A non-territorial basis for
power sharing
by Neville Ladduwahetty
Courtesy The Island 31-07-2007
"The claim that the human rights of Tamils cannot be ensured under
Colombo’s rule goes against the facts on the ground, considering
the presence of more Sri Lankan Tamils in Colombo and the South than
in the Northern and Eastern Provinces, with even lower numbers within
the LTTE controlled areas. The IC appears to accept the claims of the
LTTE at face value without question. Wresting control of territory from
the LTTE is the most promising strategy to ensure the human rights not
only of the Tamils but also of the other communities as well..."
In an article titled "Can Human Rights Monitoring Halt Abuses
in Sri Lanka?" co-authors, Philip Alston and William Abresch advocate
the need for an International Monitoring Mission that would expose and
halt abuses, and by doing so protect the population and create the conditions
for a sustainable peace. They also state that one of its authors reported
to the General Assembly (UN Doc. A/61/311, September 5, 2006) that "the
conflict between the Government and the LTTE is ultimately about a struggle
for legitimacy, not territory" (The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs,
Summer, 2007, Vol 31:2, p. 30). To state that the conflict is about
legitimacy and not territory reveals a misunderstanding as well as a
misrepresentation of the facts. This is evident from a statement in
the article itself that "One proponent of armed struggle by Tamils
suggested that territory matters more than human rights" (Ibid,
p.30).
It is clear that despite years of the International Community’s
(IC) engagement with the Sri Lankan conflict they have failed to realize
that the conflict is all about territory. The principle argument of
the LTTE and the Tamil community is that their rights "cannot be
ensured under Colombo’s rule" and that as long as this belief
remains, every means would be exploited by them to gain territory in
order to be free of Colombo’s rule. Consequently, Human Right (HR)
abuses are the fallout from attempts to gain territory on the part of
the LTTE, and for the purpose of securing territory on the part of the
Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL).
In this background, a Human Rights Monitoring Mission would only be
monitoring HR abuses. However expansive their terms of reference as
well as their competence are beyond current arrangements, such a Mission
would in the end amount to an exercise in assigning blame with a greater
degree of accuracy than has been done in the past. For instance, in
the case of the 17 Aid workers of Action Contre la Faim cited in the
referenced article, the SLMM ruled that the Security Forces were behind
the Act, when in fact, later evidence revealed that since 7 of the 8
bullets were of a kind used by the LTTE, it was most likely that the
LTTE and not the Security Forces who committed the act. Monitoring HR
abuses thus becomes an exercise in documentation, with little or no
action being possible against non-state actors such as the LTTE. The
inability of the IC get the LTTE to desist from engaging child soldiers
despite efforts over several years, is also testimony to its lack of
influence.
The claim that the human rights of Tamils cannot be ensured under Colombo’s
rule goes against the facts on the ground, considering the presence
of more Sri Lankan Tamils in Colombo and the South than in the Northern
and Eastern Provinces, with even lower numbers within the LTTE controlled
areas. The IC appears to accept the claims of the LTTE at face value
without question. Wresting control of territory from the LTTE is the
most promising strategy to ensure the human rights not only of the Tamils
but also of the other communities as well. This is evident in the case
of the newly liberated Eastern Province. With the GOSL taking action
to disarm the Karuna faction as was done with other paramilitaries under
the CFA, as well as ensuring that they release child soldiers, if any,
in their charge, the HR situation in the Eastern Province could be greatly
improved. This would vindicate the steps taken by the GOSL to liberate
the Eastern Province.
The developments in the Eastern Province and the presence of the majority
of Sri Lankan Tamils in Colombo and the South demonstrate that human
rights of the Tamils can indeed be ensured under Colombo’s rule.
However, extending such assurances throughout the country requires the
Tamil community to eschew a territorial approach to secure their perceived
rights, and to pursue an approach that is inclusive and integrative
so that "Colombo’s rule" is one where all communities
are involved in the processes of governance. In this regard, advocacy
for a federal solution by the IC that has at its core ethnically based
territory, is an obstacle to the resolution of Sri Lanka’s national
question. The IC should instead, use its influence with members of the
Tamil diaspora to explore arrangements of power sharing at the Center,
with decentralization to the Districts in the recognition that the pursuit
of territory, militarily or otherwise, is a no-brainer. This would be
a far more effective way for the IC to bring peace to Sri Lanka and
to halt HR abuses.
Federalism and facts on the ground
The original concept of federalism with a combined Northern and Eastern
Province as a federal unit is moribund. Instead, federalism under the
present facts on the ground would result in 9 federal units if the unit
is the Province and 25 federal units if it is the District. Whether
the federal units are as large as in the US and India, or as small as
in Switzerland, the stated attraction that federal units enable self
rule does not work in practice because of the lack of financial resources
to implement the grand schemes conceived. Consequently, federal units
end up administering the policies developed by the Center.
This is increasingly the case in most federally constituted states.
In the case of the much promoted "Indian model", for example,
the National Policy on Education (NPE) is developed by the Center. The
task of implementing the policies is the responsibility of the States
with the Center monitoring the implementation of the policies. Under
such a set up, the States become implementing agencies with the bulk
of the funds provided by the Center, and allocated on criteria developed
according to the priorities of the center, and not according to those
of the States. If this is how federalism works in practice, what is
its attraction for those seeking self rule?
In view of these ground realities, it would be more important to the
future welfare of communities in any country to be part of the decision
making processes that establish policy. This is particularly so in the
case of countries undergoing conflict, because the genesis of such conflicts
has been in the inability to be part of the policy determining processes
that affect a particular community. Since arrangements at the Center
where policy is determined have a greater impact on the lives of communities
and groups than regional power, opportunities to participate at the
Center and arrangements that facilitate such participation are in the
end what matter most.
Central power sharing
The present arrangements at the Center in Sri Lanka are such that political
parties represented in Parliament are founded on ethnic lines in addition
to ideological divisions, thus creating an unmanageable diversity. Since
ruling parties are often coalitions of small ethnically based parties
with one of the major parties, the SLFP or the UNP, there is hardly
a likelihood of a non Sinhalese becoming a Prime Minister or a President.
On the other hand, if as in the US and UK, the party structure is not
ethnically based, and all groups whatever their divisions belong to
one of the two parties (Republican & Democrat and Labour & Conservative),
it becomes possible for members of minority groups to become Presidents
and Prime Ministers. This could not happen in Sri Lanka under the present
structure.
In the Westminster model that currently exists, Parliament functions
with a ruling party governing the country while the Opposition waits
in the wings to gain power. Consequently, the interests of a significant
portion of the electorate are not expressed and when expressed it is
in the form of "opposing" whatever the ruling party "proposes".
On the other hand, if as in the United States, all members of Parliament
are constituted into standing Committees to formulate and review Legislation
and oversee Executive action, the entire Parliament would be involved
in the legislative process and also overlook Executive action. This
would serve the interests of the People far better than what prevails
today.
The Committees could be divided to cover all the subject areas of the
Cabinet. Each Committee could be assigned several ministries in view
of the multiplicity of the current Cabinet. The composition of the Committees
could follow current practices or based on an improved format. Such
an arrangement would give opportunities for all elected representatives
to participate in the processes of governance and for modifying prospective
legislation in a way to mitigate negative effects on their interest
groups. Safeguards should be built in to prevent majoritarian excesses
as well as effects from the tyranny of minorities.
As long as the current electoral system prevails one has to expect
the ruling party to be made up of coalitions with a plethora of small
parties some of whom are not even elected. The cost of keeping this
flock together is a vastly expanded Cabinet. This unfortunately is the
reality. The only way to get out of this debacle is to have a Cabinet
made up individuals outside the Parliament as is the practice in the
United States. Such an arrangement would enable the size of the Cabinet
to be contained free of coalition pressures. Since the Committees of
the Parliament would have oversight powers over Executive action, and
the actions of the Cabinet members would be subject to review by Parliament,
it would provide the necessary checks and balances. This arrangement
would make Executive action more transparent than it is today. Furthermore,
the review process would deter corruption. The ability to create a Cabinet
without the current constraints would enable the Executive Branch to
be inclusive of interests and communities, thus fostering a national
conscience.
Another critical structure should be a National Planning Council. If
such a body is structured in a manner for major interest groups to participate
in determining future development strategies as members of the Council
with specialist sub-groups acting as Consultants, the country would
be institutionalizing the whole development process without personalizing
it. Thus the major interest groups would be active participants in the
development of the country.
CONCLUSION
The lack of confidence in Colombo’s ability to protect the rights
of Tamils and other minorities including the Sinhalese in regions where
they are a minority is because of the prevailing arrangements at the
Center. Seeking a federal arrangement as a solution to the problem may
give a false sense of security within federal units, but would be vulnerable
outside the units. The concerns of security and assurances of rights
irrespective of location require inclusive and integrative arrangements
at the Center as proposed above. These arrangements should be so formulated
as to facilitate the participation of all communities at the policy
formulation stage in order to ensure that respective concerns are addressed
with suitable safeguards against excesses by majorities as well as deadlocks
by unyielding minorities. In order to create a sense of security and
well-being for all communities, the structures at the Center should
be reformulated to promote inclusiveness and foster integration in Sri
Lanka.
|
