Government’s score on the Z-score

July 4, 2012, 7:08 pm ,the island

A controversy that rocked the ‘Education Boat’ for months is said to have been settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Z-score case, but not before exposing many a growing mind to anxiety and retarding their A-Level studies seriously.

 To my knowledge, none of the Judges on the Bench was more of an expert in mathematics or management than the ones to which the ministers concerned had ready access. The Judges have objectively used their commonsense and come to a conclusion that was open to the authorities from the beginning. However, there may sometimes be decisions that call for expertise not available within the Bench. In such cases, it would be prudent to use judicial authority to direct the relevant experts to arrive at the optimum solution, without expressing a direct option.

 Why did the Executive make way for the result to be sealed with judicial authority in order to enable its implementation? It would be a sad day for the country, if it had to bear the cost and delay of litigation to get its administrative machinery to play its normal role. That predicament is nothing new.

It started during the time of former Chief Justice Sarath. N. Silva. Why did it become necessary to use the judicial arm of the government to push start its administrative machinery?

 Haste made waste

The answer lies in the dictatorial nature of our constitution. It has concentrated all executive power in the president in a way that there was no progress in a situation where the president fails to act or acts wrongly, except by way of recourse to the judiciary, that too, if the latter was not constrained by other draconian provisions of the constitution. In the present case, trouble started due to the undue haste to announce the selectees, along with the release of the results.

The government wanted to be one-up on the deal. Imaginably, it was a puerile, hasty step never tried before. Normally, results were announced first: Re-correction was allowed next and the results were announced weeks later, after working out the Z-scores leisurely. This time the situation was more complicated with the selections based on two parallel lists of candidates. In the ultimate analysis, the haste to jump over a few weeks made a waste of several months.

Whose fault?

The jubilant protesters now want the two ministers concerned to resign. They may have forgotten the news story prevalent at the time the results were released, that there were orders to release the results before the end of that week. The ministers bent over backwards to obey orders by engaging their fatigued staff to work overnight. That led to errors in calculations, in addition to the failure to make a cool, calculated decision after due consultations on merging the two lists. The resignations of the ministers may serve to pay off personal scores, but they would not cure the inherent maladies of the system. Perhaps the two ministers may make themselves more acceptable if they put themselves sincerely under a vow of silence. Apart from that, the prevailing system may not allow a difference, even with others in their places.

Further, the call to resign is based on the theory of ministerial responsibility. But is it fair to insist on it, in a system that does not guarantee minimum efficiency of ministerial staff? The Minister of Education has come up with several progressive proposals like the thousand super schools and revision of curricula, but he does not appear to have the administrative support to carry them through. Ministerial responsibility has to be coupled with management support.

Executive appointments

I have had occasion to personally observe how clumsily the Education Ministry worked. The setup has been recently shaken up by the appointment of a new secretary. But it appears that the policy of appointing the most senior officers of the SLAS has to be reviewed, in the light of expanding vistas of expertise. The UK, from which we copied the practice, has long ago taken action to mix administrators and technocrats as heads of their ministries, according to the workloads of the institutions. This tendency need not worry the SLAS overmuch. There are many other similar or even higher positions like Provincial Governors, in which its members could be placed appropriately with their expertise, yielding greater benefits to the country.

Education, with its ever advancing technology may function better under an eminent educationist. But paper qualifications alone do not appear to help, as the controversies at the Ministry of Higher Education may disclose. Subject competence needs to be matched with management ability, tact, sagacity and aptitude at the level of secretary. As the choice of its secretary has a dominant impact on the success of a ministry, it would be wise to give up the present practice of choosing secretaries on an ad hoc basis, depending on face value, seniority and favour. It would be in the national interest to set up a competent panel of advisers to pick out and train suitable men and women cut out for the job of secretary. In England, this function is discharged by the Commissioner for Public Appointments and the Civil Service Commissioners. Independent evaluation is all the more relevant in a setup where the selection of secretaries and similar high posts, does not come under the PSC.

Another shortcoming of our constitution is that it stifles initiative. Ministers tend to initiate action only on their pet proposals. They do not look out for matters surfacing elsewhere, where they could make positive contributions, independently. They await orders for action. That is a natural outcome of the subservient mindset created by the omnipotent presidency. For example, some constructive proposals made by the LLRC are such, that they could be easily implemented by concerned ministries, on their own. But they do not move a finger until they are directed to do so. In the meantime, all these matters get clogged up at the top and much time is lost in the process of sorting them out and referring them for action downstairs. The end result is delay and tardiness in catering to the needs of the public.

Preview of executive action

Yet another danger inherent in an all powerful Presidency is the absence of effective review of decisions made at the top. Ministers are reluctant to speak out even when they disagree with the President for fear of losing favour or even their jobs. This results in blind implementation of un-scrutinized whims and fancies without more, as in the Z-score case. As the system does not let itself to proper collective review by the Cabinet, it would be wise for the President to act only after the relevant proposal had been tested and found feasible by an advisory body.

It is true that the president already has a galaxy of advisors, but they too appear to be inhibited by personal reasons in playing their role effectively. The Queen of England acts only on advice. Her advice comes from the all powerful Cabinet of Ministers. Under our constitution, the cabinet does not enjoy that kind of independence and initiative. In the circumstance, it would be in his own interests for the president also to make up his mind to act only on advice, and if the advisers are not ‘yes men’ seeking to feather their own nests, the need to resort to the judiciary for redress against executive action, is bound to be minimized.

Appointing counselors for the ruler is not a novel idea. It has its origins in the ‘Purohitas’ of yore. A king was appointed for hereditary reasons and there was no guarantee that he had the wisdom to rule faultlessly. The institution of ‘Purohita’ was devised to meet that contingency. The best brains in the land were selected for the post and history and folklore are full of instances where kings ruled righteously for long years under the advice of their ‘Purohitas’.

The ‘Ummagga Jatakaya’ refers to King Videha taking counsel. Videha had five counselors, but even at that time, four of them were time-seeking sycophants, whose folly got the king into trouble. His life was saved thanks to the genius of his youngest counselor, Mahausada. In ‘Kekille’, folklore portrays the folly of a king who acts impulsively at the spur of the moment, without consultation.

A Panel of ‘Purohitas’

Under democracy, rulers are elected more for their public appeal than for their brains. They too need reliable counselors to keep them in power. That need appears to be getting more and more urgent at present under the developing political climate. At long last the opposition appears to be getting its act together. Public protests are on the increase, with students and trade unions coming out readily to register their grievances. The cost of living is rising steeply, and even the elements appear to be on a war path. Economic recession is fast spreading its tentacles.

This situation may not improve with time. The chances are that it may go from bad to worse. A realistic appreciation of this trend should lead to prompt stocktaking and have in place precautionary preventive measures. That calls for meticulous circumspection and preview in governance. That is where an advisory ‘Think Tank’ may help to steer the government out of trouble. The wishful advice of circles of affinity in such a situation may be reassuring, but rarely dependable. What is called for is a Panel of ’ to preview decisions before they are passed down for implementation, for as it is, the system has no mechanism to check and balance them thereafter.

Let not the ‘Purohitas’ be another hired set of card-carrying VIPs. They should be an informal panel of dependable volunteers, who would be consulted confidentially as and when necessary. The greatest beneficiary of this evaluation would be the president himself, as it would guarantee the quality and the accuracy of his decisions, leaving little room for judicial intervention or political loss.

Somapala Gunadheera