By Fareez Farook –

Fareez Farook

“In merit we trust, beyond the veil of creed,  A cabinet of skill, to serve the nation’s need. With unity and strength, let progress be our guide, For Sri Lanka’s future, let competence decide.”

A few days ago, I received a call from an acquaintance, whom I’ll refer to as Shabeer. He expressed his frustration, saying, “Even someone as divisive as Gotabaya Rajapaksa appointed Ali Sabry, a Muslim, to the powerful Ministry of Justice. Yet, the current government led by Anura does not have a single Muslim cabinet minister.”

I listened patiently and then explained to Shabeer that Ali Sabry’s appointment was not a recognition of his skills, experience, or expertise. Rather, it was a reward from Gotabaya for his unwavering loyalty and for representing him in court. I then asked Shabeer to consider what tangible contributions Ali Sabry had made to the nation or to his community.

Our conversation lasted nearly 45 minutes, during which I was able to help Shabeer see the flaws in his judgment. By the end, he understood that true merit and genuine service to the community should be the guiding principles for such appointments, rather than mere political loyalty.

As a Sri Lankan Muslim, I feel compelled to address this controversy surrounding the absence of Muslim cabinet ministers in President Anura Kumara Dissanayake‘s new government. This issue has sparked significant debate, with some accusing the administration of sidelining the community. However, I believe it is essential to look beyond the surface and understand the broader context and intentions behind these appointments.

In a move that surprised many, he assembled a team of ministers based on merit and expertise, rather than the usual political considerations. As we Muslims say, In Sha ALLAH (If God Willing) this strategy promises to bring about a winning outcome for Sri Lanka.

While there has been some debate over the absence of Muslim representation within this cabinet, it’s important to note that most Muslims do not necessarily require representation by Muslim cabinet ministers to feel their interests are safeguarded. What they truly desire is peace along with assurance that their religious rights and freedoms remain intact.

Having Muslim ministers does not inherently guarantee active advocacy for their community’s needs; often political pressures can stifle such voices even when representation exists nominally within cabinets. Historically speaking, many ministers have been more focused on personal gain rather than genuine representation during times when their communities needed them most.

The trust that the Muslim community has placed in President Anura Kumara Dissanayake is deeply rooted in his consistent advocacy for inclusive governance and social justice. Throughout his political career, Anura has demonstrated a commitment to addressing the needs of all Sri Lankans, regardless of their ethnic or religious backgrounds. This inclusive approach has resonated strongly with the Muslim community, who have often felt marginalized in the political landscape.

During the recent elections, many Muslims saw in Anura a leader who genuinely understood their aspirations and concerns. His promises of equitable development, protection of religious freedoms, and a merit-based approach to governance struck a chord with voters who were tired of the old politics of division and favoritism. Anura’s track record of standing up for minority rights and his transparent, no-nonsense style of leadership further cemented this trust.

Anura’s administration, with its focus on meritocracy, offers a refreshing change. The community believes that competent and dedicated ministers, regardless of their religious background, are more likely to implement policies that benefit everyone, including Muslims. This pragmatic approach is why many Muslims voted for Anura and continue to support his government.

The community’s trust is also reinforced by Anura’s efforts to engage with them directly. He has made it a point to visit Muslim-majority areas, listen to their concerns, and ensure that their religious rights and freedoms are protected. This hands-on approach has helped build a strong rapport and a sense of mutual respect.

The debate around appointing cabinet ministers from minority communities brings both advantages and disadvantages. On one hand, appointing ministers from minority communities ensures that these groups have a direct voice in the highest levels of government. This can lead to policies that better reflect their needs and concerns, fostering a sense of inclusion and belonging. For instance, in countries like Canada, the inclusion of ministers from diverse backgrounds has led to more comprehensive and inclusive policymaking. Additionally, when minority communities see their members in positions of power, it can build trust and confidence in the government, helping to bridge gaps between the government and minority groups, promoting social cohesion. The appointment of minority ministers in South Africa post-apartheid, for example, helped in healing and rebuilding trust among different racial groups. Furthermore, representation in the cabinet can serve as a powerful symbol of equality and progress, demonstrating a commitment to diversity and inspiring future generations from minority communities to aspire to leadership roles. The election of Barack Obama as the first African American President of the United States had a profound symbolic impact on racial equality.

However, there are also significant drawbacks to this approach. There is a risk that appointing minority ministers could be seen as tokenism, where individuals are chosen more for their identity than their qualifications. This can undermine the effectiveness of governance if the appointees are not the best candidates for the job. Token appointments can lead to resentment and a perception that the government is more interested in appearances than actual competence. Additionally, focusing too much on ethnic or religious representation can reinforce divisions within society, leading to a situation where communities expect representation based solely on identity, rather than merit or capability. In some countries, such as Lebanon, the emphasis on sectarian representation has perpetuated divisions and hindered national unity. Moreover, minority ministers might face undue pressure to prioritize their community’s interests over national interests, leading to conflicts of interest and hindering their ability to perform their duties impartially. Ministers from minority communities might be seen as representatives of their community rather than the entire nation, limiting their effectiveness.

The optimal approach is to ensure that cabinet appointments are based on merit and qualifications while also striving for diversity. This means selecting the most competent individuals for each role, regardless of their ethnic or religious background, but also making a conscious effort to include diverse perspectives. If the selection process is transparent and based on merit, the demand for specific minority representation can be waived. The focus should be on appointing the best candidates who can effectively serve the nation. In a scenario where all candidates are evaluated based on their qualifications, experience, and ability to contribute to national development, the emphasis on minority representation can be secondary. Additionally, if the government demonstrates a strong commitment to inclusive policies and actively engages with minority communities, the need for specific representation in the cabinet may be less critical. Regular consultations with minority leaders and community representatives can ensure that their voices are heard and their concerns addressed, even without direct representation in the cabinet. In times of national crisis or when unity is paramount, the focus should be on appointing individuals who can best navigate the challenges and lead the country effectively. In such cases, the demand for minority representation can be temporarily set aside in favor of stability and competence.

Arundhati Roy, a renowned Indian writer and activist, has often emphasized the importance of genuine representation and the dangers of tokenism. In her works, she argues that true empowerment comes from addressing systemic issues and ensuring that all voices are heard, not just those that fit a particular identity. Roy’s insights remind us that the goal should be to create a system where merit and competence are the primary criteria for leadership, ensuring that the best candidates are in positions of power to serve the entire nation effectively.

Instead of making a big issue out of the lack of Muslim cabinet ministers, let’s strengthen Anura’s hand. By supporting his vision for a merit-based administration, we can ensure that the government is equipped with the most capable individuals who can address the needs of all Sri Lankans, including the Muslim community. This approach will foster a more inclusive and effective government, ultimately benefiting the entire nation.

It is also crucial to recognize that this controversy has been fueled by some anti-government and selfish elements who stand to gain by dishonoring the popular government. These elements, both domestic and overseas, have manipulated certain organizations to support their agenda, thereby harming the reputation of Anura’s government. By creating a false narrative of discrimination, they aim to destabilize the administration and undermine the progress that has been made.

In conclusion, while the representation of minority communities in the cabinet is important for inclusivity and trust, it should not come at the expense of merit and competence. A balanced approach that values diversity but prioritizes qualifications and the ability to govern effectively is the best way forward. This ensures that all citizens, regardless of their background, benefit from good governance and equitable policies. As we move forward, it is crucial to support President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s vision for a merit-based administration that truly serves the interests of all Sri Lankans.