| News |
||||||
| |
||||||
Why federalism may not be a solution My brief this morning is to offer some arguments on the theme why federalism - American or otherwise - may not be a solution to Sri Lanka's current political imbroglio. Before I proceed directly into that brief a few general observations are perhaps in order. What is the current state of political affairs in Sri Lanka? After the December 2001 general elections we have had a three-cornered power structure in Sri Lanka. The Prime Minister
and the United National Front Government, the President and her
party's strength in parliament and Prabhakaran and areas controlled
by the LTTE. As Sumanasiri Liyanage has correctly identified in a recent newspaper article (The Island, 26 March, 2003), the following are the constitutional options available for Sri Lanka at the present time:
Of these options,
number one represents the extreme Sinhala nationalist position while
number nine represents the extreme Tamil nationalist position. How, then, are we to achieve a national transformation through democratic constitutionalism? As Jayadeva Uyangoda points out (see his "Engaging the Negotiation Process, Politically, Daily News, 13 January, 2003), this is a historical task that the Tamils or the Sinhalese cannot achieve in isolation. Indeed our experience of the last three decades clearly illustrates the above fact. Whether or not Sri Lanka can rise above ethnic rivalry and achieve a democratic-pluralistic political agency is, at present, not easy to predict. Both the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in their respective espousal of extreme nationalism are major stumbling blocks for the achievement of democratic-pluralism called for. While the JVP shows no signs of accommodating Tamil and Muslim aspirations, the LTTE seems equally unaccommodating of Sinhala and Muslim aspirations. I now wish to move on to some general thoughts on federalism and devolution of power. As a student of Sri Lanka and the tragic political mess it is in, I have followed rather closely the debate on federalism as a possible way out for Sri Lanka from the mire it is in. I was a member of the Council of Liberal Democracy (CLD) of Sri Lanka for nearly 10 years and a founder National Committee Member of the small but influential Liberal Party of Sri Lanka for several years. The CLD and the Liberal Party, especially its late leader, Chanaka Amaratunga, were during the 1980s and the 1990s among the earliest passionate advocates of federalism as a likely solution to Sri Lanka's protracted ethno-political conflict. Some of the former stalwarts of the Liberal Party continue to subscribe to the notion that federalism is the remedy for conflict resolution in Sri Lanka. As for myself, while I am not opposed to the introduction of federalism as a political concept to Sri Lanka per se, I remain unconvinced of the efficacy of federalism in the resolution of our murderously contentious and seemingly intractable ethno-political contest. As a liberal democrat and a firm believer in the rights of the individual in society, I happen to think that federalism has its uses when and if it is introduced into a political context that is free from militant ethnic nationalism. The underscoring of the distinction between democracy and that form of political order which places the greatest importance on individual and political liberty has been a significant liberal contribution to political theory. Democracy is, as it existed in Athens, that form of government based upon the will of the majority. But it is clear that the will of the majority can be as tyrannical at times as the will of a despot, if tyranny is to be judged by its effects on an individual human being. A political majority, if it does not recognize the right of all human beings to the expression of their ideals and to live their lives according to their wishes, provided that they do not deprive other individuals of similar rights by so doing, would be a coercive majority that may be likened to a tyranny. It is a distinction made clear by John Stuart Mill when he wrote: If all mankind
minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary
opinion, mankind would no more be justified in silencing that one
person than he, if he had the power would be justified in silencing
mankind. Here, Mill asserts the primacy of individual liberty over the will of the majority. In the contemporary era, another liberal thinker, Prof. Friedrich von Hayek, has clarified this distinction further - The liberal is concerned with the extent of government, the democrat with how a government is composed ... The current misconception of democratic theory derives from the practice that whatever the majority decided on particular matters was to be binding law for all. There is, however, neither need for such unlimited power, nor can its existence be reconciled with individual freedom. ( New Studies
in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas) The concentration of power in a single source of political - decision making has, as Sri Lanka's experience of 1970-1977 and 1977 - 1994 demonstrated, led to authoritarianism and intolerance, to incompetence and corruption. Such tendencies as outlined above may be, if not wholly eliminated then at least reduced, by the devolution of power by means of federalism. Such a limitation and division of power as envisaged under federalism would render the exercise of tyrannical political intolerance impossible. The inevitable limitation a federal constitution would place on constitutional amendment is another check on the untrammelled will of the majority. Another argument used by those who advocate federalism for Sri Lanka is that it is only in 1833 under British colonial decree that Sri Lanka became a unitary state as a consequence of the Colebrook Reforms. It is contended that Sri Lanka's historical experience for centuries before that was rule by independent kingdoms. Thus it is not easy to be entirely opposed to federalism - especially so if one is partial to liberal democracy. In the circumstances, why I am lukewarm about if not against federalism as a likely solution to the Sri Lankan political tragedy is purely and simply due to my lack of faith in the LTTE as a democratic political party. While I will go so far as to find fault with successive Sri Lankan governments for pushing the Tamil citizens of Sri Lanka into the clutches of the LTTE, I cannot and do not nevertheless consider the LTTE to be a reliable alternative for any of us who consider ourselves to be Sri Lankans. Nor do I honestly believe, to the extent that I am able to discern, that the LTTE represents all of the Tamil citizens of Sri Lanka. To the extent that something or someone was needed to compel the Sri Lankan polity into recognizing the tragic folly of seeking to impose willy nilly the will of its majority on our Tamil citizenry, it could perhaps be argued, that the LTTE has been a necessary evil. But to allow the LTTE free reign now would be to repeat in a different form an old malady - the imposition on society of the will of a dominant majority. Do the citizens of the North and East of Sri Lanka deserve to be subject to the "majoritarianism" of the LTTE? Should the unwillingness of the LTTE to accept the rights of other political entities of the North and the East not to speak of its violations of human rights and other loftier issues be countenanced? Isn't the LTTE guilty of depriving the citizens of the North and the East the very rights they have waged a brutal war to win from the Sri Lankan state? I consider the LTTE to be a fascist, violent, intransigent and anti-democratic political entity committed to the formation of a separate state in Sri Lanka. I happen not to subscribe to the paternalistic description of the LTTE as an outfit in transition from a militant organization to a political party made by some prominent members of the UNF. Even after more than a year has gone by since the signing of the MoU and the cessation of hostilities, there are so many uneasy realities we have to contend with so far as the LTTE activity goes. From their jungle hideouts in the North and the East, the Tigers and their elusive leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran, have fashioned an elaborate and remarkably well-organized state-within-a state. Besides their own police department, the Tigers operate their own legal system, motor vehicle registry, tax department, customs service, health clinics - and even a forestry division. While some parts of the LTTE's civil administration have been operating since the early 1990s - the first convocation of the Law College was in 1993 - the system has by all accounts grown in scope and prominence since the "ceasefire" as the LTTE sought to enhance its legitimacy and bargaining power. Tiger leaders continue to recruit children as young as 12 into their military and political ranks, sometimes against the children's will according to the Sri Lankan Monitoring Mission officials and members of the University Teachers for Human Rights (UTHR). In areas they control and in those they do not, the Tigers have alienated many businessmen -- especially those from the island's small Muslim population, with their heavy handed demand for taxes violating in the process the constitution of Sri Lanka. On the basis of the above it is perhaps not unreasonable to conclude that it is yet too early to be convinced that the LTTE is committed to a negotiated and peaceful resolution of the conflict. It is perhaps not unfair to suggest that the LTTE is simply exploiting the negotiation process to consolidate territorial gains made to date with the ultimate aim of declaring an independent state at an opportune moment. Meantime there are other vexed issues as well. If indeed a merger of the North and East were to take place as part of a deal, what of the Muslims and the Sinhalese in the East? Is the possible creation of separate Sinhala and Muslim enclaves a satisfactory arrangement? Would this not tantamount to partition and what of its future consequences? There is reliable evidence to suggest that the Muslims of the East are being driven to seek radical alternatives in the face of anticipated LTTE clinching of a merged North and East as their pound of flesh. Should such a merger take place, what of the Tamils living outside of the North and East of Sri Lanka? Will federalism solve anything for them? Should the government fail to secure the requisite 2/3rd majority in Parliament and approval by the people at a subsequent referendum for the introduction of federalism, will this failure provide the LTTE with a justifiable excuse and the platform it needs to shift to separation? Given LTTE's
insistence on "The Thimpu Principles" which include the
notions of a "traditional homeland" and self-determination
(which were and have been rejected by the Government of Sri Lanka
since 1986), what options remain? The International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the UN in 1966, states that: The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, also adopted by UN in 1966, makes the identical statement. Additionally, General Assembly Resolution 2625 states that: By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic social and cultural development, and every state has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of this charter. It is my contention that the current conduct of the LTTE and the spirit in which the rights enshrined in the above UN Covenants are to be pursued are incompatible. The question also arises as to whether measures introduced to aid and abet the process of decolonisation are applicable in resolving conflict in post-colonial societies. In seeking a desirable political arrangement for sharing of political power it is advisable that we avoid the terminology and labels such as federal, unitary, confederal and the like not only because they have become in contemporary Sri Lanka emotive terms but also because such entrenched concepts may actually impede the process of negotiations we have embarked upon. If we start with a preference for one abstract concept or the other, we may force our constitution onto that. Such an approach is unlikely to help us achieve the democratic constitutionalism referred to above. It is, to my mind, a far better idea to start with the problems and needs of Sri Lanka, work out appropriate arrangements for the exercise of power and then allow the political scientist to argue about what label should be put on afterwards. All modern countries have elements of centralization and elements of devolution. It is always a matter of degree. Absolutely pure federalism and unitary states belong to the text books, not to real countries. I conclude with a quotation from Daniel J Elazar, a frequently quoted authority on federalism these days. In commenting on the uses of federalism he has, among other points, noted the following: "…despite the advantages of federalism, it is by no means suitable for all peoples or polities or the best means of resolution of all conflicts. In order to succeed, there must be a will to federate, sufficient goodwill to make federal arrangements work, and a political culture able to bear those arrangements with the combination of moderation, willingness to negotiate and compromise, and a spirit of comity needed to make shared-rule relationships work. The progress of negotiations between the UNF - led government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE does not lead a dispassionate observer to believe that federalism is likely to succeed as a means of conflict resolution in the foreseeable future. On the basis of known ground realities, it is not unreasonable to assume that the appropriate will, goodwill and political culture required for self-rule/shared rule do not appear to exist in Sri Lanka at the present time. |
||||||
Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers
Ltd. All rights reserved. |
