airports and has been opening power stations at the rate of one a week!- in 2009. Well - we are still building the one at Norochchilai!!
Democracies are extremely inefficient but we assumed that they were safe- like a bullock cart in transport- slow and steady but no accidents. But after two world wars, and the recent invasion of Iraq, this illusion that democracies can do no wrong has been shattered.
At the same time citizens of democratic countries( US, UK and EU) are flocking to UAE, Saudi, Qatar and China, extolling the virtues of working and living in these countries.
Emperor of Japan was responsible for the development of science and technology because he wanted to stop Britain, already controlling Middle east, Africa and India, malaya, Hong Kong and Singapore, invading and taking over Japan.
The basic thesis advanced by Mushtaq Khan http://www.soas.ac.uk/staff/staff31246.php is that development causes good governance not vice versa. That you have to start from the nature of the society to design policies and reforms; that in countries that are characterized by patron-client relationships that require the patron to give various goodies to the clients, corruption is endemic. Policies that do not take that into account will fail.
It is not about being bad. It is the way things are.
One cannot simply wish things to be different. One has to analyze the reality that actually exists and design solutions that will work for those conditions.
That is where the concept of "productive" versus "unproductive" corruption comes in. With the former, there is a possibility of private sector efflorescence. With the latter no.
Once the private sector reaches a critical mass, it can act as a break on rank mismanagement of the economy. What Khan asks is that we look at the evidence, at Taiwan and South Korea, for example. Once highly corrupt, now economic powerhouses that are not only democratic but improving on the corruption front too.
If 90% of the people are dishonest( corrupt) then it's only unfair on the minority 10% - and thats democracy. The Majority will triumph.
Corruption is simply abuse of power by someone in a position of authority to illegally acquire wealth. At lower level it's simple dishonesty. Only a dishonest society will promote another dishonest person to a position of power.
A leading businessman in Colombo told me that his employees come to work, and they do work with enthusiasm, only because they know they can cheat. He lets them cheat- but only up to a certain amount( even he has his limits!). At an individual level the employee thinks he has out-smarted the boss.
That give him a certain level of satisfaction- and a bit of extra income. Increasing the salary is no substitute. As kids we all knew that a stolen mango always tasted better. It's the same thing. This businessman has no labour or union problems. He also added that a strict disciplinarian or an honest person has no place in Sri lanka. And I believe him.
So, what's the solution?
Since 1976, Roy Morgan Research in Australia( www.roymorgan.com) has been conducting a unique survey on honesty. This study has been remarkable in several aspects: The length of study, it's findings and consistency of results over the last 30 odd years.
And who are the most honest?- Nurses have topped in every poll since the study began. Pharmacists, doctors, dentists, engineers, Judges, teachers are others in the top 5 positions.
Who are the most Dishonest?- Used car salesman, real estate agents are at the bottom( no surprise - well all know that already)
The others include bankers( have got worse over the years) , lawyers( worse over the years). People in the Financial industry, advisors and politicians are also in the bottom ranks
Surprisingly, ( or is it?) the Ministers of religion rank very low -- and this groups include police and accountants( CIMA graduates take note)
In summary
1. Professional in healthcare( humanistic fields) are more honest than most(? only applicable to australia)
2. Science and technology graduates are more honest than graduates in other fields.
Time to put more effort into science and technology and wean students away from MBAs, CIMA, Arts, commerce, etc. Downfall of US as a leader in science, technology and manufacturing, has a direct relationship to the rise of financial industry in the Wall Street. maybe we should all sit up and take notice.
They also use a funny term called "productive corruption"- What people don't understand is bad governance may facilitate economic development in short term but that will be at a huge cost to human dignity (even short term) and economic development itself on medium to long term.
There appears to be interest in continuing the discussion on governance, at least among the commenters. My inclination, however, is to go with the other option, which is to emphasize ideas that would be useful in achieving reforms that have the potential to yield economic growth, discussing governance only when unavoidable.
Intellectually, that is less familiar territory. But that also makes the project more rewarding.
A majority of the world's people live in societies like ours that are characterized by patron-client relations. If we can figure out the reforms that will work here, we may become thought leaders.
But, I’m wrong and even the well educated don’t want the country to be fixed. Some people (that I know) say that developed countries have better law and order. But when they come back to Sri Lanka, they complain that Sri Lankan police catch drunk drivers and they can’t go home peacefully after a function. I really don’t understand how the country can go forward with such a set of people.
I worked for a state bank for over 6 years and all my colleagues were after pension. They even voted for the presidential candidate who promised pension for new recruits to state banks. They were reluctant to move to the private sector as they hoped (and still hope) that they will one day get a pension. All these people are in mid thirties and they were top graduates of the country. But, majority of them were not prepared to take a risk and wanted a safer future (with a pension!). These people always supported bolstering the state sector but they didn’t realise the damage it causes to the country.
Good governance will partly come to Sri Lanka if the government does not try to administer each and every job of the country. In the developed world, the governments act as regulators. One good example that this has worked in Sri Lanka is the telecom sector. By liberalising the telecom sector, Sri Lanka has set up a highly competitive, efficient telecom sector.
This has benefited the common man with a cost effective telephone service. Had we not liberalise the telecom sector and continued to expand a state telephone entity, we would now be paying 10-20 rupees per SMS. However, presently the public is given the wrong message that the country needs to expand the state sector.
Harsha & Rohan: I appreciate the time you guys spend on educating the public on proper economic policies, but I still doubt whether Sri Lankans will ever understand and whether this system will ever change!
It won't always be the case. Advocacy of good governance cannot stop.
i feel that bringing forward alternate views to that of the current regime will be much more difficult than before.
but all things considered, i think in the longer-term interest of this country that we have chosen to live in, we need to carry on. the time will come.
Therefore we need more, not less work on these lines.
I have also observed that we are lacking visionary leaders day by day where as in most other sectors we do have some short of development but in politics what we get is followers not leaders.
So, some politicians have manipulated this desire of the countrymen by bolstering the state sector. This in turn has built a massive vote base to those politicians. Taxpaying citizens including private sector workers are bearing the burden and they hardly get a chance to change the system in an election because “bad governance” has secured a guaranteed voter base. This is just one example.
I think that the country has come to a point where either most people are blinded or where majority of the people are relying on incomes generated from “bad governance”. I don’t see a point in wasting our time on trying to correct this system since Sri Lankans hardly care about good governance.
Ordinary people, caught up in their humdrum lives have little time to spend analysing complex matters of law or constitutional principles like the 17th amendment.
Once the debate is started amongst a few intellectuals and then carried to the masses through the press, the ordinary people become aware of the issues. The educated will grasp the issues first but gradually it will trickle down to the less educated as well.
The lack of debate is due to the lack of people who can carry the debate as well as a lack of a medium. A long period of state control of the media has left a populace ignorant of basic principles.
Therefore at the moment the common man cannot connect issues (say the 17th amendment or corruption) to their own lives, hence the need for basic education.
To try and reach a wider audience, a simplified version of this column, starting with the basic principles of democracy and governance in the vernacular would be a good thing. For example:
http://www.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/WhaIsDemocracy012004.htm
Then perhaps something on the importance of reforms like the 17th amendment, the need for checks and balances or constitutional reform could be explored.
All Rights Reserved.