Terrorism

Liberal leader objects to ethnic enclaves

Dr. Rajiva Wijesinha interviewed
Question: Why does the Liberal Party consider constitutional change to be necessary?

Answer: The main reason is that the present Constitution is quite hopeless as far as any form of principle is concerned. Excessive powers are given to the Executive Presidency. There is no mechanism to build up institutions that would be parallel repositories of power. There is a failure to address practical questions like development and the empowerment of people, and an absence of clear directive principles.

Q: What do you consider to be the main responsibilities of government?

A: Government has three main responsibilities: Security and law and order, social justice, and economic development. On the first subject there should be-clear cut distinctions between the powers of the legislature, executive and judiciary. There is a need to make clear that the organs of security, i.e. the Armed Forces and the Police, are not instruments of a particular government but servants of the nation. On social justice the Liberal view is that it should not be ‘pushed’ by the State in the sense of taking from one person to give to another, but that the State should concern itself with basic priorities such as health, welfare and infrastructure. Economic development should largely be left to the private sector but the State should play a regulatory role. Such regulation should be based on the underlying assumption that the purpose of private sector activities is not the benefit of the private sector but the benefit of the consumer. The consumer is inadequately protected from monopolies, whether in the private or the State sector. Unplanned government reactions have also been at fault for example the reduction in the price of bread without considering its impact on the paddy farmer. There should also be a de-politicizing of appointments to public boards which should be open to scrutiny by the Legislature.

Q: Is it correct that the Liberal Party is advocating the real French system of Government where Ministers are chosen from the Legislature but vacate their seats on appointment?

A: We feel that both the Presidential and Westminster systems as practiced in Sri Lanka give too much power to an individual who is seen as the representative of the party that dominates Parliament. We advocate either a system where Ministers are drawn from Parliament but function outside it, or are appointed from outside but are subject to approval by Parliament. Then Parliament can perform its principal functions which are to pass laws, monitor administration and keep public accounts. Where the executive and the legislature are amalgamated, the legislature cannot effectively challenge the executive. We also favour a strengthening of the Parliamentary Committee system where MPs could divide themselves according to their respective fields of expertise or interest and act as a professional watchdog as well as providing advice. Thus MPs would become contributors to policy formulation as well as monitors.

Q: Do you approve of the secrecy that surrounded the recent constitutional discussions between the parliamentary parties?

A: Not at all. But the decisions reached will require a vote in Parliament and a referendum before implementation. This will not happen till after the elections. A new Parliament will have the option of amending the proposals. There will be pressure from forces not presently represented in Parliament who are seen as generally more representative of the people or a substantial section of them. However we are glad that the Government is even at this stage pulling its proposals before Parliament. We feel they should have done this several years ago and seen how Parliament responded instead of trying to win political victories in other respects. Some sort of consensus between the major parties would be a positive development. However it is clear from the news briefings that both parties have no idea what principles they are following in making decisions. On one hand there has been a watering down of the original proposals in terms of the powers that will be devolved. But on the other hand, there has been no change from what was the original stumbling block of the whole devolution package which is the admittedly artificial merger of the North and East

Q: What in your view are the reasons for devolution?

A: The principal reason is that centralized administration does not empower people at the periphery. In Sri Lanka practically everything has become centralized. All MPs live in Colombo and send their children to Colombo schools. The tie between themselves and the facilities available in their areas is non-existent. The consequence has been fifty years of utterly lopsided development. It has affected the North and East as well as areas such as Moneragala and Hambantota. However, the sense of alienation is less in the Sinhala rural areas than in the Tamil areas because their MPs are part of the Government. What is wanted is empowerment. The present concentration on the Provincial Council is inappropriate as this would still require persons at the periphery to travel long distances to their provincial capital to transact business, e.g. from Tissamaharama to Galle. While some policy decisions will have to be made at provincial level, administrative decision making should be at smaller levels such as the Pradeshiya Sabha.

Q: Should the present provincial boundaries in the North and East be maintained?

A: In a sense all provincial boundaries are artificial. However, any attempt to revise those boundaries will give rise to different logics that will end up in different assumptions. I strongly dislike the idea of revising administrative boundaries on the basis of ethnic enclaves as this is a recipe for ethnic cleansing. Therefore I would advocate sticking to existing provincial boundaries but giving more administrative power to units like the Pradeshiya Sabha.

Q: What is your view on the North-East merger?

A: Members of the Liberal Party have different views on this. My personal view is that it would not make much sense in the present context. If the rationale is to create a Tamil majority region, then the Muslims and the Sinhalese in the East would each want their own regions. Therefore it makes much more sense to work with nine provinces but to give them full powers to cooperate where cooperation is desired, on the lines of S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike’s Regional Councils Bill. The powers of each Province should be subtantial including rights on investment issues. To keep economic policy entirely in the hands of Central Government would take away one of the main purposes of devolution.

Q: Apart from administrative issues, what in your opinion are the other grievances of the minorities?

A: Primarily the language issue. This has been adjusted in the Constitution by making Tamil a national language but in practical terms under our education system most children have a functional knowledge of only one language. Each community is trapped in its own language. As a result many administrative offices work only in Sinhala and Tamils find themselves precluded from Government jobs. Today the proportion of Tamil speaking people entering the public sector is very small in relation to their population. In 1978 District quotas were introduced for University entrance on the basis that the majority community was under-represented. Then why not introduce quotas into public sector employment where the minorities are under-represented?

Q: Given that a large number of Tamil people live outside the North and East, do you think the present insistence on the recognition of a ‘traditional Tamil homeland’ will actually help the security of the Tamil people as a whole?

A: The Liberal Party view on devolution has always been that it has nothing to do with ethnic minorities or homelands. Our view is that devolution is necessary because individuals at the periphery have been penalized by the powers at the centre. That deprivation was worst for the minorities in the peripheral areas because minorities in the Sinhala majority areas were able to participate more in the life of the nation. Therefore there may be a case for over-compensation of these people just as there is a case for over-compensation in education for students from deprived areas. Dealing with deprivation requires both empowerment and concerted economic development. In a context where the Central Government has not been able to give economic development to those areas except during brief periods soon after independence and during the Premadasa era, there is a case for allowing those people to do things for themselves.

Q: Are there any measures which you could like to see implemented in connection with the forthcoming general election?

A: We have made several statements on this subject. I do not understand why the National Identity Card has not been made compulsory for voters. There should be more powers given to the Commissioner of Elections to cancel flawed polls. There should be a firm enforcement of the laws against putting up posters and also the prohibition on people gathering around polling booths. The process of getting international election monitors should be started earlier. Finally, the Police should realize that they are responsible to the public, not to the Government in power.

Q: The Liberal Party has stressed the need for a value-based constitution. But would this make any difference as long as there is no change in the values of the politicians who operate the system?

A: Change will not come quickly. But once you have the values on record, there would be a standard against which both legislation and the behaviour of politicians could be measured. The public would be more aware of these values, thus speeding up the process of change. However there must also be measures to reduce the power of politicians.