Stand up for public servants

Governments are made by politicians but run by public servants. This is why it is crucial for public officials to be given independence and allowed to work without fear of political interference or reprisal. The more evolved governance is in a country the more independence public officials are given; in fact this can be viewed as a key litmus test for any Government that aspires towards transparency. But this is not the case in Sri Lanka. 

Public Administration Ministry Secretary J. Dadallage had given a hard-hitting interview to a Sinhala weekend newspaper criticizing the actions of the Government and its treatment of public servants who served under the previous administration. He contended that the public service should be treated more professionally and charged that the current Government was failing to meet its aspired goals of governance and transparency.

Several days later he was transferred to the Posts, Postal Services and Muslim Religious Affairs Ministry. Undeterred Dadallage has stood by his statements and plans to appeal the transfer. Even though reasons for the transfer have not been officially communicated it is not difficult to draw a connection between his statements and the swift retribution of transfer.  

Why is it that the Government, having come to power promising good governance, is so reluctant to introduce whistle blower protection and give fair hearing to public officials? Why is it not possible to empower public officials? Why should they not act as policy watchdogs? Why should their careers be under the power of politicians? As public servants they exist to work in public interest, not protect political agendas.           

Governments have a responsibility to facilitate whistleblowing and in so doing protect public interest whistleblowers.  Laws which recognise the right of those who act in the public interest not to suffer harm or threats of harm and which build on the democratic principles of free speech and freedom of information are critical. They provide individuals a safe alternative to the silence that allows negligence and wrongdoing to take root.  Whistleblower protection also offers an important alternative to anonymous leaks – a form of self-preservation which can compromise both the public interest and the whistleblower. International instruments on whistleblower protection have, for the most part, recognised the importance of having whistleblower protection laws in place as part of an effective anti-corruption framework. Legislation provides a good foundation on which to develop legal and institutional frameworks to facilitate whistleblowing and protect whistleblowers for a wider category of public interest information. 

While it is incumbent on governments to facilitate safe and effective channels for whistleblowing and to protect whistleblowers, civil society has a complementary role in advocating for the protection of those who come forward to safeguard the public interest, particularly when it challenges Government authority.  An engaged civil society can ensure that the legal and practical responses to whistleblowing are effective and appropriately applied over the long term. 

A Government that wishes to view itself as genuinely accountable needs to stop crushing its dissenters. Passing Right to Information (RTI) and other legislation is moot if implementation is undermined and an officials right to stand up for what is right is compromised by petty politics.