Devolution dilemma

The relentless efforts of the Security Forces coupled with a bold political leadership has elevated the hopes of people of Sri Lanka for an early ending to terrorists who controlled parts of the country by force.

We are now being increasingly pressured by foreign governments, INGOs and so called peace activities saying that now it is the time for maximum devolution of power to the North and East. We are told that devolution is the solution to the separatist conflict and if that is not implemented the conflict would drag on or escalate.

Before implementing devolution it is important to carry out an objective analysis of the need for devolution, why we need devolution and whether it would solve the separatist conflict.

The ruling power of the Central Government is devolved to the regions if the country is too large and/or the population is too large to be governed by the centre. India, USA and Australia are examples of countries where power has been devolved to the regions. Sri Lanka is a small country with a manageable population where the centre can easily govern and does not qualify for devolution.

When analysing devolution we must not confuse devolution with decentralisation. A farmer in Jaffna, Anuradhapura or Hambantota should not need to come to Colombo to attend to any of his work involving a Government agency when proper decentralisation is implemented.

Decentralisation does not give power to the regions to implement their own rules but only facilitates the implementation of rules made by the Central Government at administrative level. Decentralisation allows officials who are still part of the Central Government to make decisions at administrative level for those regions.

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution which was forced on Sri Lanka under duress by India as a solution to the separatist conflict made use of devolution including police and land distribution.

The provincial council system was implemented as a result of this which has become none other than a white elephant duplicating the services carried out by the centre and resulting in massive amount of wastage or resources.

Ultimately the North and East Provincial Council did not function as envisaged but the rest of the country had provincial councils which were used by politicians as a means of a stepping stone to enter national politics. Fortunately the land use and police powers were not properly devolved and if they were devolved the country would have been in anarchy.

The demarcation of provinces was done by the British for their administrative convenience and to use those boundaries for present day devolution is irrational. It is difficult to comprehend the rationale to devolve powers to a region which has not been demarcated on the basis of population residents in those areas.

North and East having a landmass of 33 percent of the country to be controlled by a section of population of about 10 percent or less is an injustice to the people of the rest of the country.

It is also difficult to understand the argument brought forward by the supporters of devolution that the so called grievances of a minority community would be addressed by devolution of power to the North and East.

When more than half the minority community live outside North and East, how the devolution of power to North and East would solve the problems of the community living outside North and East is not explained. When the Constitution of the country, gives equal rights and status to everyone in the country why a section of population should be given separate powers is puzzling.

We must also be mindful to the sentiments of the region when we look at devolution proposals. Although Sinhala is the majority in Sri Lanka, it is a minority in the region. There is over 60 million Tamil community in Tamil Nadu whose leaders openly advocate a separate state for Tamil people in Sri Lanka.

Devolution of power to North and East could very well be a stepping stone to separatism where after consolidating their position the separatists would escalate their campaign. Devolution should not be used as a tool to appease a community.

If a certain community has legitimate grievances specific to that community or if there is discrimination to them as alleged then specific measures should be taken to rectify those issues without advocating devolution as a panacea for all ills.

K.G.E.