Curbing ‘executive’ enthusiasm

‘Curb your enthusiasm’ is a comedy television series created by Larry David, the television writer who was, along with Jerry Seinfeld, the ‘brains’ behind the popular sitcom ‘Seinfeld’. In this avatar, Larry plays himself. The plots are mostly about his many faux pas and anxieties with certain social conventions and expectations. He just can’t curb his enthusiasm to vent and this leads to awkward situations.   

That’s preamble. We are going to discuss ‘enthusiasm’ here. In particular, ‘executive enthusiasm’ or rather the fixation with execution. Let’s start with the basics. Separation of powers.  

‘Separation of Powers’ essentially refers to a constitutional arrangement that keeps the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government apart from one another. Ideally, there are checks and balances in place to ensure that none of them can override or encroach upon the other.   

That’s about the constitution. Political culture is a different kind of creature. Ignorance and/or arrogance make people arrogate upon themselves all kinds of powers. Politicians can be blamed, but it’s not only their baby.   

However, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa amply demonstrated that political will can do what ill-conceived and badly written legislation cannot and will not

After leading the United National Party (UNP) to victory at the General Election in 1977, someone is said to have advised J.R. Jayewardene that he should not put together a team to support him. ‘JR’ is reported to have rejected this suggestion, pointing out that Cabinet was his team and that it would not be prudent to set up two centres of power. JR did have his own team, but they were largely invisible and it is hard to ascertain the sway they held over him.   

The ‘decentralized budget’ messed things up. Every Member of Parliament was able to play executive with respect to the monies allocated to them. Naturally, by and by, the principal purpose of being in Parliament, i.e. to legislate, was forgotten. Ranasinghe Premadasa, beleaguered by an impeachment attempt, made things worse by creating dozens of ministerial posts to secure support of would-be ‘traitors’. That was in 1991.   

A landmark Supreme Court decision delivered by then Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva, complicated matters even more with governments luring opposition MPs with portfolios either to obtain a working majority or to secure the two-thirds majority necessary to amend the constitution.   

Once you add the state ministers and deputy ministers, you have a situation where almost every government MP has some kind of executive role. It’s no wonder then that MPs are pretty clueless when it comes to the main business of Parliament. Bills and acts are not read, and if read, are rarely understood. A study on the use of the Parliament’s library would say a lot about how MPs prepare for debates. They could always say ‘most of what we need is on the internet,’ but the quality of debate certainly indicates the level of intellectual rigor.   

The promise to put a limit on Cabinet size by Maithripala Sirisena in his election campaign, then, is a reflection of general public antipathy to executive-excess, if you will. So we got the 19th Amendment, essentially a bit of milk in a cauldron of cow dung. 

However, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa amply demonstrated that political will can do what ill-conceived and badly written legislation cannot and will not. The 19th set a ceiling of 30 cabinet portfolios. The surreptitiously slipped in caveat, ‘National Government’ did away with that limit. And then we got a plethora of state ministers and deputy ministers.   

The argument for state ministers is essentially one of ‘too many things for one person to take care of’. That’s rank silly. It is all about delegation, detailing key performance indicators, oversight, diligence and discipline from top to bottom.   

It is in this context that the committee appointed to peruse applications for key posts in corporations and statutory bodies makes sense, i.e as a complement to the ‘small cabinet’.   

There can be some political fallout in all this, for the political culture is mostly about possible benefits that could be demanded and got in exchange for political support. Prior to elections, people say ‘we are doing this for the country, for the people, for the next generation,’ when they support candidates and/or parties. Post-election, its about pounds of flesh. It can be read on the faces of those who ‘missed out’ in cabinet selection. Others who coveted plum posts in the state sector are reported to be whining. Others are salivating with expectation. Some, using the lack of clarity post-election, have taken on responsibilities where there are vacancies.   

Some are good at certain things, not all. Others at other things. An excellent campaign manager is not necessarily a wizard at managing a corporation, for example. Political loyalty is not a bad thing, but it is neither quality that is necessary nor sufficient to warrant appointment to any post. Different things.   

There can be some political fallout in all this, for the political culture is mostly about possible benefits that could be demanded and got in exchange for political support

In another important move, the President has recalled all political appointees to diplomatic posts. Now, if he were to appoint loyalists as diplomats, it would be a mistake. Career diplomats are the best prepared to take on such jobs. If, special expertise is required in any foreign mission and such expertise is unavailable in the Foreign Ministry, then there’s a case for special appointments to specific posts, but always under the supervision of the particular ambassador. 

If people are dying to serve the country, perks and posts should never be an issue.   

Make no mistake, enthusiasm is a positive attribute. Sobriety is positive too. Discipline is good. Self-discipline, better. If this country is to progress, if Gotabaya Rajapaksa is to be a different kind of leader, if our political culture is to be elevated, then a bit of restraint and a ton of responsibility would be in order. The citizens, by and large, are okay in this regard. Indeed, more initiative wouldn’t harm.   

It is the lackeys that can quickly get out of line. And they, usually unknowingly, wreck things up for their leaders [ref: the previous two regimes]. Most leaders love sycophants and sycophancy. Gotabaya Rajapaksa is not into frills. He keeps enthusiasm under check. Others could do too.  

[email protected]. www.malindawords.blogspot.com