Why is there confusion about the 13th Amendment?

The statement made by the President to the Indian External Affairs Minister, and statements made by others which are at some variance to what the President has said, appears to have given ammunition to some media outlets to paint a picture of confusion within government ranks.

The TNA which has no vision for the country, has seized on these media reports to show they matter although they have not taken even one step to act as a responsible political group interested in advancing a new Sri Lanka.

No doubt the government is also at fault for some “On”, “Off” statements on the 13th Amendment, and 13 plus, whatever that is. It’s “on” when an Indian political dignitary visits Sri Lanka, or a Sri Lankan dignitary visits India. It appears it is “off” at most other times, or the switch is dimmed.

Perhaps what the government should articulate, and maintain, is the position that they are agreeable to the primary concept outlined in the Amendment, which is devolution, but not necessarily the Amendment as it stands considering it had been a constitutional change that had been forced on the people of Sri Lanka by India.

It cannot be regarded as a home grown solution as those in the Sri Lankan home had nothing to do with this Amendment, certainly not the TNA as they were taking orders from the LTTE when it was enacted as law, and the LTTE opposed it.

As stated, the fundamental concept of the Amendment is devolution. Most Sri Lankans probably are not opposed to devolution per se, but very likely they will be opposed to any form of asymmetrical devolution that gives some provinces more devolved powers than others. They will probably support devolution if its equal powers for all provinces.

Most Sri Lankans very likely may also say devolution needs to be progressive, and conditional.

Firstly, it needs to be progressive as the environment is still not conducive to extensive devolution.

The war has just finished in a relative sense. Less than 3 years in a backdrop of 30 years of armed conflict. That is not a long time for some to argue that miracles should have happened in less than 3 years.

The Tamil Diaspora and the TNA, who now take orders from extreme elements within the Diaspora, are still promoting a separate State, all but in name. LTTE activists are still around locally and internationally, still spreading disinformation and collecting funds to keep their separatist campaign alive.

Except the Tamil leaders who are part of the UPFA, no other Tamil leader, locally or within the Diaspora, has said they are for a unitary Sri Lanka, and expressed a desire to work with other political leaders in Sri Lanka to advance a resolution based on this fundamental premise that is very important to a majority of Sri Lankans.

With the spectre of separatism still very much alive, no person in his or her right mind would be willing to grant extensive devolution in such circumstances, and the current Sri Lankan government cannot be blamed for not agreeing to TNA demands firstly as they are not the demands of Tamils living in Sri Lanka, but mainly the demands of the Diaspora.

It would be highly irresponsible for them to do so considering the circumstances, and secondly as they cannot agree to such demands without the sanction of the Parliament.

The UPFA is also a political group and not a single party, although the SLFP is the largest party in that group. However, as there would be in any political party, not just in Sri Lanka but generally in any democratic society, there are and can be and should be varying views on important issues. Holders of differing views compromise on their positions and arrive at common platforms for the larger benefit of the country. That is how it works and should work in a democracy.

President Rajapaksa, however popular and powerful he might be, cannot and should not attempt to impose his view without his party arriving at a common platform, as that could result in the breakup of the party, and more broadly, the UPFA, as his party, although the main constituent, is also bound by a common unity alliance.

He has therefore taken the view that a Parliamentary sub Committee is the right way to address this issue where all parties would have to discuss, compromise where compromise is required, and arrive at a common parliamentary platform on the political solution which he has stated he will implement.

Secondly, devolution needs to be conditional because one needs to see progress on one set of devolved powers before the granting of any more powers. This is to make sure that those who have to be the beneficiaries of devolution, the people, have benefitted from the devolved powers. There needs to an assessment whether funds given to provinces have been spent wisely.

In fact to date, no such analysis has been done, and although some provincial authorities claim they have done a great service to people in the provinces, there has been no independent analysis whether this has been so.

The North East merger which was part of the Amendment was annulled by the Sri Lankan Supreme Court and it is therefore not part of the Amendment any longer. So, there is no contention on that score.

What appears to be contentious is the devolution of Police and land powers.
It is useful to apply the test of progressiveness and conditionality to these two issues.

In an environment where the Tamil Diaspora is exerting extreme pressure internationally to move towards a separate State with several Diaspora lobbies and formal organizations like the Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam pressing for a separate State, and the TNA mouthing similar sentiments locally, no government in its right senses will or should agree to devolve police powers, as the Police force is presently constituted.

What Sri Lanka has is an armed Police, as it was necessary to arm them to defend themselves and the country from LTTE terrorists. As the threat is still present, the Police cannot be disarmed.

However what might be possible is to create a Community Police section within the Police force as it is done in some countries (New Zealand is an example), and task such a section, without access to any arms, to promote preventive measures that help to eliminate or reduce crimes and enhance community harmony to the extent possible. This will require working with community leaders at local government level and winning their confidence and that of the community itself.

If such an initiative is showing positive results, it may be possible to devolve community police units to provincial authorities, and leave the armed Police force within the purview of the central government. The numbers within the armed Police force could be progressively reduced depending on the crime levels and the need for armed policing, and the Community Police unit numbers could be correspondingly increased as appropriate.

Such a proposition could well be discussed at the PSC, and the agreement of all political parties obtained.

The much talked about land powers need not be such a contentious issue if land powers are made a joint national/provincial responsibility.

This is where the 13 plus, or the second chamber comes in, as articulation of land policy could be something that the Senate may be entrusted with provided the Senate comprises of provincial and central representatives.

The possibilities of having objective discussions on a progressive, conditional political solution is there within the PSC process if only political parties are willing to grasp those opportunities. Loose talk on government prevarication on the 13th Amendment, or 13 plus, and TNA insistence on something that is not responsible or sustainable politics, UPFA constituents shooting their mouths off without thought to the consequences of such action, can only delay what need not be delayed.

The war time slogan in public places that “loose lips sink ships” might be appropriate here to show that unguarded talk could jeopardize finding a solution to the political conflict. The phrase originated on propaganda posters during World War II, and was part of a campaign to advice servicemen and other citizens to avoid careless talk concerning secure information that might be of use to the enemy referring to information falling into enemy hands.

Sri Lankan media outlets should not become part of the “enemy”, as their sponsorship of talk of confusion can only embolden the enemies of Sri Lanka who are waiting for any opportunity to prevent a solution being found to the conflict that has bedeviled the country for so long.

Those Tamils who are interested in a political solution within the concept of a unitary Sri Lanka, should show their hand and join the Parliamentary Sub Committee process. If they don’t, it will only go to show they are still pursuing a separate State, even one in all but name. That will not be acceptable to the vast majority of Sri Lankans.

- Asian Tribune -

Tweet