by a Special Defence Affairs Correspondent in Colombo
In a landmark statement in Parliament, Sri Lanka’s President emphasized a critical principle: the loyalty of the military should be to the state as an institution, not to any individual leader. This declaration comes at a pivotal moment in the nation’s history, as Sri Lanka seeks to address the legacy of a decades-long civil war, the politicization of its armed forces, and the erosion of professionalism within its military leadership. The President’s call for a shift from personnel-based loyalty to professionalism is not just a political statement; it is a clarion call for systemic reform. It challenges the military to redefine its role in a democratic society and align itself with the principles of meritocracy, transparency, and institutional integrity.
The Legacy of the Civil War and Its Aftermath
During the civil war, Sri Lanka’s military demonstrated remarkable professionalism and strategic acumen. The right men were placed in the right positions, and the armed forces successfully subdued the enemy, bringing an end to a conflict that had plagued the nation for decades. However, the end of the war marked the beginning of a new challenge: the politicization of the military. Political leaders, eager to capitalize on the victory, used the armed forces as a tool for political gain. Military leaders who had played key roles in the war were granted extensions of service, not based on professional necessity, but as rewards for personal loyalty. This practice created a culture where promotions and appointments were increasingly influenced by personal connections rather than professional merit.
The consequences of this shift were profound. Officers who had dedicated their careers to the service of the nation found themselves sidelined, while those with the right connections rose through the ranks. The military’s promotion and performance appraisal systems were distorted, undermining morale and eroding trust within the ranks. The Commander-in-Chief himself, by granting multiple extensions to senior officers, set a precedent that prioritized personal loyalty over professional excellence. This not only weakened the military’s institutional integrity but also compromised its ability to function as a neutral, apolitical institution.
The Culture of Extensions: A Case Study
The extent of this problem is starkly illustrated by the cases of several senior officers who received multiple extensions of service. For instance, the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) was granted seven extensions, the former Chief of National Intelligence (CNI) received five extensions, and the Army and Navy Commanders were each granted two extensions. These extensions were not based on strategic necessity or professional merit but were instead rewards for personal loyalty to political leaders. This practice deprived some of the best officers, who had been groomed to become exceptional military leaders, of the opportunity to serve at the highest levels. It also sent a clear message to the rank and file: personal connections matter more than professional competence.
Political Interference and Mediocre Leadership
Political leaders in Sri Lanka, in a very unprofessional fashion, sought military leadership that fit their political agenda rather than the country’s security concerns. This led to the nomination of more mediocre-type military leaders to command the armed forces. These leaders, chosen for their loyalty to political masters rather than their professional competence, perpetuated the same flawed principles within their own ranks. They promoted “my man”—officers who were personally loyal to them—rather than those who demonstrated the highest levels of professionalism and strategic acumen. This practice not only hindered institutional integrity but also created a culture of sycophancy, where merit and capability were secondary to personal allegiance.
The result was a military leadership that was increasingly disconnected from the needs of the nation. Instead of focusing on national security and the welfare of the troops, these leaders were more concerned with maintaining their positions and pleasing their political patrons. This not only undermined the effectiveness of the military but also eroded public trust in the armed forces as an institution.
The President’s Vision: Loyalty to the Government, Not the Person
The President’s statement in Parliament represents a bold attempt to reverse this trend. By asserting that the military’s loyalty should be to the state as an institution rather than to any individual leader, he is calling for a return to the principles of professionalism and meritocracy. This vision is not just about correcting past mistakes; it is about building a military that is fit for the future—a military that serves the nation, not the interests of a few.
In theory, this principle is sound. A military that is loyal to the state, rather than to individuals, is better equipped to uphold democratic values and maintain national security. It ensures that promotions and appointments are based on professional criteria, not personal connections. It fosters a culture of accountability, where leaders are judged by their performance, not their political allegiances. And it reinforces the military’s role as a neutral institution, dedicated to the service of the nation.
Lessons from the U.S. and India
To understand how this vision can be realized, it is instructive to look at the examples of the United States and India, two democracies that have successfully maintained civilian control over their militaries while ensuring professionalism and institutional integrity.
The United States: A Model of Civilian Control
In the U.S., the military is firmly under civilian control, with the President serving as the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary of Defense providing civilian oversight. Senior military officers swear an oath to the Constitution, not to any individual leader. Promotions and appointments are based on merit, performance, and seniority, with extensions of service granted only under exceptional circumstances. For example, General Mark Milley’s term as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was extended in 2021, but this was done to ensure stability during a transition between presidential administrations, not as a reward for personal loyalty. The U.S. military’s commitment to apolitical conduct and professionalism has been a cornerstone of its effectiveness and a model for democratic civil-military relations.
India: Balancing Professionalism and Civilian Oversight
India, too, provides a compelling example. The Indian military is subordinate to the civilian government, with the President serving as the ceremonial Supreme Commander and real authority lying with the elected government. Promotions and appointments are based on professional criteria, and extensions of service are rare and granted only for strategic reasons. For instance, General Bipin Rawat’s tenure as Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) was extended in 2021 to oversee major defense reforms. India’s military has a long tradition of apolitical conduct, with senior officers expected to remain neutral and avoid involvement in political matters. This has ensured that the military remains a professional institution, loyal to the Constitution and the nation.
The Challenge of Implementation
However, the real challenge lies in implementation. How can Sri Lanka’s military leadership align itself with this vision, given the deeply entrenched culture of politicization and favoritism? The answer lies in a combination of institutional reforms, cultural shifts, and strong leadership.
1. Institutional Reforms
The military must overhaul its promotion and performance appraisal systems to ensure that they are based on professional competence, performance, and seniority. Transparent criteria for promotions should be established, and the process should be open to scrutiny. Extensions of service should be granted only in exceptional circumstances and based on clear, professional criteria. Independent boards, comprising both military and civilian experts, should oversee senior appointments to ensure impartiality.
2. Cultural Shifts
The military must reinforce its core values, including loyalty to the Constitution, professionalism, and apolitical conduct. Regular ethics training and a strict code of conduct for senior officers can help instill these values. Leaders must set an example by adhering to the principles of meritocracy and transparency, refusing extensions of service unless absolutely necessary, and holding themselves accountable for their actions.
3. Strong Leadership
The Commander of the Army, Navy, and Air Force must lead by example. By adhering to the principles of professionalism and loyalty to the state and the government elected by the people through free and fair election, they can set a precedent for their subordinates. This includes decentralizing decision-making, implementing rotational assignments for senior officers, and fostering a culture of accountability.
The Role of the Government
The success of these reforms depends on the support of the government. Political leaders must refrain from interfering in military appointments or operations. They must provide the legislative backing needed to formalize the principles of meritocracy, transparency, and civilian control over the military. By doing so, they can ensure that the military remains a neutral, professional institution, dedicated to the service of the nation.
Conclusion
The President’s call for a military that is loyal to the government, not to individuals, is a timely and necessary step toward redefining military leadership in Sri Lanka. It challenges the armed forces to move away from a culture of personal loyalty and embrace the principles of professionalism, meritocracy, and institutional integrity. The examples of the U.S. and India demonstrate that this vision is not only achievable but essential for the stability and security of a democratic nation. While the road ahead is fraught with challenges, the rewards are immense: a military that is fit for the future, a nation that is secure and stable, and a democracy that is strong and resilient. The time for change is now. The question is not whether it can be done, but whether we have the courage to do it.
