Politicians are great creators of mind-boggling innovations for their political convenience and benefits. In 2019 the ‘Pohottuwa’ engaged the public, institutions, sections of the clergy, and academics to market the worn-out national security status after the Easter bombs.
‘Vanda kottu’ (infertile kottu) and ‘vanda jangi’ (infertile underwear), resulting in infertility if consumed or worn respectively, were publicised to create prejudiced, wicked, and malevolent sentiments against Muslims. A cobra from the ‘Naga Loka’ emerged from the Kelani River to politically unite aroused Buddhist sentiments.
It is happening in India right now with the inauguration of the half-built Ram Mandir. This is election season in India too and hence some analysed it as an unofficial launch of Indian PM Narendra Modi’s pro-Hindutva election campaign.
Election complexities
Concurrently in Sri Lanka, my successor in Delhi and friend, former Ambassador Milinda Moragoda, suggests incorporating in forthcoming election manifestos the repeal of Provincial Councils (PCs). Accordingly, the functions of PCs are to be managed through Local Authorities (LAs), which will spark a vehement ‘anti-repeal forum,’ certainly by Tamils. A ‘vanda kottu’!
Moragoda speaks out closely upon the political utterances by the new Leader of the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi (ITAK) Sivagnanam Shritharan, who journeys towards a federal solution, dissatisfied with the 13th Amendment (13A) (Tamil Guardian, 23 January).
For him, the 13A ‘offer’ does not match ITAK expectations. Hence, Milinda Moragoda creates a Tamil-Sinhala constitutional issue forgetting that even in predominantly Sinhala areas there will be those who prefer devolved governance.
Incidentally, I am reminded of the Oslo Declaration of 5 December 2002 that explored “a political solution founded on the principle of internal self-determination in areas of historical habitation of the Tamil-speaking peoples, based on a federal structure within a united Sri Lanka,” which comes closer to what ambitious Shritharan anticipates.
Moragoda, then a member of the Sri Lankan negotiating team, had no visible objection to it. PM Ranil Wickremesinghe would have given the nod for it. Therefore, Oslo will soothe Shritharan about a federal structure. To him, the difference between Moragoda and himself is between Local Government versus federalism! A hornet’s nest!
Another group demands the repealing of the Executive Presidency, which may create an executive premier, with even a potential extended term of office to solve the economic quagmire and, presumably, create a ceremonial president, benefitting another politician – a ‘constitutional coup’. Repealing the presidency had been in political manifestos but dishonoured by previous leaders. Hence, it is old wine in new bottles!
Another leading Buddhist priest declared nominating the ‘would-be president’ candidate when nominations were called, creating suspicion of another extremist vote-puller into the presidential fray. It may be similar to the 2019 and 2020 Muslim phobia. Another ‘vanda kottu’!
Another former minister declared tying up the bogus Avalokiteshvara and bringing him before the Malwatte and Asgiriya Mahanayakes, creating a rowdy scene, and becoming a saviour of Buddhism. Fortunately many will not fall for his pranks. However, another ‘vanda kottu’!
Emerging politics and the past
Since the repeal of 13A and the Executive Presidency are politically sensitive issues, let me focus on the former. I do not consider the Executive Presidency issue; it is a hackneyed item in political agendas, good only for discussion and not to succeed, unless with ulterior manoeuvring. Further, we may face Indian intervention if 13A is repealed, though it would not be interested in the Executive Presidency.
There are differing political hangovers on PCs.
The incumbent President has consistently supported power-sharing by voting for the 13A and appurtenant legislation. He has repeated it at international forums, e.g. in the UNHRC through Resolution 30/1 in 2015. But, recently he introduced qualifiers that Police powers could not be devolved and that Parliament must study the implications of devolution.
President Wickremesinghe called an all-party meeting in July 2023 and asserted that Sri Lanka should retain the PCs with powers adequately devolved or abolish the PC system entirely. To him, abolishing PCs is like tossing a coin – either heads or tails! Since the election seasons are nearing, is Milinda Moragoda airing the frustration of President Wickremesinghe, upon the failed consensus creation on devolution?
Moragoda, who advocates abolishing PCs, is shrewdly raking a debate at a crucial political juncture when President Wickremesinghe is attempting to garner the Tamil vote. Whether Moragoda is with President Wickremesinghe or not is unknown. I recall they were friends but Moragoda dumped Wickremesinghe in 2007 to join President Mahinda Rajapaksa to strengthen the latter’s hands.
Or has he, as the immediate past High Commissioner in India, known the changed attitudes of Indians on devolution, for which all Indian leaders since PM Rajiv Gandhi clamoured at all forums in Colombo, Delhi, and Geneva? Or has he forgotten the thinking of his former political supremo, President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who promised to share power through a ‘13A Plus’?
Even Basil Rajapaksa who holds the ‘Pohottuwa whip’ has declared before a Parliamentary Select Committee on electoral reforms that “it is important to have public representation at the provincial level, as the State officials alone will not be able to address the needs of the public”. (The Morning, 16 October 2021).
Mind the language: ‘provincial level’ and not LA level. Moragoda has probably slipped his Pohottuwa attachments! He may be repeating former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s stance, declared at the Gajaba Regiment Headquarters to mark the 72nd anniversary of the Sri Lanka Army, urging Sri Lankans to move forward under the notion of ‘one country, one law’.
Now there is a new force, i.e., the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), appearing strongly in the presidential race. The stand of the JVP on PCs had been the establishment of people’s assemblies and democratisation of the village administration in Sri Lanka instead of devolution of powers to provinces.
The JVP’s Vijitha Herath and Bimal Rathnayake have articulated in the media that the assemblies should be created based on ethnicity, culture, and the state of economic development. Isn’t Moragoda orchestrating somewhat similar sentiments to that of the JVP by proposing power sharing to LAs? Or is he backing the ‘Jansabha concept,’ which has gained acceptance, including at the Presidential Secretariat?
When Moragoda pointed out that these bodies operated closest to the citizenry and were in a better position to address and solve community-level problems, he was repeating the ‘Principle of Subsidiarity’. He considered that a small country did not require another unnecessary layer of administration.
It may be right when only the size of the country is considered. What mechanism closest to the citizenry could coordinate five northern districts or three districts in the south or west unless centralising? What about the other political and historical elements that led to the introduction of PCs? If devolution has to address “an overall strategy to restructure and modernise Sri Lanka’s governance and economy,” it should be mindful of these elements too.
Moragoda is well versed in how the devolution package was thrust upon us by Indian PM Rajiv Gandhi and President J.R. Jayewardene’s frame of mind in late 1986 when he, according to then Indian Foreign Secretary A.P. Venkateswaran, “pleaded” with Rajiv Gandhi to send his military to save his Government from downfall.
He must be aware of the demands that were made by Tamil politicians like A. Amirthalingam and M. Sivasithamparam locally and by Indian politicians like Natwar Singh, P. Chidambaram, and bureaucrats like Romesh Bhandari, G. Parthasarathy, J.N. Dixit, and later Harsh Vardhan Shringla et al; how goods were dropped by the Indian Air Force on 4 June, 1987, after failing to send a flotilla with goods immediately before the food drop. Can these Indian interventions be ignored as child’s play and PCs be abolished?
For sure, he knows the latest statement by Indian Ambassador in Geneva Indra Mani Pandey, made in September 2023: “We hope that the Government of Sri Lanka will fulfil the aspirations of Tamils for equality, justice, and peace and its commitment to implement the 13A and conduct Provincial Council Elections to ensure a life of respect and dignity for Tamils in Sri Lanka.”
Moragoda, who left Delhi in late 2023, could possess the latest information we lack in the public domain: whether the Indians are playing cunning political games by making these statements and supporting dumping the 13A. If it is so, President Wickremesinghe and the JVP are in a cool clime to repeal the 13A supported by other parliamentarians, like Sarath Weerasekara, Udaya Gammanpila, et al who demand repealing.
Moragoda is more aware than us of the holding of Lok Sabha elections in a few months and PM Modi’s interest in winning support in Tamil Nadu, for which direct commitment regarding implementation of the 13A could help. Hence a political party stating the withdrawal of 13A in its manifestos will be waving a red flag to PM Modi, who waves green flags to sort out our debt sustainability crisis. Anyway, this does not mean that we should always abide by the Indians.
A small, efficient, and people-centric government, with the repeal of PCs, is proposed by Moragoda, directed towards achieving the necessary coordination through a district-level framework. It was incidentally tried in 1981 with the District Councils and soon found wanting even before July 1983.
July 1983 turned the wheels of relationships, especially in the north, and later with a newly-formed diaspora and international interventions and I am surprised how Moragoda forgets these historical facts and isolates revolutionising governance only by repealing the 13A.
He believes in a structure consisting of parliamentarians, Local Government office bearers, and other stakeholders. It appears that he is unmindful of the reasoning for establishing PCs to resolve the conflict by giving “more provincial autonomy” that has not been achieved and it is uncertain whether it will happen with parliamentarians flocked together with LA members.
A government may repeal the PC law, but it is not a parliamentary majority that will reconcile minorities with the majority. Even President Wickremesinghe’s Cabinet colleague Douglas Devananda will not call for repealing the 13A!
Financial roadblocks
He laments that PCs have been proven to be superfluous, expensive, divisive, and fraught with inefficiency. Of course, all these sins plus corrupt practices were committed by the centre, many more times, and also in LAs, where Moragoda has served as a political representative.
The superfluous status is mostly related to limited development activity profiles of PCs. How a PC can undertake development is questionable in the background of 85% of the PCs’ budget provisions being apportioned to establishment costs, leaving 15% for development. The former is mostly to employ teachers and health workers.
Even if the 13A and PCs are wiped out, the same expenditure has to be borne by the State and the superfluousness will remain intact at a different venue. With low capital investment, visible quantification of development cannot be observed.
Concurrently, if the release of funds to PCs is reviewed, the failure of development activities is clearly explained as funds do not reach PCs promptly even though budgetary provisions are available. Additionally, when foreign projects are commenced, the ministries attempt to retain funding and management authority at the line ministry for their benefit.
The composition of personnel under the PCs shows that the education sector has 258,023, the health sector 68,153, agriculture, veterinary, and road sectors 50,153, and all Local Governments 59,463. In 2023, the total recurrent expenditure requirement for all PCs was Rs. 485.25 billion and Rs. 391.75 billion was provided. The total capital expenditure requirement was Rs. 167 billion and Rs. 37 billion was provided.
It is nonsensical to think that a supply of 22.1% of the total capital expenditure requirements of PCs would make LAs developmentally efficient and effective, even after conversion, as proposed. It is not an institutional failure – though PCs are not the most efficient – but a result of the ‘budgetary terrorism’ of the Treasury.
PCs have limited space for income generation. Items under List I 36.1 to 36.20 stipulate revenue generators for PCs. However, final decision-making on financing is at the centre. How the Turnover Tax was slashed in 2011 and the successor tax, namely the Nation Building Tax, was stopped in 2019 are two good examples of how successive governments have financially weakened the PCs.
Similarly, money that should be received by the PCs on stamp duty and court fines also are usually delayed. This status has eroded confidence in PCs by suppliers and contractors and it has affected development. The centre expecting the PCs to swim with hands tied had been responsible for all these. Correction is not by repealing the 13A, but by the development of appropriate systems to make PCs efficient and effective.
I am surprised about why Moragoda does not challenge the superfluous number of ministries, expenses on deputy ministries, state ministries, their secretariats, ministers’ private establishments, and appurtenant other mechanisms subsisting on the national Budget and does not suggest repealing the systems giving birth to these manipulations.
For instance, I wonder why, with the latest Supreme Court determination in hand, he did not argue to repeal the financial decision-making system that has failed to resolve matters that have negatively impacted the economy, further aggravated the impact, and not prevented calamities while having full knowledge. One could draw more votes if promises to punish such culprits are incorporated into manifestos rather than abolishing PCs. It has more political relevance.
His solution is “an empowered Senate/Upper House” to address “issues concerning religious, ethnic, and regional diversity,” which does not care for participatory development and political issues closer to the hearts of the population. The Senate/Upper House will both have their recurrent expenditures and centralised politicisation. The elitists at the centre love centralisation!
Many other issues could be mentioned for the weak performance of PCs. How they can be developed without provoking the political parties and the public is more relevant than abolishing PCs. I wish those in authority would review such needs and find solutions unless an alternative is found and implemented which would not create worse repercussions consequential to abolishing a political and administrative infrastructure.
Lastly, it must be stated it would be appropriate to focus more on important issues in manifestos without creating the political status of the 2019 and 2020 election seasons, which would affect harmony.