Devolution in Sri Lanka, the Indian Way

Needless to stress, these rationalisations have hardly ever been substantiated with hard evidence. Their exponents probably believe that constant repetition will provide them the aura of unassailable truth. Some of us, however, are aware that, even in their most refined and sedate formulations, they represent no more than a mix of well-intentioned speculation and superficial benevolence.

Need for Informed Discussion

Is there a “Southern consensus” on Devolution? [To clarify the connotations of key terms used in this essay: (a) ‘devolution’ refers to a constitutionally facilitated process of power-sharing between the central government and institutions of government at the level of sub-national units of territory – it is also known as ‘territorial power-sharing’; (b) there are other modalities of power-sharing such as those referred to in Arend Lijphart’s ‘Consociation Theory’ in the early expositions (1977) of which the accent was on devices that enhance minority participation at the Centre and cultural autonomy for the minorities; and (c) usually, strategies of “development from below” and “community empowerment at the grass-roots” such as those epitomised by Panchayat Raj are not considered as falling within the ambit of ‘devolution’ or ‘power-sharing’. See Endnote] To come back now to our initial question: President Rajapakse has recently declared a policy commitment to “maximum devolution within the framework of a united Sri Lanka”. Ranil Wickremasinghe and some of his party colleagues have over several years been advocating federalism, in subdued tones when elections approach but with vehemence at other times. Stalwarts of the Old Left have favoured autonomy to the ‘north-east’ all along. Certain other political leaders like the much admired.

Anandasangaree prescribe a federal arrangement similar to that of India. These leadership stances have formidable backing from an array of opinion makers – scholars, journalists, diplomats, visiting pundits from abroad, donors of aid, facilitators of peace negotiations – casual but so cocksure in their pronouncements that Sri Lanka should devolve (ideally, go federal) because: (to paraphrase) the people desire it, or people demand peace which devolution/ federalism alone will bring about, or devolution will enable the government to reach out to the Tamils bypassing the LTTE, or it will bestow on Sri Lanka’s ethnic minorities their due political rights, or it will make the secessionist campaign redundant, or it will please the ‘international community’ and thus increase the flow of aid, or (as a prominent historian once claimed) ancient Sri Lankan kings practiced it, or because those who express reservations and misgivings on devolution/federalism are, ipso facto, chauvinists, hegemonists and supremacists.

Needless to stress, these rationalisations have hardly ever been substantiated with hard evidence. Their exponents probably believe that constant repetition will provide them the aura of unassailable truth. Some of us, however, are aware that, even in their most refined and sedate formulations, they represent no more than a mix of well-intentioned speculation and superficial benevolence. Hence the fact that in Sri Lanka today there is, at least at the higher levels of the arena of formal politics, greater receptiveness to the idea of devolution than there has been ever before, should not deter us from placing devolution under critical scrutiny against the backdrop of the Sri Lankan conflict. In this, circumspection is warranted on two counts. One is that devolution as a modality of conflict resolution, as many examples from recent history demonstrate, is a ‘ratchet phenomenon’ irreversible in its directions of change, is irremediable in its possible adverse consequences, and, more important than all else, has seldom been successful in fulfilment of expectations. The other is the existence of a scatter of evidence pointing to a disconcerting lack of memory and/or awareness among our political/opinion leaders regarding not only the LTTE responses to devolution-based peace overtures of the past, but also on past experiences with ‘macro-territorial devolution’ and ‘empowerment at the grassroots’, both in our own country as well as elsewhere, especially in the Indian sub-continent. The amnesia/ignorance is vividly illustrated, for instance, by the persistence of the myth of an ‘Oslo Accord’ that signified an LTTE willingness to pursue a federal solution, or the hilarious spectacle of a group of our leaders attempting to acquire “first-hand knowledge” of Panchayat Raj through a brief guided tour in a small part of India.

The present essay, brief as it must remain, cannot venture into a detailed reappraisal of devolution in federal arrangements that could be of relevance to Sri Lanka. The essay is, in fact, a follow-up on a survey of selected federal systems from the standpoint of conflict resolution, published about an year ago (‘The Federal Option for Sri Lanka’, in Faultlines, Volume 17, Institute of Conflict Management, New Delhi: 1-72, re-published in The Island, 7-15 September 2005). Instead of revisiting the same conflict situations, the remainder of this essay proceeds to introduce the principal features of the Indian federal system, examines some aspects of its performance germane to an assessment of the extent to which it can serve as a model for emulation in Sri Lanka, and concludes with a series of extracts from authoritative writings punctuated with a brief commentary on the subject of power-sharing and conflict resolution. The thematic contention of the essay is that, in the promotion of devolution/federalism of whatever design as a modality of conflict resolution in Sri Lankan, it is desirable to abandon the practice of repeating hackneyed slogans and clichés, and focus specifically and as objectively as possible on genuinely relevant considerations including the related global experiences which have, in fact, been fairly well documented.

To be continued….

The writer is Professor Emeritus, University of Peradeniya .If you have any comments on this serious of article please send editorazad@gmail.com. We are ready publishing your comments on this site too.