Systemic institutional failure

Saturday, 7 January 2012 00:28 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

The media is still abuzz over the issue of the faulty A/L results, with reports filtering in of postal revenues doubling with most students applying for re-correction. One report told of how the Anuradhapura post office earned Rs. 200,000 in one day due to the rush.

The extent of the alleged inaccuracies in A/L results, which is being supported by a multitude of reports despite Government denials, is unprecedented — but it is not the first fiasco regarding examinations in the recent past. Previously, controversy surrounding the O/L math paper in 2008 resulted in the cancellation and repeat of the exam.

The Government‘s response in this situation has been incoherent and ineffectual, with each party, notably the two Ministries, denying responsibility and blaming other institutions implicated, but not providing a clear assessment of the extent of the issue or the nature or method for implementing any form of remedial action.

The reportage reveals a public outcry against the Department of Examinations in the light of glaring inaccuracies in the A/L examination results. The prevalence of civil society voices protesting the matter is notable, as this demographic had become increasingly accepting of many failures by bureaucrats and even Government per se in the post-war context.

It is also indicative of the extent of the failings of the Examinations Department that largely dormant civil society groups are now virulent in their protest. However, in the light of such discontent, the inability of disparate civil society groups to organise themselves exposes the weakness of the political opposition – notably the UNP and JVP, which are both too embroiled in their respective internal crises to respond proactively to national issues, even when they stand to gain significant political mileage.

The latest crisis, coming soon after failures in many other institutions of Government, indicates that institutional failure in Sri Lanka is systemic. Recently, many institutional failures of other institutions have included the importation of low-quality petrol and cement; the failure to act against a postmaster-general found guilty of corruption, despite postal union protests; the failure to follow due process in allowing the establishment of a private medical college; and the controversy over regulation of the pharmaceuticals industry.

The rhetoric of substituting Government functions through privatisation or moving towards militarisation demonstrates its limitations in such failings. The ability of the private sector or any other entity to replace functions of Government is dependent on the existence of sound regulatory frameworks and functional bureaucracies. The centralisation of political power and attempts to circumvent bureaucracies appears to be only further weakening Government and bringing about failure.

The current administration is once again presented with a case to rethink its emphasis on developing hard infrastructure versus fixing its debilitated soft infrastructure. Without a clear attempt to provide professional and independent institutions with leaders who take responsibility for their actions, these hazards are likely to be repeated. Moreover, irrespective of anything that the Government does, there will always be questions raised over the accuracy of A/L results from this point forwards – if it is not already present.