Sri Lanka remains hopeful that the much-awaited International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) Extended Fund Facility (EFF) is most likely to materialise by the end of this month, in a context where the Government has fulfilled the relevant duties and the country’s main creditors have come forward in support of the country. Noting this, Finance, Economic Stabilisation, and National Policies Minister and President Ranil Wickremesinghe stated this week that the agreement with the IMF is of special importance to restore the economy, as there is no alternative path to be seen at present, and that at this time, there is no room for failure in completing every task agreed upon with the IMF, unlike on the 16 previous occasions. If Sri Lanka fails to fulfil the tasks agreed upon with the IMF, he added that it could result in the IMF discontinuing its collaboration with the country.

Despite the fact that many parties, including certain pro-Government figures, appear to be attempting to imply that the receipt of the IMF’s EFF will more or less end the economic crisis, as the President cautioned, with this assistance comes a host of responsibilities which Sri Lanka will have to consider and fulfil carefully. However, if Sri Lanka is not to face the same fate as on the previous 16 occasions, the country will have to not repeat the mistakes it made on those occasions. The first step in achieving it is understanding that the IMF assistance, which is a mere $ 2.9 billion, is inadequate to revive the economy. What could truly save the economy is how prudently and responsibly the country utilises that assistance.

The IMF assistance is coming through on the promise that the Government will properly manage its finances, the public sector, and State mechanisms. In fact, the country had to show the IMF that it is capable of doing that. Tax hikes, utility price and tariff revisions, and public sector reforms are a result of it. The manner in which the Government utilises the IMF assistance could be turned into an opportunity to build the trust that Sri Lanka has lost during the past few decades, thereby attracting opportunities. Among these opportunities are investments and foreign support, which are dependent on the nature of the message that the country sends to the international community with regard to Sri Lanka’s ability to sustain the above mentioned reforms in the long run. What is more, those reforms and the results of those reforms would play a key role in convincing international rating agencies to reconsider their downgrading of Sri Lanka.

At the same time, the Government must understand that even though the aforesaid reforms were the results of the agreements it entered into with the IMF, those are reforms that successive governments should have implemented a long time ago. Therefore, the Government’s enthusiasm in that regard should not ebb away with the receipt of IMF assistance. Keeping public institutions debt-free and profitable, curbing corruption and waste, opting for scientific decision-making over politically driven decision-making, utilising the private sector’s resources and expertise, and upholding the rule of law and democracy should still be priorities even after IMF assistance. In fact, if Sri Lanka had maintained those irrespective of agreements with the IMF, the country is unlikely to find itself in a position where it has had to seek international assistance.

It is crucial to understand that these are not solely the present Government’s responsibilities. These are responsibilities which should be supported by successive governments and the overall political authority which includes the Parliamentary Opposition as well. Their support in Parliament, constructive criticism, and informed suggestions play an important role in ensuring that the Government utilises and capitalises on IMF assistance. Making the public aware of these national needs is also a responsibility that lies with the political authority.