- [SW Country] (Gamini Laksman Peiris - Sri Lanka) Plenary
Discussion Panel: New Directions in Federalism :Posted on 7
Dec 2002
Plenary Discussion Panel: New
Directions in Federalism
Professor Gamini Laksman Peiris
Minister of Justice, Constitutional Affairs, Ethnic Affairs & National
Integration
The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
Mr. Chairman, fellow panellists, ladies
and gentlemen. We are happy to be here participating in your
proceedings. Sri Lanka is not a federal state, but with many countries
of the emerging world we are confronting a very complex problem. And I
would summarize that problem in this way:
How do you reconcile ethnic and cultural diversity with the concept of
mature and cohesive nationhood? Certainly in South Asia this is a
perennial problem. In many of our countries there are people who speak
different languages, profess different religions, come from different
cultural backgrounds. How do you construct political and economic
institutions which enable this range of diversity to be readily
compatible with the perception of belonging to a single country,
without any element of exclusion from decision-making processes?
I think that is a central challenge facing many of the countries of
the developing world.
As the chairman pointed out, in Sri Lanka we are experimenting with
certain ideas which will enable us to devolve substantial power to
different regions in the country. The whole thrust of this is
empowerment of people; making it possible for them to play a more
active and vigorous role in the making of decisions which touch their
daily lives.
How do you do this within the framework of a single state? In Sri
Lanka, as we proceed with this initiative we find ourselves facing a
particular problem. We are told that if you look at the history of
federalism in the world the typical model of federalism is that of
regions coming together, regions that were earlier independent. But
they come together for certain limited purposes. That has been the
traditional pattern. Now, Sri Lanka, by contrast, has always been a
unitary state. Federalism has not at any time been part of the
political experience of my country. What we are now contemplating is
the changing of that unitary structure to admit of a degree of
power-sharing, which is generally associated with quasi-federal
structures. Now the question that is asked is: We're all familiar with
the phenomenon of independent entities coming together within the
framework of a federal state, but is it possible, is it feasible, to
envisage a country which has always been a unitary state now adopting,
as a result of a political process, quasi-federal structures and
mechanisms? That has been a question which has been put to us, very
pointedly, in the course of the constitutional initiative which is
taking place at the present time in my country.
I need to tell you that one of the problems that we face here is an
emotional problem. Not people being cerebral, reflective, thinking
consciously about these matters, but an intuitive and emotional
response to these very mixed and convoluted issues. The problem there
is this: Many people feel, in our part of the world, that federalism
is the precursor to the physical dismemberment, or the disintegration
of the nation state. If you proceed in that direction the end result
would be the break-up of a national state. Now many people are
suspicious of federalism in our country. They are suspicious because
they feel that this is the thin end of the wedge. Once you begin
travelling in that direction how do you stop short of the physical
disintegration of the state?
Now it is a question of molding public opinion and convincing people
that far from quasi-federal structures bringing about the break-up of
a country, on the contrary, quasi-federal models have enabled
countries, characterized by a large degree of diversity, to remain as
single countries. Look at Canada. Closer to my own country look at
India, just across the Palk Straits. It is impossible to conceive a
republic of India being one country if all power had been concentrated
in the capital, New Delhi.
So it is the emergence and the consolidation of structures which have
enabled people coming from a diversity of cultural backgrounds to feel
at home in their respective nations. It is these mechanisms that have
enabled the survival of these entities as unified countries. Now, that
may be self-evident when you put the proposition in that way, but one
has to overcome a high degree of emotion and convince people of the
reality of that position. In doing so I think we have to jettison
labels; nomenclature is not the most important thing. There are many
countries in the world which do not fall neatly into this category of
unitary or federal. There are hybrid structures. So I do not think
that we should be slaves to stereotypes or to labels.
Now, in any federal or quasi-federal structure, you have a basic
tension. You're trying to reconcile two competing objectives. One is
the centre must be strong. There must be effective government. At the
same time, effective government must be entirely consistent with the
recognition of the cultural and the ethnic diversity that is part and
parcel of the everyday experience of that country. So those are the
two competing considerations for which provision has to be made in the
structures that are established.
Now, the big question that countries like Sri Lanka have to face in
that regard is, how do you establish that division between the centre
and the periphery? There are two competing models: symmetrical or
asymmetrical. Of course, you have the centre, and then you have the
provinces or the regions. Do you devolve powers to the regions on a
uniform basis? Will every region be the recipient, the repository of
the same degree of power? Or would you recognize nuances and
gradations? Would you recognize quantitative and qualitative
differences with regard to the distribution of powers among the
different units that constitute the federation.
Now one argument is that you have to recognize the practicalities of
the situation. In my own country most of the problems are in the
northern and the eastern regions where the majority of the people
speak the Tamil language. That is, those are regions dominated by a
minority. There is a similar situation in Canada, in Spain, and in
other countries. Do you then solve the problem in this way: a duopoly
approach that greater powers need to be devolved to those regions
where the most acute problems arise in every day experience? Now, in
Sri Lanka we have found that one of the reasons why that approach is
difficult is a degree of emotional resistance. If the majority feel
that some kind of completely special and disparate treatment is meted
out to a particular region, which is inhabited by a group of people
who belong to the racial minority, then psychologically there's a high
degree of resistance to the adoption of those models and structures.
But whichever solution you adopt, symmetrical or asymmetrical, it is
important to insist, in keeping with the contemporary Sri Lankan
experience, that there must be power-sharing also at the centre. Now
the situation is complicated in a country like my own where the
minorities do not live exclusively in a particular part of the
country. They do live in the northern and the eastern provinces, but
then there are large numbers of Tamil-speaking people who live in the
capital city and its environs. So a viable structure cannot consist
simply of the devolution of power to regions. You have to look at the
problem of power-sharing at the centre and develop appropriate
mechanisms to accomplish that objective.
In so doing you must achieve clarity. I think clarity is very
important indeed. In Sri Lanka we have adopted this experience. We
have established a clear-cut distinction between the powers that are
retained by the centre in the form of a reserve list, and the powers
that are devolved to the periphery, namely the devolved list. We have
done away with the concept of a concurrent list consisting of shared
competencies, because that leads to ambiguity, endless debate, which
cannot be resolved in any satisfactory manner. So we do not have a no
man's land. There's a clear-cut distinction between powers which
belong to the centre and the powers which are devolved to the
periphery.
Then another requirement of such a structure is that of effectiveness.
You must ensure that the centre has the powers which it needs with
regard to defence, for example, foreign policy, the national budget --
and other powers are devolved to the periphery. It is also important
to insist that the provinces must have the resources, the wherewithal
that they need to discharge their functions. Otherwise, the structures
may be near perfect in theory, but they will not work on the ground if
the units, if the regions do not possess sufficient resources to
discharge their functions adequately. For similar reasons, the
provinces must also be adequately equipped in terms of personnel.
Then there's this one other element that I need to refer to. These
problems in our part of the world cannot be analyzed solely in terms
of majority versus minority. What imparts a particularly complex
dimension is the minority versus minority aspect. In Sri Lanka there
are two minorities: there are the Tamils; there are the Muslims. So if
in the northern and the eastern regions you devolve very substantial
powers to the Tamil-speaking minority then the Muslims ask that their
own fundamental rights be suitably entrenched by constitutional
arrangements to prevent the Muslims from being overwhelmed by the
Tamil community. So that is a dimension that we need to bear in mind.
The structures that we evolve must also contain suitable mechanisms
for the resolution of problems which may arise between the centre and
the regions on the one hand, and among the regions on the other hand.
In Sri Lanka we have chosen the method of a chief ministers'
conference as one of the mechanisms for resolving disputes as and when
they arise, before they become very aggravated or exacerbated.
It is also important, I think, to make the point that in our part of
the world, certainly in South Asia, we have a serious problem of
political polarisation. The disappearance of middle ground. People are
not willing to compromise. Some of these issues are tarnished with
emotion. In that kind of situation we have made provision in our
constitutional arrangements for the regional governments to consist
not only of the party that has been successful at the polls, but
proportionately the party in opposition will be entitled to a number
of seats in the board of ministers of the region. So we have departed
from the traditional principle of winner takes all. We have made it
possible for the party in opposition also to make a constructive input
into the making and the implementation of policy and we think that
that is a constructive contribution to diminishing the tradition of
political confrontation and polarisation which is the bane of the
political culture of a great part of the sub-continent.
Now, the final point I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, is this: that
these structures may be desirable, but they will be successful only in
an environment that is pervaded by respect for pluralism. So one is to
take into account the ethos of society as a whole. There must be a
high degree of public awareness of the value systems that are sought
to be embodied in the constitutional arrangements. You need a vigorous
press. You need trade unions. Political parties. You need democracy
within political parties. You need certain regulatory mechanisms with
regard to the finances of political parties. There must be access to
justice. The ombudsman or the equivalent of the ombudsman must have a
significant role to play.
So some degree of egalitarianism is necessary in order to make a
success of some of these principles, so one is to have a holistic
conception of human development, and the political and economic
structures that come into being must reflect that commitment to
pluralism, secularism, and the functioning of representative
democracy.
So within the short period allocated to me, 15 minutes, I have tried
to give you an insight into the complexity of the problems in my
country and some of the approaches that we are currently adopting to
achieve a resolution of these problems. We do not believe that war is
the answer. Sri Lanka is not the only country that has faced problems
of this kind and the lesson that we can learn from the progress of
human civilization is that matters like this have to do with the
anxieties, the apprehensions, the hopes and the aspirations of human
beings – and these problems can be resolved only at the political
level by means of the kinds of proposals directed towards the
empowerment of people and the creation of autonomous units. That, I
think, is the way to go and I think that is basically the lesson to be
learned from the Sri Lankan experience. We would like to look at what
has happened in other countries. Not to reinvent the wheel, but to
adapt the solutions that have been adopted elsewhere to suit the
combination of circumstances that exists in my own country.
Thank you very much indeed._________
[Country] |