| SRI LANKA WATCH |
| Moving towards meaningful devolution
Rohini Hensman DEVOLUTION: The LTTE allies in the Government include those who oppose democratic devolution. The JVP argues that devolution proposals are pointless because the LTTE will never accept anything short of a separate state. But this is precisely why democratic devolution is so important! The only way to expose the LTTE's authoritarian agenda is to put forward proposals that ensure protection of the rights of minorities throughout Sri Lanka. The Tigers will then be pushed into the position of rejecting these proposals, thus revealing that their real agenda has nothing to do with the rights of Tamils. However, if devolution is seen as 'power-sharing' between a despotic Sinhala state and a despotic Tamil state, it should certainly be opposed. The only justification for devolution is that it constitutes a process of democratisation, putting power more securely into the hands of all citizens. Therefore democracy must be the priority in all devolution proposals. The creation of an All-Party Conference to discuss devolution and consider proposals from the public is a good start, and all parties with a claim to being democratic should participate in good faith, with a view to arriving at a solution. A major drawback is that the TNA MPs did not come to power in free and fair elections, and therefore people in the North and East are grossly under-represented. Hence it becomes even more important that channels should be created for the public in the North and East to submit their proposals, and that these should be taken very seriously. The constitution of an advisory committee of experts is more questionable. For example, one of the so-called experts, H.L.de Silva, starts by drawing a sharp distinction between federalism and devolution, rather than seeing forms of federalism as forms of devolution; defines sovereignty as the absolute power of the state (and therefore as being incompatible with democracy); and then goes on to warn that 'unbridled' devolution can lead to separation. And what are the examples he gives? Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, which were once British dominions! He might have added Sri Lanka, which was also once a British dominion. He seems to think that these countries were originally part of Britain, whereas any schoolchild could tell him that they were originally separate countries, which were colonised by the British, and later won their independence. So what is the relevance of these examples to devolution in Sri Lanka? Is de Silva suggesting that the Northeast was originally a separate country which was colonised by the Sinhala state of Sri Lanka and is now fighting to regain its independence? But that is exactly what the LTTE claims! Or is he saying that Britain should never have granted Sri Lanka dominion status because it led to complete independence, which is not desirable? Not many Sri Lankans would agree with that! The third option is the most plausible: these examples are totally irrelevant. However, the other example he cites - Yugoslavia - is extremely relevant to the Sri Lankan case. Tito, wishing to avoid ethnic and religious conflict, granted a large degree of autonomy to the constituent parts of the Yugoslav federation, and it stayed united. Then after his death, along came Serb nationalist Milosevic - so similar to our own Sinhala nationalists - and in the late 1980s vowed to revoke the autonomy granted to Kosovo. That was the beginning of the end for Yugoslavia, as its constituents, afraid that they too would be swallowed up by Serb chauvinism, left it one by one. Despite genocidal crimes in Bosnia and Kosovo, as a result of which Milosevic died in prison and his associates Mladic and Karadic are wanted criminals, Yugoslavia disintegrated. So the lesson to be drawn from Yugoslavia is the exact opposite of the one de Silva draws: federalism ensures unity, while the attempt to impose a unitary state by ethnic chauvinist political and military leaders leads to disintegration. De Silva's minimalist devolution proposal is guaranteed to empower the LTTE for another 25 years, and lead to the division of Sri Lanka at the end of that period. People like de Silva are not criminals in the same sense as those who sponsor and perpetrate violence against Tamil civilians, but they equally dangerous, and ought to be marginalised politically. So why is President Rajapaksa insulting the people of Sri Lanka by appointing them as 'experts'? If we are serious about defeating the LTTE and ensuring unity, we need to take the task of finding an appropriate system of devolution more seriously. The Indian model, proposed by V. Anandasangaree, is as good a starting point as any, and has the virtue of being tried and tested. But it would need to be modified, firstly because it has weaknesses, and secondly because Sri Lanka is a different country. One weakness is that India has no central legislation outlawing all forms of discrimination and guaranteeing equal treatment and equal opportunities to all sections of the population. Such legislation is crucially important if devolution is to be successful in Sri Lanka: democracy is the key to success. It should also be ensured that the central government cannot interfere in the affairs of a province (which would be analogues to a State in India), except to protect the human rights of some section of the population, for example in the event of a pogrom. It certainly should not be able to dismiss a provincial government unless it is engaged in gross and persistent violations of the human rights of some section of the population, such as ethnic cleansing. On a more positive note, the introduction of a Right to Information Act in India in 2002 has enabled people to challenge government officials who misappropriate public funds. If such legislation is combined with the collection of provincial taxes for provincial expenditure Sri Lanka, it could help to make government at all levels more accountable, and to reduce corruption. Given that Sri Lanka is a much smaller country, it may make more sense for subjects like electricity and water supply to be handled centrally. And since there are only three national languages, it should be possible for citizens to communicate with the government in the language of their choice, even though the affairs of the provincial government may be conducted in the language of the majority in that province. The biggest difference between India and Sri Lanka is that in India there was a demand for devolution throughout the country, whereas there is no such demand in the Sinhala-majority areas. In this respect, it has been suggested, it may be more appropriate to adopt the Spanish model, with people in each province being asked whether or not they want more powers - including control over the police and law and order - devolved to the provincial level. This would involve conducting a referendum in each and every province. If a simple majority of the population want devolution, they should get it, otherwise the current arrangement should continue. This would ensure that neither are Tamil-majority areas given special treatment, nor is devolution forced on reluctant Sinhala-majority areas. At least in the North and East, and preferably in the whole country, the referendum should be conducted by an international agency like the UN, to ensure that it is free and fair. The Eastern Province poses an extra problem, because of the merger with the North that is in force. In its case, the referendum should include a second question, namely, do the inhabitants want a de-merger from the North? Given the fact that the ethnic composition of the population has been manipulated by driving out Tamils and settling Sinhalese in State-sponsored colonisation schemes, a two-thirds majority should be required in order to change the status quo. However, if more than two-thirds do indeed want separation from the North, they should get it. The original merger was carried out subject to the proviso that there would be a referendum at a later date, and democracy demands that the people of the East should not be deprived of the right to control their own affairs if they wish to do so. Consulting the people about their choice would be the democratic way to approach the problem, rather than the undemocratic manner in which the JVP and their counsel H.L.de Silva has been attempting to force a de-merger. Their argument that the rights and interests of Sinhalese and Muslims in the Eastern Province will be jeopardised if they are yoked to a Tamil-majority province echoes the LTTE argument that the rights of Tamils are jeopardised so long as they are yoked to a Sinhala-majority Sri Lanka; if the former is true, so is the latter, and Tamil Eelam is justified. One begins to wonder whether the LTTE has secretly hired H.L.de Silva to reinforce their arguments! If the Eastern Province does separate from the North, there will be two provinces where the majority of the population is Tamil-speaking. If the Government can assure the people of the North and East that with immediate effect it is committed to ensure the safety and security of inhabitants in the cleared areas, and if within a year or so it presents a proposal which offers a credible promise that the democratic rights of all inhabitants can be guaranteed within a united Sri Lanka, the LTTE's reason for existence will collapse. That is the only way to win the war. The people of Sri Lanka, the majority of whom are Sinhalese, should be vigilant in monitoring what their government is doing, and vigorous in opposing measures that strengthen the LTTE, otherwise they will be the ones who pay the price. DAILY NEWS, 1.8.2006 |