A number of political alternatives have now been shown to the general public of Sri Lanka. They have been given considerable airing from about the 1980s and have been brought before the general public in several ways. One of which is the calculated organisation of seminars to ostensibly 'discuss' the need for political reform. The ideas of the Tamil separatists movement are then presented as possible alternatives. They are dressed up as academically acceptable. After which conference papers take up the position that they are absolutely essential for the well being of the country as well. The 1980s was the decade for this particular activity relating to the modus operandi of the Tamil separatist movement.

The political concepts thus presented before a sleepy, puzzled population include the following: 'Decentralisation', 'Devolution' 'Autonomy" and 'Federalism' These are praised. There is one concept which is totally reviled. That of 'unitary government', Let us look at these political alternatives.

C. R. de Silva in his contribution 'Decentralisation', devolution or federalism in Sri Lanka: some theoretical and historical considerations' presented to a seminar on constitutional reform organised by the Liberal Party of Sri Lanka, in 1988 provides a set of definitions of these terms. These would be helpful to a general audience too.

C. R. de Silva points out that there are four methods of distributing authority in a unitary state. They are:

* Privatisation — where state responsibilities are transferred to voluntary organisations. It must be noted that this is quite different to the current selling of national assets which the present government is charged with. In privatisation, the state usually reserves the right and the legal ability to revoke any such transfer of responsibility.

* Delegation — where powers are transferred to a statutory body or corporation, which thereafter comes under the control of the central government.

* Deconcentration — where certain government functions are handed over to field officers in the regions. Control still rests at the centre. This is in operation in Sri Lanka, where a number of government departments have set up 'decentralised' offices in the districts.

* Devolution— 'devolution' differs qualitatively from the three mechanisms described above. Devolution is the creation and strengthening, both legally and financially, of regional and local political bodies whose activities within a demarcated sphere are thereafter, largely outside the control of the central government. (p 371) To put it bluntly, once political powers are devolved on a region in Sri Lanka, it will not be possible to take them back.

The arguments in favour of privatization and delegation relate largely to the relative inefficiency and rigidity of the bureaucracy in comparison to that of voluntary organisations. Deconcentration is often advocated so as to improve the efficiency of the state apparatus for policy implementation. Decentralised decision making may be more efficient in areas where communications are underdeveloped or slow. It is assumed that compact units would simplify tasks and that a regional administration would make fuller use of local knowledge. ('Ideas for Constitutional Reform' p 370-371) Clearly approaches to distributing state responsibilities, emanate from the centre, and only serve to strengthen the delivery of responsibilities held by the centre. Constitutional reform advocated by the Tamil separatist movement is not interested in any developments which could strengthen a unified, single government in Sri Lanka.

The Tamil separatist movement is interested in pushing through constitutional amendments which would grant exclusive privileges to the Tamil community, using the argument of 'Tamil aspirations'. 'Tamil rights' and 'Tamil problems'.

However, Sri Lankans supporting the idea of devolution are actually thinking in terms of "Deconcentration" or in dispersing central functions. They do not want to give up central centre altogether.

Therefore it is advisable for concerned citizens to reject the word 'devolution' and ask for greater delegation of central powers through the other alternatives described at the start of this essay. The general public must also understand that they have been manipulated by Tamil separatist movement, who have taken care to distribute these concepts in such a manner as to hide the implications of 'devolution' for Sri Lanka. The words 'devolution' and 'decentralization" have been presented together, implying that they are one and the same, and that they will not affect the unity of the country. 'Devolution' will always affect the unity of Sri Lanka, because its sole proponent is the Tamil separatist movement. The Muslims are beginning to realise this now, as they ponder on the implications of a Muslim Regional Council in the East. It is only a matter of time before the Muslim community wake up and begin a call for strong central government and the dismissal of the idea of 'devolution'.

The government package of constitution reform, called 'Devolution proposals' does not deal with either 'constitutional reform' nor with 'devolution'. These words are used to fool or lull the public into accepting the ideas contained in the 'Package'. 'Constitutional reform' can only take place within the current unitary constitution. This 'Package' is intended to overturn the existing constitution, therefore it is not 'reform'.

The 'Package' is actually a 'partition treaty' and a basis for the creation of the unitary state of Eelam. The 'Package' provides for the creation of a North-East Regional Council, with a central government for the region. The land coming within the Northern and Eastern Provinces will thereafter come under the control of the Regional Council, not the central government. The Attorney General has confirmed this (Daily News). Thus, the conditions for the creation of a sovereign state are irrevocably created. The Montevideo Convention, which provides the current guidelines for determining the 'sovereign state' has given four characteristics which a sovereign state must have. Namely, clear boundaries, a settled population, a central government, and the ability to conduct international relations. The 'Package' provides all four.

Another concept which was introduced by the Tamil separatist movement to fool the public, is the concept of 'federalism'. This idea of a federal state was introduced into current politics by the Tamil community. They set up a 'Federal Party' led by the late S. J. V. Chelvanayakam. Angry critics of Tamil separatism have now pointed out that there never was such a party. Chelvanayakam's party was called 'Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi' which translated means 'Lanka Tamil State Party'.

A "federal state" consists of a central or federal government and several provincial regional governments. The legislative and executive powers of a sovereign state are divided between these two levels, and this division of powers is enshrined in the constitution. There are presently two types of federal states. The early federal states, such as America and Switzerland, which developed into federal states by the joining of a group of independent states. And the later federal states, such as: India and Belgium where a federal structure was created somewhat artificially, with a total absence of spontaneity or general agreement. Let us now look briefly at the political history of the United States of America, as regards its emergence as a federal state. Federalism did not emerge in the USA suddenly, like a mushroom. It evolved painfully, through protracted historical experience. In the 17th century, the eastern coast of America, the coast closest to Europe, was colonised by the British, Dutch and Germans, commencing in the years 1607, 1624 and 1683 respectively.

After the usual teething troubles, these settlers succeeded in setting up permanent settlements. Their agricultural ventures in wheat and tobacco became successful. Well organised agricultural communities with schools, and roads were developed. Thereafter, these settlers set up independent governments, which administered these colonies. Therefore, from the beginning, these colonies had a tradition of self government. Once the colonies became self sufficient and prosperous, Britain as the ruler of these colonies began to extract more revenue from them through all sorts of taxes, such as the Stamp Act of 1765. The colonies, became increasingly resentful of this.

The colonies came together in the Continental Congress of 1774, to oppose the power of Britain. This Congress consisted of delegates of all the colonies, Jefferson argued that the colonies were autonomous states of Britain. There was a second Congress in 1775, where the Articles of Confederation were drawn up. Taken together, these two Congresses settled several important matters, voting was to be by colony. Sovereignty was given to the states, individually. Common law rights, constitution rights and also the 'natural rights' of citizens were affirmed at these Congresses. By this time, the colonies had established their own constitutions, formulated at conventions and general assemblies. There were state governors and state governments. Pennsylvania was an outstanding example.

Then came the War of Independence with Britain (1778-1782) through which America managed to shake off Britain and become independent. The earlier congresses had been loose. Confederations of independent states. ("Confederations" are organisations of sovereign states, who retain their sovereignty, and organise together only for purposes of defence). After the War came the Philadelphia Convention in 1787. This Convention turned the colonies of the east coast of America into a single sovereign state, with a central government over all the states.

It was at this point that people began to think in terms of a federal solution to the problem of unifying series of states, which had up to now, functioned as independent polities.

There was considerable argument about the desirability of federalism, this debate gave rise to a very intensive literature, of a very high intellectual level. The most sustained pro-Federalist argument, written mainly by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, under the pseudonym Publish, appeared in the newspapers as the "The Federalist". These 'Federalist papers' are yet in print.

Thereafter, the federation of states started expanding. Some states such as Ohio applied to be admitted, some territories were simply claimed from Britain, such as Oregon. Louisiana Territory was purchased from the French (1803). Spain ceded some of its territory in 1819. Some territory was purchased from Mexico (1853). And by 1854, the bulk of the states of the present United States of America had come into the federation. The sharp contrast between this historical process and the historical development of Sri Lanka is quite clear. The United States of America developed out of a whole lot of sovereign colonies, with their own governments, agreeing voluntarily to give up some of their sovereignty to a central government. This is the key feature which distinguishes a federal state from a unitary one — the coming together of independent states to form a single severing state.

Australia, was colonised by the British, as a series of convict colonies, starting from 1788. These initially had authoritarian governments, since the settlers were considered to be convicted prisoners of the British government. But later they were given self government. New South Wales had a legislature from 1842. Between 1860 and 1900, these scattered colonies, each at a different end of the Australian landmass, had little contact with each other. It was federated, under the British monarch, in 1901.

There is also another respect in which these federal states differ from Sri Lanka. That is the question of geographicalsize. Here are some figures. Of the 40 odd states in America, only two have land around 2000 square miles. These are the smallest. The majority of these states are larger than the whole of Sri Lanka.

California — 158,706 square miles. Texas — 266, 807 square miles. New York state — 49,108 square miles. In addition to this, there are 8 states where the extent is over 40,000 square miles. Another 8 where the extent is over 50,000 square miles. The rest are either 60,000, 70,000, 80,000 or 90,000 square miles. each. If we divide Sri Lanka's 25,000 square miles by its 9 provinces, we get states of about 2700 square miles each! Australia is an equally dotty example. Australia has 6 states. Here are the land areas. New South Wales — 309, 433 square miles. Victoria — 87,900 square miles. Queensland — 666,900 square miles. South Australia — 379,000 square miles, Tasmania — 26,200 square miles. The Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 edition, under "Australia" points out that Tasmania is 'slightly larger than Sri Lanka but comprises just 1% of Australia.'

Contd. on Monday

Back to Latest News

Home News Business DhammaWeb Info & Services Classified Search