The Danger of a Government’s Dual Stance: Principles for Some, Pragmatism for Others?

 

Governments are often judged not by what they say, but by whether they apply the same standards consistently. Citizens can accept difficult decisions. They can even tolerate unpopular decisions. What they struggle to accept is when the principles used to justify one action seem to disappear when another politically sensitive issue arises.

Recent events surrounding the proposed extension of judges’ retirement ages and the reversal of the decision to exclude the Kavadi dance segment from the Devinuwara Perahera have reignited this debate in Sri Lanka. While the two issues are entirely different in nature, together they raise a broader question: Is the Government applying a consistent philosophy of governance, or is it adopting different standards depending on the political consequences?

The Judicial Retirement Age Controversy

The Government’s proposal to extend the retirement age of judges has been presented as a measure aimed at retaining experience and continuity within the judicial system. Supporters argue that senior judges possess decades of knowledge and that extending their service can strengthen institutional stability.

However, opposition has come not only from outside the ruling coalition but also from respected legal figures. Senior NPP lawyer Lal Wijenayake publicly questioned the move, arguing that such a decision had not been approved by the party’s executive decision-making structures and warning against measures that could affect perceptions of judicial independence.

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka and international legal organisations have similarly expressed concern that altering the retirement age of sitting judges could create a perception of executive influence over the judiciary. Whether these fears are justified or not, the Government’s position has effectively been that institutional concerns should not prevent a policy it believes is beneficial.

In other words, the Government has been willing to challenge established convention because it sees a greater administrative objective.

The Devinuwara Kavadi Reversal

The Devinuwara controversy reveals a different side of governance.

Initially, Police and intelligence agencies recommended suspending the Kavadi dance segment of the Perahera after receiving intelligence assessments warning of potential confrontations linked to disputes between rival groups and alleged criminal elements. The recommendation was not based on culture or religion. It was based on security assessments.

Yet within a day, the decision was reversed. Public Security Minister Ananda Wijepala authorised all 45 Kavadi groups to participate while promising additional Police and STF security to maintain order.

Supporters viewed the move as a defence of tradition and a rejection of attempts to curtail a long-standing cultural practice. Critics, however, saw something different. They questioned why intelligence warnings that were apparently serious enough to trigger a recommendation for suspension suddenly became manageable once political and public pressure intensified.

The Perception Problem

The issue is not whether either decision was right or wrong. The bigger issue is consistency.

When discussing the judiciary, the Government appears willing to override concerns about perception in pursuit of what it sees as institutional benefit. Yet when faced with warnings from security agencies regarding the Perahera, it ultimately chose accommodation over caution. This creates a perception that institutions are trusted selectively.

Such selective reliance on institutional advice creates the perception that expertise is respected when it supports political objectives and dismissed when it becomes politically inconvenient. When an institution’s advice aligns with political objectives, it is emphasised. When it creates political difficulty, it can be overridden.

The same administration that asks citizens to trust its judgement on a constitutional matter affecting the judiciary also overruled the recommendations of security authorities on a matter they considered serious enough to warrant intervention. That contrast inevitably invites scrutiny.

The Real Test of Good Governance

Good governance is not measured by whether a government makes popular decisions. It is measured by whether the reasoning behind those decisions is applied consistently.

If expertise and institutional wisdom are important, then they should matter whether the subject is judges or police intelligence reports. If political leaders believe elected representatives should ultimately make decisions regardless of expert advice, then that principle should also be applied consistently. The danger arises when different standards appear to operate simultaneously: institutional independence in one case, political discretion in another; caution in one arena, flexibility in another.

Citizens may not agree on judicial reform. They may not agree on the Kavadi issue. But most will agree on one thing: a government’s credibility depends on the predictability of its principles.

Principle vs. Political Practicality

The judges’ retirement age debate and the Devinuwara Kavadi reversal are about more than courts or Peraheras. Together, they highlight a fundamental challenge faced by every government: balancing principle against political practicality.

The real question is not whether these decisions were correct. It is whether they reflect a coherent governing philosophy. When governments appear to apply different standards to different situations, public trust begins to erode. And once trust is weakened, even well-intentioned decisions become harder to defend.

In politics, consistency is not a luxury. It is the foundation upon which legitimacy is built.

The Catalyst