Risks business leaders failed to highlight

Business leaders place significant emphasis and reliance on the leadership of the All Party Representative Committee (APRC), in ultimately delivering a devolution package, that satisfies the protagonists, political parties representing majority and minority interests, international community, religious/business and civil society leaders and a majority of citizens.

These positive sentiments prevail despite the perceived belief that increasingly, a majority does not believe in a negotiated settlement. Southern leaders are shadow boxing, fighting from extreme positions of strategy and end objective. The Peace Confidence Index survey conducted by the Centre for Policy Alternatives in February 2007, with 59.2% of the Sinhala community supporting a military strategy and 48% having confidence in the present regime waging a successful military campaign against the LTTE, reflects a significant increase over November 2006 survey results.

The business leaders appear to have however failed to carry out a risk analysis, and have thus missed identifying the following key risks in the devolution package presented by Minister Professor Tissa Vitharana; Will these proposals upon implementation lead to a reawakening of Sri Lanka, under a committed, firmly interwoven common banner- “Sri Lanka Incorporated?” It is a myth to assume that the successful devolution in India, within the “Mother India” banner can easily be replicated in Sri Lanka.

The mere inclusion of the words ‘One, free, sovereign and independent State’ in the package is insufficient to reawaken the people and commit them to place ‘Sri Lanka First’. A well designed, communicated and executed strategy led by trusted leaders will be necessary in order that this fundamentally important pillar of the “House of Sri Lanka” is in place post devolution.

Will the structure and systems in implementation be cost effective, bearing in mind the long term commitments like pension costs and affordability? The war and conflict have a tremendous costs associated with it. Business and civil society are looking forward to stemming this wasteful funds, flows and sacrifice of human and other resources.

Looking at it only from a narrow confine of the fiscal space, will there be a net long term gain (following the likely expansion of the already fattest public service per capita) upon committing to a structure of;

- Executive, Parliament, Senate, and Provincial, Municipal, Gam Sabha/Urban Ward tier and a supporting Jana Sabhas
- Higher Appointments Committee, Constitutional Court, Provincial Appeal and High Courts, Legal and Dispute Resolution Structures
- Finance and Constitutional Commissions,
-Chief Ministers Forum, Chief Secretaries Forum, Ministers representing 1:8 of members
-At National and Provincial levels, Police/Public Services/Human Rights/Land and Water Commissions,
- Provincial Police and Administrative resources to support the new governance framework,

3. Will the new structures have requisite human resources support, with necessary capability (knowledge/skills/attitudes), commitment and accountability and able to deliver the expected level of governance responsibly? Will such shortages be especially critical in the provinces outside North and East, and if so, will there be sufficient courage and realism to merge provinces, forgetting ego and short term political gains?

4. With the proposed decentralisation, will the structure, systems and procedures that emerge be economical, efficient and effective? Can such structures deliver the much needed productivity and quality improvement in government services? Will decentralised capital investments in service infrastructure improvements yield the necessary pay back?
5. With the decentralisation, an effective structure of formal and informal networking will need to be in place amongst the different types and levels of governance structures, with all singing from the same hymn sheet of national goals, adapted where necessary to suit the needs of the provinces and effectively implemented in each part of the structure. Can this be a reality within our political structure?

6. The circulating report summaries at present do not describe in sufficient detail the structures to ensure

-effective national policy formulation,
-national infrastructure development,
-resource allocation effectiveness,
-effectiveness of revenue raising and sharing (other than the equity responsibility vesting on the Finance Commission),
-alignment of national economic, trade, investment and international relations within the decentralised structure,
-management information and e-governance effectiveness
-post implementation reviews and audit processes
-elections to these structures are facilitated, resourced and managed effectively
-the Bill of Rights extends to include Right of Information legislation

7. Will there be positive rivalry and a sense of competition amongst the structures but collectively seeking value addition nationally or will divisive forces prevail, and further divided communities emerge as a consequence (in addition to ethnic/religious/caste/ status and wealth differences)

8. Will committed and capable persons, placing the nation before self, party and network of supporters emerge to take leadership positions and assure success of the implementation process? Will they be able to mobilize nationwide support for the decentralization? Will there similarly be persons to fill in the leadership positions in the rest of the structure?

9. How will the reconciliation process be led and supported?

Email - wo_owl@yahoo.co.uk or ft@sundaytimes.wnl.lk