Building on the SLFP proposals for devolution

PROPOSALS: The brilliant if eccentric philosopher Wittgenstein once claimed that all human conversation essentially took the following form: A said, I went to Grantchester today, whereupon B responded, I didn't.

I was reminded of this story when I saw the SLFP proposals to the APRC and then the responses of both three Tamil parties acting in tandem and then the JVP.

Surprisingly, Wittgenstein's view that people never really listen to each other, and instead pursue their own private priorities without attention to those of others, was falsified only by the UNP. Ranil Wickremesinghe must obviously have been abroad, because Choksy's response indicated a desire for consensus on the lines of that pursued by Jayasuriya when acting for his leader soon after the Presidential election.

I hasten to add that K.N. Choksy made clear the distinctive approach of his own party, in highlighting areas on which it had different views from that of the SLFP. But in accepting that there were also areas of agreement, he made clear the distinction between a national political party and those that appeal only to special interests, which have both of them rejected the SLFP's proposals 'in toto'.

The reaction of the Tamil parties is the sadder for, though their view that the proposals should go further is quite understandable, it would have helped them as well as the enlightened members of the SLFP had they tried to build on what was offered.

This possibility, of moving further, was left open in the manner in which the proposals were unveiled, and subsequent pronouncements by what might be described as the cutting edge of the SLFP, such as Nimal Siripala de Silva, make clear that advances on these proposals are quite conceivable in conference.

Such advances would be the more easy to reach in that the JVP have clearly carved out for themselves the role of spoilers only, by failing to consider the details of the proposal.

Instead, according to reports, their statement 'in toto' is about their fear of federalism, the spectre of which seems to be basically their only reason for their toto rejection.

Sadly, the Tamil parties have similarly failed to look at the details, but instead made their toto rejection on the grounds that federalism is essential and that the powers to be devolved by these proposals do not come close to the powers granted to Provincial Councils by the 13th Amendment.

This last begs the question of how ineffective the devolution granted by the 13th Amendment was, and whether a different approach to the problems this country, and in particular the minorities, have faced over the last half century, might not yield better results.

In this respect I am dishearten about the failure to look at the details of the SLFP proposals, in which I believe several innovative features in those proposals that could fruitfully be taken further were first enunciated by the Liberal Party, way back in the eighties when they were treated with derision, and we were accused of trying to foist foreign ideas upon this country.

I refer specifically to the principle of subsidiarity, which has emerged here as a Grama Rajya proposal based on an ancient tradition; to the need for a mixed electoral system; and to the idea of bicameralism.

All these are explored more fully in my book 'Political Principles and their Practice in Sri Lanka', and the discussion there may shed further light on these concepts and their current relevance to Sri Lanka.

At the same time I should note that I deserve no credit whatsoever for all this, since my knowledge was derived from authorities in the field and in particular Chanaka Amaratunga, who first enunciated the doctrines of devolution and pluralism at a time when both major parties believed in majoritarian centralization.

It was he who single-handedly argued the case for such concepts in the manifesto under which Mrs Bandaranaike contested the 1988 Presidential election, and later introduced them into the manifesto he prepared for Gamini Dissanayake for the 1994 Presidential election.

Dr. Amaratunga's advocacy of a Senate and a mixed system of election are well known, but less understood is his commitment to subsidiarity.

I will return to the other areas later, but today then I will concentrate on this last, and its implications for the debate on the units of devolution, which has concerned those who have responded thus far to the SLFP proposals.

To do this I will begin by quoting from what Dr Amaratunga wrote to Dissanayake, which emphasizes the need for small units in which people could exercise power, as well as larger units of devolution -

Some countries are now realising that one of the best ways of reducing and preventing internal conflict is to get their people to participate more in government and to give them more input into the important decisions that affect their lives.

These can be achieved by decentralising or devolving more power to local government and by giving more freedom to people's organisations. In some undesirable instances, however, devolution may unwittingly empower the elite and not the local people whom it is intended to benefit. If devolution is to reduce conflict and promote human development, it must therefore be accompanied by genuine democracy at local level.

The devolution of power from government capitals to villages and provinces is one of the most effective ways of empowering local people, promoting local harmony and public participation, and increasing efficiency....... It is interesting to note that industrialised countries allocate 25 per cent of total government spending to the local level while developing countries delegate a meagre 10 per cent.

It is in the light of the principle of subsidiarity, seen best perhaps in Switzerland, that we should consider the SLFP proposals.

That principle is based on the assumption that no unit should exercise powers that can more appropriately be entrusted to a smaller unit. The people affected by the exercise of power should basically decide how such power is used, with the safeguard that, since exercise of power might adversely affect others, larger units may have to be empowered to ensure fair play.

It is therefore obvious that there need to be decision making entities smaller in size than provinces or districts (the relative benefits of which I will discuss later). Clearly many administrative decisions at least must be taken by smaller units.

If one of the complaints about centralization is that Colombo has no idea of the particular problems for instance Panama, the same goes for Trincomalee and even for Amparai.

More dramatically, as the signs painted on the wall of a school en route to the bridge over the Kelani so graphically pointed out last week when it had been devastated by floods, appealing to the President for at least one decent building, no larger institutionalised unit is going to bother about the deprived. They have to appeal to the highest in the land. Since that is rarely practical, it makes much more sense to empower the community that is served by such institutions.

Where the SLFP proposals were deficient was in not specifying the areas in which powers should be meaningfully devolved. The proposals certainly made sense in specifying the areas that should be reserved for the central government, but they ruined this by adding the general phrase 'Among others' which could well lead to unnecessary powers being preserved by the centre.

Rather, they should have stuck with the logic that they enunciated in declaring that the reserved powers would be those that 'ensure the safeguard of the concept of Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity, Economic Unity and National Unity of Sri Lanka'.

Having made that clear, they could have spelled out what could be given to the other levels. Obviously details would have to be worked out, but some idea of what areas were to be entrusted to the smallest units would have allowed for less emotional reactions to the whole concept.

Conversely, concrete examples would have also enabled the SLFP to clarify its position on what would belong to the middle layer or layers.

I believe this would have helped because consideration of the ground realities would have indicated that issues of welfare and infrastructure probably require larger units than Grama Sabhas. At the same time the input from Grama Sabhas would obviously help in ensuring responsive decisions.

When Premadasa introduced Pradeshiya Sabhas with substantial decision making powers, their relative closeness to the people was welcomed, but as time passed it became clear that they too could become alienated from the people they were meant to serve.

In that respect the SLFP suggestion that Pradeshiya Sabhas should be made up of Grama Sabha representatives was welcome, but concrete examples of how this would resolve problems in particular areas of government would have been useful. This would have been the more desirable in that it would then have helped to lay out parameters for what is obviously the most important political decision, namely whether the principal unit of devolution should be the province or the district.

Personally I have a predilection for the district, because I believe it would be more responsive to the needs of people, and be easier for administration. I used to argue this position earnestly in those fascinating debates within the Liberal Party in the eighties, when we used foolishly to think that intellectual analysis based on principles and practices elsewhere would be taken seriously.

In the end however I came round to the view that Provinces had to be accepted as the Units of devolution, for two reasons. One was that successive betrayals by central governments, culminating in the farce of the District Development Councils, had made it impossible for the minorities to have faith in such institutions.

The second was the realization that, in a context in which people have been conditioned to look to the centre for so long, any unit that has to have authority must be substantial.

Indeed the history of the Provincial Councils established by the 1987 Act suggest that even those are too small - the ludicrous situation of Chief Ministers begging to come to Colombo for even the least important position in the Cabinet, instead of actively and authoritatively promoting the development of the provinces they presided over, indicates that serious politicians may not be willing to make the effort necessary for devolution to work.

But the achievement of Jayawickreme Perera in Wayamba, arguably the only Chief Minister who made use even of the deeply flawed Act of 1987, proves that Provincial Councils do have potential.

The arguments of the opponents of Provincial Councils, based not at all on reality, is that the potential of Provincial Councils will prove too much, and will disrupt the territorial integrity of the country.

But this is where a proper understanding of federal principles will make clear that the security aspects of government, physical, legal, financial, international, remain the preserve of the centre.

Conversely the day to day administration of the welfare and developmental aspects of government will be the preserve of smaller units, directly responsible to the people concerned. Even though supervision of these will be the responsibility of the larger unit, the principle of subsidiarity will ensure that primary responsibility will belong to the relevant small units.

Where the larger unit will play its part is in the establishment and development of centres of excellence in the various fields in which now Colombo makes all the running. I was delighted to find, in the Ten Year Development Horizon Framework of the government, concern in the Health Sector for instance to encourage 'managers at peripheral levels to make decisions on finance, staffing and utilisation of resources'.

This would obviously be relevant for education too. But the process of raising standards at the periphery requires the establishment of centres of excellence that, initially at any rate, only provinces could aim for.

Such practical concerns may seem unimportant now, given the emotional responses of those involved in the debate. But as Mr Choksy's response suggests, there is room for detailed discussion of the principles involved, with a view to developing a consensus.

We can only hope that those in charge of the process work conscientiously towards a consensus, and not allow the confrontational approach that seemed to characterize the various reports of the committee of experts to spoil the genuine opportunity these proposals have presented.