Political stability vs. policy stability

When the current Government was voted into power, one of the biggest positive points touted was the benefits Sri Lanka stood to gain from political stability. Conventional wisdom leans towards the assurance that when there is a powerful Government in place the result is stability. However, the recent fracas over the mandatory cremation issue indicates that political stability does not necessarily translate into policy stability or even policy clarity. 

Any Government should focus on making policies that are in the best interests of the public. This means that inclusivity and the inalienable nature of human rights is embedded into the foundations of policy making. However, there has been little evidence of this in the endless back and forth over the mandatory cremation issue with many stakeholders essentially giving up hope of a swift internal resolution and pinning their hope on the tour of Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan and the impending United National Human Rights Council (UNHRC) sessions to prod the Government into action.  

Politicians in Sri Lanka are used to making off the cuff remarks and not really having to pay the price for it. Their speeches are routinely reported with little fact checking and follow up to ensure that what they say is actually implemented. However, the statement by Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa drew praise as well as censure precisely because it was seen to be coming from the very top of Government. It was seen to carry some level of credibility for an otherwise incredulous group of moderates who had been misled so many times, that they had lost faith in the word of their political representatives. This was why there were demands for a gazette to be issued to back up the words.  

Unfortunately, in just a few hours, other officials and members of parliament showed just how little faith could be placed in the words of someone even so far up the power ladder. State Minister Dr. Sudarshini Fernandopulle trotted out the lame duck point of entrusting a committee to make decisions, even though this has been clearly proven to be a sham. The Government, having politicised an issue that should have been dealt with using science, is now increasingly appearing ineffectual and at the mercy of its hard-core nationalist support base. 

A Government that stands on principle, which the current administration has purported itself to be, should be capable of making decisions that support the well-being of the entire population. A weak Government, supposedly is one that needs to pander to its vote base constantly, in order to legitimise its existence. Observers of the theatrics of the past 48 hours are understandably left perplexed at how to align these two contradicting points. 

Political strength should not exist to only serve politicians and a select few. Political stability should serve an entire country by displaying the capacity to support diverse views and promote inclusivity. It is questionable whether political stability that does not translate to policy stability can be of service to the people. Unbridled political power that fails to serve communities can also undermine democracy. Perhaps this is why, more than any other issue, it is the mandatory cremation standoff that could define power and its myriad impacts in relation to this Government.