If Part One diagnosed the problem, Part Two considers solutions. How can Sri Lanka strengthen decision-making, rebuild trust, and create a political culture rooted in integrity and accountability? Lessons for this can be drawn both from within Sri Lanka and from international experience—especially Australia’s evolving integrity framework.
Rebuilding the Public Service
At the heart of Sri Lanka’s democratic malaise is the steady erosion of its public service. What was once guided by the independent Public Service Commission (PSC) has, over decades of constitutional tinkering, become fragmented and politicised. The result has been declining professionalism, meritocracy, and careerism in the bureaucracy.
Trade unions have repeatedly voiced concerns about the creeping influence of political allegiances, warning against a “stacked” public service. Citizens, too, are frustrated by the lack of responsiveness, transparency, and accountability in everyday service delivery. Higher officials are accused of lacking both the autonomy and the freedom to implement policies effectively.
Reversing this trend requires more than rhetoric. It demands the reconstitution of the PSC with genuine independence, an objective selection process, and fair and transparent procedures for recruitment, promotion, transfer, and disciplinary control. Only then can the public service regain credibility as an institution that serves the nation rather than whichever party happens to hold power.
In this regard, Australia offers both inspiration and warning. Despite its robust integrity architecture, the Australian Public Service has not been immune to political interference. Under the Morrison government, ministers treated public servants as instruments of partisan will rather than neutral stewards of the state. Some even warned that stronger integrity legislation would undermine governance. Yet, reforms and inquiries in Australia also show that public service independence can be defended if institutions are given teeth, and if civil society remains vigilant.
For Sri Lanka, the lesson is clear: professionalism and integrity in the public service are not luxuries—they are preconditions for good governance.
Tackling Corruption through Integrity Systems
Fighting corruption cannot rely on prosecutions alone. Poorly designed laws, such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act or the Online Safety Act, have shown how legislation can become tools of abuse rather than reform. What is needed instead is a comprehensive integrity system: one that combines legal safeguards, ethical standards, independent oversight bodies, and active citizen engagement.
“Australia’s National Integrity System: The Blueprint for Action” report (https://transparency.org.au/australias-national-integrity-system/), backed by Transparency International, emphasises precisely this approach: independent anti-corruption watchdogs, stronger whistleblower protections, and transparency in lobbying. Sri Lanka would benefit from adopting similar safeguards, tailored to its own context, to both deter misconduct and reward integrity.
Crucially, accountability in Sri Lanka must also extend to public sector management. Suspension or dismissal of officials must follow clear procedures—independent decision-making, opportunities for response, and careful consideration of the severity of misconduct. Anything less risks entrenching unfair practices and politicised purges in the public service, undermining both morale and effectiveness.
Re-engaging the Electorate
Institutions alone cannot guarantee accountability. Citizens themselves must be engaged and vigilant about it. The Aragalaya protest movement of 2022 demonstrated how public outrage can shake entrenched political elites. However, that outrage without sustained engagement fades quickly.
For reform to endure, civic participation must be institutionalised, including mandatory disclosure of political donations, transparency in government spending, accessible Right to Information mechanisms, and space for grassroots organisations to monitor governance. Democracy thrives when citizens are empowered not just to protest, but to scrutinise and participate.
Political Leadership and Ethical Standards
Ultimately, the quality of governance depends on political culture. Sri Lanka’s politics, dominated for too long by dynasties and cliques, must give way to merit-based leadership. Codes of conduct for politicians, enforced by independent bodies, can help this.
International examples highlight both the pitfalls and possibilities. Singapore demonstrates how political will, and strict enforcement can embed integrity at the highest levels of governance. Australia’s Fitzgerald Inquiry in Queensland[i], which exposed systemic corruption but also triggered sweeping reforms, shows that crises can be transformed into turning points.
Sri Lanka needs its own watershed moment: a collective commitment across party lines to honesty, openness, and responsibility.
From Malaise to Renewal
Sri Lanka’s democratic malaise is neither inevitable nor irreversible. The governing party must embrace transparency, the bureaucracy must regain professionalism, and the electorate must demand accountability without falling prey to populism. A revitalised Public Service Commission, underpinned by a broader integrity system and supported by an engaged citizenry, could become the foundation of renewal.
If “everything under the sun is political,” then Sri Lankans must insist that politics serves the public interest, not private gain. Only then can governance rise above scandal and expediency to deliver justice, fairness, and prosperity.
Concluded.
[i] In 1987, Queensland’s Premier ordered the Fitzgerald Inquiry to investigate police corruption in illegal gambling and prostitution. The investigation led to significant prosecutions and recommendations for reform. (https://www.ccc.qld.gov.au/about/about-ccc/our-history/fitzgerald-inquiry)
