Another province. Art from the Colombo Art Biennale
There’s been a lot of hullabaloo about the 13th Amendment, that which appendaged on lame provincial councils to the Sri Lankan body politic. It’s supposed to devolve power to the provinces, but hasn’t really worked. And yet it’s held to be something really important to the country and democracy in general. I’ve actually got my best insights on this from some Kandy schoolboys.
A Debate
A few weeks ago I was a (largely unqualified) judge on the MTV Sports show The Debater. The two teams debating were St. Sylvester’s College and Kingswood College (both from Kandy). The topic was whether the Provincial Councils were an effective means of devolving power. Kingswood College won, arguing that they were not.
A debate isn’t necessarily won by the team with the ‘right’ answer, but in that case you could really see how weak the argument for the provincial councils actually is. Now, I know that may be controversial since devolution is something of a revered idea among Sri Lankan liberals, and it kinda was for me. I mean, it seems logical, give power to the provinces, give people more control over their lives. However, the terms of that debate set its contradictions in sharp relief.
The side arguing for PCs essentially had to say, the system is good, but the people and implementation have been bad. That forced them into a corner of saying to give the implementation time, though it’s been over 20 years. On the other side, they simply had to say that the system (as in operation) simply doesn’t work, citing examples where the PC is simply overruled by the center, or where it just becomes a cesspit of political patronage.
Is It A Good System If It Doesn’t Work?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the essential argument for PCs is this, that they’re a good idea which hasn’t worked out well. But I don’t think that idea holds up, and it certainly didn’t in that debate. A system is its implementation. Institutions don’t exist in the abstract, they are what they do and how they function as much as how they’re planned or legislation.
Regarding the goal of devolving power, the Provincial Councils haven’t worked.
The Central Status Quo
Power remains strongly in the center, which is not necessarily a bad thing, for now. The fact is that introducing a system to devolve power during a war that made the very territorial integrity of Sri Lanka insecure was not the best idea. When the center is insecure it’s not going to devolve power. Second, saying the devolution is a solution to civil rights issues (especially for Tamil areas) is absconding a responsibility that should be national. The fact that many Sri Lankan citizens still don’t have equal language or other rights (in practice, not law) is a national question that requires change from both the bottom and top.
The argument for devolution is that states/provinces can innovate, as per US states legalizing gay marriage and marijuana, slowly. The flipside is that states can also preserve discrimination or weirdness longer than usual, like states explicitly banning gay marriage or places like Kotte in Sri Lanka moving to ban alcohol sales.
The argument, however, is moot if Provinces/States don’t have much power to innovate at all. However good the idea and possibilities are, if it doesn’t work after 20 years it probably just doesn’t work, not in its current form.
What Else?
So what else? You can’t take away local government positions now, they’ve become sanctified fiefdoms for too many gangsters and rapists. There are of course many good people serving in local government as well. The question, however, is how much local government devolution is suited for Sri Lanka, as it really is.
Seriously, try getting anything done in the private or public sector with/without knowing the owner/boss. It’s not that things don’t happen if you’re not connected, but the definitely do happen when you happen to know the person in charge. And with style. In government terms that tends to be the center, notably the ruling family. Other people are given enough favors to dole out that they preserve face, but over two-thirds of the budget and basically all of the power are in the rulers hands, whatever the Constitution or legislation says.
Hence, under a lame Parliament we’ve added another level of lame Provincial Councils. A lot of these guys are pure rent-seekers, simply obstructing stuff for money or power. Good intentions aside, you have to question whether this best way to allocate power, by pretending to allocate power and instead just creating more posts of patronage.
But anyways, what alternatives? One is to elect Parliament members more directly by ward (like under the new election system for local government) and have them actually serve those areas (instead of having to campaign nationally or over whole districts). And, of course, abolishing the Executive Presidency, which would have the most effect, but won’t happen.
Another alternative is to let the 13th Amendment go (as the government is violating it everyday, making a farce of the Constitution in general) and just having power concentrated in the center, both legally and factually. That’s not really a good thing, but at least then the law and facts are connected and you can get back to the practice of making laws that people actually follow, instead of ones you wish they would.
Personally, I think the 13th Amendment was stillborn and is at best a zombie today. Just let it die. Sometimes you just need to throw out the old computer and try again.
Whether provincial councils were effective or not was the topic of an inter-school debate? That’s just ridiculous. For one, politically charged issues should not be topics for such debates because the judges are going to be biased, no matter how hard they try not to be biased. Secondly, since this is a debate and this is SL, the side which argues against any political institution is going to have an unfair advantage.
Anyway, I don’t have strong feelings for or against 13th amendment. But if they want to get rid of it, they should do it properly. It’s just plain embarrassing that the government can rule the country as if a part of the country’s constitution doesn’t exist at all.
A good read on this subject
http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/11993
you’ve conflated devolution with PCs.
the central argument for the PCs isnt that it’s a good system that’s badly implemented. it’s just a bad system. it’s impossible to argue that the provincial councils are effective means of devolving power. they just aren’t, and were never meant to be. if you look at how the 13th amendment is drafted you will see that it was an “exercise in insincerity”, and were rejected as such, by none other than GL Peiris himself (in “Towards Equity”). someone should speak to whoever sets topics for “the debater”! :D
the central argument for devolution though is that it is a good idea, but that what we have is a crippled, deformed manifestation of that idea in the 13th amendment. get some proper devolution and there are several benefits. isnt a bad idea. it reduces concentration of power (our main problem in all the 72 and 78 constitutions). it gives people more power over things that directly affects them. it makes it easier to hold politicians accountable. the real question isnt about devolution, it’s about the 13th amendment in today’s context.
that’s a tough one. ur point about the law and facts are good. on the other hand, the normative force of the repeal of the 13th amendment could be such that devolution is just rejected in our political discourse. on the other hand, you could say as long as the 13th amendment remains, devolution will always be linked to external interference (a la India). and most people already reject devolution, because they think it inevitably leads to separatism.
i’d think it’s good to have so that we can build on it. but then again, maybe the govt should just abolish it. coming on the heels of endless promises to “fully implement” the 13th amendment, it could tell us how sincere they really are about solving the ethnic conflict in this country.
Two problems with your thesis:
1. You define the problem too narrowly. Tamilnadu’s and India’s governments are integrally part of the problem space. Trying to address the problem while ignoring these critical actors is a recipe for disaster.
2. Would you extend the argument to conclude that the laws against bribery and corruption should also be abrogated, since they are ineffective? I believe we should not make anti-corruption the end-all of public policy. But that does not mean that we should scrap the laws.
I think a centralized system would suit Sri Lanka the best – with a caveat though: It has to be run be competent & fair individuals. Now that is a hard ask in Sri Lanka.
In trying to abolish the 13th they are trying to do the right thing for the wrong reason.
The PC’s have only added another layer of bureaucracy and corruption on citizens, there is nothing that they do that was not done more cheaply and efficiently by the municipalities and the Government Agents. They are an enormous burden and a breeding ground for criminals, who then go on to bigger things in Parliament.
We do not need this swollen bureaucracy. Under Westminster there were only 160 MP’s, D S Senanyake’s cabinet consisted of only 7 members; JRJ’s cabinet only 12 (plus 12 deputies). We need to roll back the size and influence of the state, which is now all powerful, perhaps even, almighty.
The abolishing of the 13th should be a part of a wider constitutional reform that introduces proper checks on the executive and ensures the independence of the public service. Instead what is being done is increase the power of the state.
If the later was the case, the system of governance wouldn’t really matter… a country full of philanthropists, good samaritans a place where all regular people acted like a cool monk/reverend/nun/bhikku/priest/bhikkuni/etc would be impervious to bad governance, no matter the system. It’s a hard ask anywhere in the World (except maybe the Vatican, hahaha, I know, right!).
Around the time of the 13th the country there were Indian troops in the country, so there were part of the problem space, but now I think not so much. And they really shouldn’t be.
I wouldn’t extend the argument, no. Its not an argument against laws in general. This isn’t a law against anything, it’s a law for a new idea which they were testing out. And it didn’t work.
I agree with you Indi. The 13A was a steaming pile of shit that was forced down out throats at gunpoint. At the same time, Rohan reminds us how we ended up in that sorry circumstance to begin with. JR Jayawardena thought he could thumb his nose at Indira’s India because he was convinced that the Cold-War-obsessed US had his back. Today we might be repeating this ludicrous folly, except this time, China is our presumed guardian. I hope and pray that whatever the government is trying to do, it is keeping India in the loop.
Furthermore, Jack is right. The 13A should be repealed as part of a larger reform of our state and institutions that reduces the absurd concentration of power in the hands of a few individuals. It should be done in a transparent manner that takes the people of this country into confidence, as well as other nations to whom we gave certain assurances in return for support at a vital juncture.
As for devolution, I’m all for it in principle. But it should be implemented a deliberate, gradual and flexible manner that takes into account the political, cultural and economic realities of the country. You cannot dump a system of devolution onto populations that either do not want it and/or are not ready for it, and expect it to work. Especially not one that is as deeply flawed and half-baked as the 13A surely is.
And yet, for the reasons I’ve outlined above, I’d rather it remains on the books until we have a proper vision and process in place. Besides, if it’s such an intolerable burden on the country at present, the government could simply dissolve all the councils and impose governor’s rule, and that would have a similar effect as a full repeal.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
It is fatuous to define the problem space by the physical presence of troops. If one carefully examines Sri Lanka foreign policy from the time of D.S. Senanayake, one sees a clear-eyed understanding that the problem space always included India. That is why, for example, DS wanted to keep the British bases here. Only the people who defined the problem space simplistically wanted them out, as overt symbols of colonial power.
JRJ was a wiley politician, but he did not factor in India adequately. India was not the cause of the emergence of violent separatism; but by providing the “hinterland” to the assorted militants, India allowed it to grow big quickly.
The war never fought in a conventional theater. It was from the beginning transnational in scope. The LTTE’s defeat was not decided only on the shores of the Nandikadal lagoon. It was decided in the deep ocean where an American-gifted ship destroyed the floating storage ships of the LTTE. The very timing of the end game was decided in relation to an Indian election. It was only after the ballots were cast in Tamilnadu on May 18th that the troops started moving in.
The support of India was critical to winning the war. If not its support, at least its neutrality, will be critical to winning the peace.
Weerawansa is a demagogue who has no knowledge of statecraft or history. It speaks to the depth our despair that otherwise intelligent people are parroting Weerawansa’s line.
The 13A should be repealed as part of a larger reform of our state and institutions that reduces the absurd concentration of power in the hands of a few individuals.
devolution….should be implemented a deliberate, gradual and flexible manner that takes into account the political, cultural and economic realities of the country.
These are just magic words. There’s no specifics here. No plan, no methodology. Just a grand vision. I don’t mean your comment. I mean this whole discussion. No one here, nor in the government, seems to know what would be a better system that can actually be implemented, and how and when.
Sharanga,
the constitution is what should limit the power of the state, thanks to JRJ and subsequent amendments the limitations placed by the constitution of 1948 were done away with, so what is needed is a restoration of accountability.
Some further thoughts on this here
http://jestforkicks.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-is-democracy.html