When the Government proposed setting up a Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), there were howls of protests from the likes of Jehan Perera and Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu. Many of these I/NGO operators didn’t even appear before the LLRC perhaps fearing that the Commissioners would ask them to submit in full their various comments to the media, in the form of statement or political commentary. When the LLRC finally came out with a ‘Report’, they changed their tune. They said ‘Implement the LLRC Recommendation!’
They forgot, conveniently, that the LLRC had exceeded its mandate. That’s ok. A lot of people, after all, are happy to ‘exceed’. More importantly, they appear to be blissfully unaware of two things. Firstly, that the LLRC was a far cry from a body enacted to draft a constitution. Secondly, some of the recommendations require constitutional amendment and even referenda. A third ‘forget’ can be added: the Government is not bound (as per the mandate-limitation) to implement all of the recommendations. There’s can-do and cannot-do in all this. There is, moreover, ‘done’, ‘doing’ and ‘forget it’ too. There is wanted-speed and doable-speed.
What has excited these ladies and gentlemen, and of
course some members of the Opposition, is the inclusion of the word
‘devolution’. True, it’s not
‘federalism’, that F-word dominating what passed for ‘political discourse’ when
the reins of power were held by patently anti-Sinhala, anti-Buddhist and indeed
pro-LTTE, pro-Eelam elements, but then again, in an LTTE-les Sri Lanka of
‘reduced circumstances’, if ‘straw’ was sought, ‘devolution’ was good enough a
cling-on.
What is most interesting is the fact that true to
form, they have taken the LLRC recommendation on devolution totally out of
context and have never once referred to the relevant caveats. They would do well to read the points
elaborated in Section 9.231 of the LLRC Report.
9.231 Devolution should
necessarily be people-centric in nature and the following considerations should be borne in
mind –
A. Devolution should essentially
promote greater harmony and unity and not disharmony and disunity among the
people of the country. The promotion of this ‘oneness’ and a common identity
should be the principal aim of any form of devolution while protecting and
appreciating rich diversity.
B. The focus should be to ensure that the people belonging to all communities are empowered at every level especially in all tiers of Government. Devolution of power should not privilege or disadvantage any ethnic community, and in this sense, should not be discriminatory or seen to be discriminatory by the people belonging to any ethnic community within the country.
C. The democratic empowerment of the people should take place within the broader framework of the promotion and protection of human rights which is a fundamental obligation of the elected government deriving from specific provisions of the Constitution and the Treaty obligations the country has voluntarily undertaken.
D. In addressing the question of
devolution two matters require the attention of the government. Firstly, empowering
the Local Government institutions to ensure greater peoples’ participation at
the grass roots level. Secondly, it is also imperative that the lessons learnt from the
shortcomings in the functioning of the Provincial Councils system be taken into
account in devising an appropriate system of devolution that addresses the
needs of the people. It should at the same time provide for safeguarding the
territorial integrity and unity of Sri Lanka whilst fostering its rich
diversity.
Let’s take these one by one. Caveat A imposes the condition of
‘harmony’. Now if devolution uses the
current provincial boundaries (randomly drawn, let us not forget), which
constitute the basis for the (diminished) Eelamist demarcation, if the majority
of Tamils people live outside the North and East (for example), how on earth can
devolution along these chauvinist lines powered by myth-models and exaggeration
inspire anything but suspicion and anxiety among the Sinhalese? They would consider such devolution as
‘Threat to Existence’! There won’t be
harmony. ‘Oneness’ would be wrecked.
Caveat B speaks of empowerment. This is good. It calls for much better governance and greater affirmation of citizenship-meaning. One does not need ‘devolution’ for this and if any community feels disadvantaged then all that needs to be remembered is that the felt ‘discrimination’ will continue to prevail in the other 7 provinces (where the majority of Tamils live). Devolution does not combat discrimination; better laws might.
Caveat C is about human rights. The upholding or subverting of human rights
has nothing to do with the structure of the state (for example, whether it is a
federal, unitary or other arrangement).
So Caveat C, like Caveat B, is an add-on that is not
devolution-specific.
Finally, Caveat D. It is about ‘building on what we have’, i.e.
the local government institutions. It is
about greater and meaningful participation.
Such ‘democracy,’ again does not require devolution as per the 13th Amendment, 13 Plus posturing etc., but
about scripting in checks and balances into the relevant articles of the
constitution. Caveat D also
unequivocally salutes the need to ‘provide for safeguarding the territorial
integrity and unity of Sri Lanka whilst fostering its rich
diversity’. The devolution debate has gone too far with
taking as ‘fact’ and ‘legitimate’ the extrapolations of Tamil chauvinism for any
power-devolution to established provincial lines not be seen as a threat to
territorial integrity and unity.
Take all these caveats and power devolution to
existing lines can be safely ruled out as ‘not in line with LLRC
recommendations’. The only devolution
that abides by these caveats, then, is a formulation that trashes current
provincial boundaries and re-draws geographical units in more scientific (e.g.
based on river-basins) ways with close attention to ensuring that no community,
large or small, feels threatened.
Given all this, one thing is clear: those who have
been waving the LLRC Report have just seen one word, devolution. That, or else, they are intellectually
dishonest. Take your pick!
0 comments:
Post a Comment