he main function of a modern State is the management of public affairs in keeping with widely accepted principles, values and procedures. But this is easier said than done, because the decisions of the state in many areas are influenced by diverse and even conflicting ideas and interests. This is what we observe in the recent history of human societies. The state itself has taken many forms and shapes due to the same reasons. The ideas of early capitalism, socialism, social democracy and global capitalism under neoliberalism combined with diverse interests embedded in them have shaped many societies in the recent past with wide ranging consequences. Meanwhile, not all societies have fully embraced modern political ideas of democratic governance and, as a result, remnants of traditional monarchies, theocracies, autocracies, etc. exist side by side with modern democratic states. The way the public affairs are managed varies widely across the world due to this diversity and the people living in different parts of the world experience divergent outcomes due to this reason.
If we look at the recent history of the country, the Sri Lankan State evolved under western colonial rule and later, during the post-colonial period, and diverse ideas, both exogenous and endogenous, have shaped its structure and functions. For instance, the basic law under which the country is governed 
had changed several times and right now, we are debating what sort of a new constitution is suitable for the country, if at all. The same is also true for a whole range of other aspects of the state, including its functions. In 1977, a liberal economic policy was adopted and, as a result, the role of the Sri Lankan State in the management of the economy and social sectors changed significantly.
The role of the State in managing public affairs is done through state polices, legislation and other interventions. When we look back over the years, policies and interventions in many areas have changed under the influence of changing ideas and interests. Though it is not so difficult to imagine what kind of changes are likely to follow a particular policy shift, the adoption or non-adoption of a new policy proposal depends on the relative influence of different ideas and interests articulated by diverse groups in society. Some of the policies adopted have immediate effects while others lead to long term consequences.
Since these effects can shape the social, economic, cultural and political conditions in the country in a decisive manner, serious and rigorous policy analyses should precede the adoption of policies. Many institutions contribute to such analyses, including the ones that are established by the state for the sole purpose of developing policies in a particular sector, i.e. education, health, social security, etc. In many countries, there exist national level planning bodies that assist governments to adopt evidence-based policies and interventions. Though most Western European countries vigorously followed this path after the Second World War, some ex-colonial countries in the rest of the world also made an effort to emulate the above example. In more recent years, a number of East Asian States embraced an explicitly technocratic approach to managing public affairs. For instance, Singapore achieved rapid economic and social progress within a short span of time largely due to the technocratic orientation of their leaders. China in recent years has followed suit and achieved rapid economic growth. There are also other examples in the region and elsewhere.
Sri Lanka’s post independence experience is mixed. Some of the policies adopted around the time of independence helped avoid rapid rural urban migration, promote agricultural development, achieve greater income equality and social justice, etc. introduction of free education in the early 1940’s from kindergarten to university was a major step forward. Some of the steps taken as part of this initiative such as the emphasis placed on bilingualism and the establishment of a network of central schools throughout the country not only facilitated significant social mobility but also helped bridge the rural urban gap to a great extent. Yet, subsequent policy interventions, taken under the influence of vested interests and conservative forces not only reversed the early gains but led to disastrous consequences as well.
The almost total lack of any correspondence between rigorous policy analysis and decision making in the education sector over the last several decades has resulted in the mismanagement of public education leading to disastrous consequences. Space does not permit me to elaborate on this further but suffice it to say that many social and economic issues in the country today, in one way or another, are connected to the country’s public education system. The same is also true with respect to many other areas like transport, health and the economy.
As mentioned above, the failure to adopt evidence based polices is part of the problem of mismanagement of public affairs. What is equally important is how decisions are made to address rapidly evolving issues like youth agitations due to unemployment or a devastating disaster like a Tsunami. Well thought out decisions in such cases can help the country to turn a problem into an opportunity. Since the space is limited, let me illustrate this with an example.
Graduate unemployment has been a problem at least since the late 1960’s. During the last regime, over 100,000 graduates were absorbed into the state sector simply to defuse growing unrest among educated youth. The absorption was done in an extremely ad hoc fashion with no consideration given to the future prospects of these young people or how they could be effectively engaged to improve the functioning of various state institutions that they were absorbed into. This is despite numerous representations some of us made to the authorities to encourage them to adopt a rational approach to training and deployment of these graduates in selected areas of the public sector. As is well known, the outreach services of many state institutions are virtually non-existent and many people suffer in silence as a result.
There are many social, economic and environmental issues across the country that can be addressed through regional and local level interventions. These graduates could have been classified according to their training, aptitudes and interests, given additional training and deployed with a clear mandate to carry out such interventions. This would have not only enriched their professional lives but also help improve the services of many State institutions, contributing to a significant improvement of the life chances of people at a community level. Instead, today, we have a large group of frustrated government employees maintained at public expense and a large mass of hapless citizens who continue to suffer in silence for want of professional assistance. Some of them of course give up and commit suicide, ending up in police records as mere numbers.
In popular democracies, politicians in general cannot resist popular pressures. So, those who are entrusted with the responsibility of managing public affairs tend to respond to popular pressures rather than professional advice. In the run up to the parliamentary elections in 2015, many concerned professionals and academics got together to formulate a sound institutional and policy framework to be considered by the new government. But the leaders of the government decided to ignore such advice for reasons best known to them. As we can see today, the consequences have been disastrous.
