Sampanthan has warned that repealing the 13th
‘could cause grave and irreparable damage to the country’s future’. It is heartening that the TNA leader, even
at this late hour, is concerned about the country’s future. Indeed his re-demarcation proposal amounts
to a radical political shift from the previous fascination with white-lines or
those provincial boundaries based on a map drawn by colonial rulers. A re-demarcation, though, would necessarily amount
to ‘modification’ and/or ‘nullification’ of the 13th, an eventuality
that Sampanthan opposes. It is best that
these ‘concerns’ are treated as the business-as-usual rhetorical of a
politician and something that should not be allowed to rob the ‘statesman-like’
suggestion that the TNA leader has made in his interventions during the Budget
Debate.
Sampanthan is of course erroneous when he says ‘the 13th
is the only constitutional provision that recognizes diversity’. All it does is legitimate the work of a
frivolous map-maker later used by Eelamist myth-mongers for their own
purposes. Communities are not held by
maps, and fall out of provincial boundary.
The recognition of difference, as in the existence of different
communities and people with different religious faiths, finds more than
adequate mention in the constitution.
The only major differentiation that the constitution is silent on is
that of class.
Still, Sampanthan does make a valid point about efficiency
in resource allocation. The 13th
has seen enormous sums of money going waste, mostly to maintain the provincial
councils rather than alleviating the conditions of the citizenry. Moreover, the current lines rebel against
contemporary economic thinking given anomalies of resource endowment across
regions. A re-demarcation then must
correct for these inequalities. In other
words, logic and science as opposed to political expediency and untenable
ethnic ‘enclaving’ should guide the cartographer. It
would logically take us to Ruhunu, Maya and Pihiti, an option which even in
these communal politicking times should be considered.
What would result is ‘horizontal democratization’ as some
have put it, provided of course that the devolved complement of powers exceed
what is contained in the 13th.
Provided, also, that the power of the citizen to participate in
decision-making is enhanced in the process.
For example, devolving the power to exercise strong-arm tactics and be
dismissive of manifesto post-election from center to province won’t make things
easier for anyone but the politicians. The trick then would be to follow such re-demarcation as per a 13+ formula with vertical democratization which includes measure to correct current institutional flaws, ensure greater transparency and obtain greater degrees of accountability. Ideally, the two processes, vertical and horizontal, can be sought through a single amendment or better still a new, that is a third, republican constitution, but this may not be the proper time. Insistence on a double-push might kill both.
As of now, justice for all in the matter of having a
meaningful say in designing laws and policies that affect people’s lives depend
more on largesse than on constitutional provision. That’s not a flaw in the 13th
Amendment but the 1978 Constitution.
So if we have to go with ‘first-things-first’, then 13+ must
necessarily pick up the Sampanthan proposal.
To make it really a ‘plus’ amendment, though, the vertical
‘re-demarcation’ if you will of power lines has to be pushed for.
1 comments:
Thank you Malinda. I hope the political establishment takes note of your suggestions. It's high time people started looking at solutions 'outside the box.'
Post a Comment