Collective responsibility, in general, refers to a group of people associated with an organisation, business, or the Government taking responsibility for a task or a decision made as a team.
For example, a group of experts takes a decision collectively to select a team of sportsmen to represent a tournament. Whether this team performs well or not, the panel that selected them is completely responsible for the outcome. They have no proviso to criticise each other if the result becomes sore. Collective responsibility is equally applicable to any entity, including political parties or businesses.
Wikipedia describes the Cabinet as collective responsibility, (also known as collective ministerial responsibility), which is a Constitutional convention in Parliamentary systems that members of the Cabinet must publicly support all Governmental decisions made in the Cabinet, even if they do not personally and privately agree with them. Wikipedia also states that if a member of the Cabinet of Ministers wishes to openly object to a Cabinet decision, they are obliged to resign from their Cabinet portfolios.
The citizenry of Sri Lanka has witnessed a blatant violation of ministerial collective responsibility during the past year, with a number of Cabinet and State Ministers vehemently publicly criticising their own colleagues on various issues discussed in weekly Cabinet meetings. Some of these criticisms were purely personal, whilst some were about public issues. These acts not only immensely discredit the Government but also create confusion among the general public.
Ministerial responsibility
Collective ministerial responsibility consists of two key components. First is the principle that Cabinet members must be able to present their opinions freely and frankly before coming to a collective decision. The main criterion for these discussions is that their contents should remain confidential.
The second principle is that once the decision is made and agreed upon by all the members, they are expected to abide by that position. The accepted tradition is that if any member of the Cabinet disagrees with the decision or decisions, he or she resigns from the portfolio.
However, in Sri Lanka, successive Presidents have adopted flexible approaches to collective responsibility depending on the seriousness of the situation. Media coverage of disagreements or leaks of information has been overlooked or ignored by leaders in recent times, depending on the severity of the breach and the context of the situation.
A breach of collective responsibility can have an enormous negative impact that can create major political costs for a ruling Government. The masses may lose confidence and trust in the Government if information leaks continue.
Frequent disclosures of negative factors in ministerial discussions can undermine and destabilise the members’ willingness to contribute to discussions on important public issues or policies. In such a scenario, the Government is incapable of maintaining a unified public view and can also create an easy path for opposing political parties to attack.
Since taking over the office, President Rajapaksa maintained a somewhat soft stance on his critics in the Cabinet and outside of it. Several times previously, he subtly implied to some of these critics that they must resign and join the Opposition ranks instead of criticising the actions of the Government while remaining in the government. However, as the commonest practice of Sri Lankan political culture, nobody dared resign and lose their perks in the middle of the term.
Cabinet decisions
The President’s expulsion of two Senior Ministers from the Cabinet due to continuous anti-Government public remarks and criticisms of a number of collective Cabinet decisions became the hottest political topic in the country. For a considerable period of time, both Ministers were allowed to have a free ride to criticise the Government’s moves.
The usual practice and the tradition is for the President to request that they resign voluntarily from ministerial portfolios, but the two Ministers were denied that opportunity. They could have saved face if the duo had resigned before the sacking.
Three Ministers, including the sacked two, have initiated legal action against a Government decision on an electricity-related matter, perhaps for the first time in Sri Lankan history. The entire country expected the resignation of the third Senior Minister, but it has not taken place as of yet.
The two Ministers who kept on bragging about their role in bringing the incumbent President to power and the landslide win in the 2020 general election were undoubtedly shocked and shaken by the presidential action. Apparently, they had not anticipated such a bold move by the President.
The opinion of the majority of the general public is that they played a double role and fooled both the Government and the people. In order to promote their personal agendas at the cost of the Government, the two Ministers seemed to have attacked the unpopular decisions of the Government.
However, according to some of their Cabinet colleagues, they have barely spoken against any issue at the Cabinet meetings and always voted for the decisions made collectively, both popular and unpopular.
Collective responsibility is not limited to the Cabinet members. Ethically and morally, the entire Government membership is expected to stand together on critical issues, regardless of their magnitude.
General view
Regrettably, the trend during the reign of the incumbent President was that, whilst maintaining unity on positive issues that are politically gainful, some Government Parliamentarians openly condemned any public issue that is disadvantageous to them politically. The general view is that they act in this manner because of the mild approach to coercive action of President Rajapaksa.
A legitimate Government cannot afford to have internal dissidents. Obviously, such rebellions can cause more harm than any opposition, even a weak one. Therefore, maintaining unity with either rewards or coercion was the habitual practice not only in Sri Lankan politics but perhaps in many democracies.
There are many examples of leaders who have applied the carrot-and-stick approach during successive post-independence Governments.
According to unconfirmed media reports, there is talk of forming a National Government with willing Opposition political parties or alliances. However, the million rupee question is whether the political parties with diverse ideologies, different viewpoints on national issues, and frequently at each other’s throats can form an alliance regardless of the gravity of national issues.
Can they maintain unity, harmony, and collective responsibility even for a short period? Considering the past, the anticipated consequence may be a huge negative. In no time, everyone will be working on their own political agendas, claiming credit for all positive outcomes while passing the buck when things go wrong.
Although this move, if it gets going, seems prudent because of the severity of the country’s current situation, a national Government can be an undesirable mechanism in ordinary circumstances. The accepted norm is that in a democracy, a strong Opposition is always useful to the citizenry. However, if everything works well, the Government may consider this a temporary remedy.
Entire citizenry
At this time of distress, the entire citizenry expects that not only the Government but also the Opposition parties take collective responsibility and work towards an extremely speedy solution. The parliamentary representation of 225 members from every political party must get together as they have been elected by the people of the country.
Hence, leaving petty and opportunistic politics aside, a collective effort from the ruling and opposing parties is a dire requirement today. Unfortunately, however, in Sri Lanka, instead of proposing solutions, most often, the Opposition vehemently criticises every move of the Government to gain political mileage.
Although their voice is loud for people’s grievances, their intention is to grab political power whilst the Government factions attempt to retain it by hook or crook. Therefore, all attempts must be honest and genuine for the sake of the common citizenry.