Editorial

Security

Politics

World

Letters

Sports

Obituaries

Archives

by a Special Correspondent

After decades of struggle by the Tamil militant movement for an independent State of Eelam and subsequent hints by some Tamil leaders regarding a 'confederal' system as being a possible alternative solution to the conflict, the on-going peace process has now resulted in a mutual agreement between the Government and the LTTE that a 'federal' structure would suffice for the long-sought final political settlement of the ethnic conflict. The 'federal' model of State is something new to this country and much discussion is necessary among Sri Lankans if a national consensus is to be arrived at on the country's political future.

Constitutional Reform Enterprise Development, Industrial Policy and Industrial Promotion Minister G. L. Peiris, who has been leading the Sri Lankan Government negotiating team in the on-going peace talks with the LTTE, is himself an expert on constitutional law, a former Dean of the Law Faculty at the University of Colombo and, has now served in two successive governments in studying constitutional models and drafting constitutional reform proposals that might meet the needs of the national crisis. Minister Peiris here answers some questions regarding the 'federal' model and its suitability for a resolution of the Sri Lankan crisis.

Q. The concept of federalism is not new in this country and has been bandied about in public political discourse throughout our independent history and even before Independence. S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike proposed a federal model for Sri Lanka in as early as 1925 precisely in response to the ethnic question.

However, both national political formations, the United National Party and the Sri Lankan Freedom Party, have, at crucial moments in our past history, actually blocked initiatives to resolve the then budding ethnic conflict by means of a federal political system. But today, we are once again considering the federal option. Is this the inevitable logic of the crisis in which have been caught for the past several decades? Is federalism long overdue?

A. We have reached a stage in our national history today when we have to make up our minds about our political future. The country has been in crisis precisely because of our collective inability to arrive at a viable political structure that would adequately address the various political needs and aspirations of all our people.

One thing is certain today: war is not the answer. The vast majority of Sri Lankans of all ethnic communities are, today, in agreement that a political solution has to be found for the crisis. There is recognition that ultimately it is a political problem that needs a political solution. This can only come in the form of improvements to our current political system.

It is true that the devolution of power to the regions is a concept that is not new to this country. It is already to be seen in the current Provincial Council system. That was an early attempt at sharing power. So now we know the way forward to peace: we have to further explore structures that will provide for the sharing of power between the Centre and the Regions. While we may be one multi-ethnic country that is late in evolving a power-sharing structure, this is the way countries all over the world have gone to ensure that all sections of the population feel that they have been looked after and belong to the nation.

Q. So it is matter of refining our political structure to ensure an adequate power sharing.....?

A. We have to have clarity in the demarcation of powers between the regions and the centre. This has to be a stable demarcation that will not change from year to year. That means a constitutional arrangement. The power-sharing system must be embedded in our basic law so that the country is assured of a stable political structure that will stand the test of time.

Q. What is the kind of federal system relevant to Sri Lankan?

A. There is a whole spectrum of forms of federalism operating successfully in the world today. So we have numerous models from which to choose: for example, Canada, the United Kingdom, USA, Germany, the Indian form of federalism. There is no need for us to copy any single model. Rather we can look at all of them and pick out the useful aspects that would meet specific Sri Lankan needs and adapt them for our purposes. We can learn from the success of others.

Q. But there are some fears in the country that devolving of power to the regions could become a stepping stone for secession and the disintegration of the Sri Lankan State as it is today. Is there a danger of this in moving towards federalism?

A. Anyone who is aware of the state of disintegration of the Sri Lankan State today will understand immediately that the only way forward is toward re-integration. The war has already brought about an 'uncleared' area. The peace process has already clearly indicated that we are moving towards integration and away from disintegration. The LTTE is participating in a negotiating process the one objective of which is the re-establishment of the unity of the country.

What we have to do now is to see how that process of national unity is constitutionalised. This means a suitable political system of power-sharing. We have used the term 'federal' merely to define the system we envisage as suitable. This means that we are now firmly locked into a process moving away from disintegration and towards a new national unity based on equality and harmony among the communities. It is the best way of ensuring the survival of our nation-state.

Q. What does the experience of operative federal systems tell us about ensuring national unity?

A. Most federal systems have been models of successful national unity; of ensuring that the nation holds together after previous divisive tendencies had been addressed by the federal power-sharing structure. The Indian system has resulted in India emerging as a strong and stable power in the region. Canada is another good example. The province of Quebec may not have remained a part of Canada if not for the federal system in that country.

There was a strong Quebec separatist movement in the past, but all that has faded with the federal arrangement arrived at. Today, public referendums held in Canada have shown results in favour of Quebec's continued integration with the rest of the country. A power-sharing system that gave recognition to the identity of the French-Canadians in Quebec has resulted in a greater support among French-Canadians for their province to remain a part of Canada.

Q. Is the secret of success the fact that the devolution arrangement in Quebec addresses specific needs of the Quebec people?

A. Yes. Quebec is predominantly French-speaking and Catholic. So the Canadian constitution provides for the specific needs of that province's community as opposed to the rest of Canada, which is English-speaking. The special provisions can be seen in the make-up of public institutions in the province such as the judiciary and administrative structures. Only two provinces in Canada have their own police forces :

Quebec and Ontario. All the other provinces have chosen to use the federal Canadian Mounted Police. Q. This constitutional recognition of the various ethnic groups in a country on the basis of power-sharing seems to be a standard response to ethnic conflict.....

A. Yes. When there is a diversity of ethnic groups in a country, power-sharing and a federal set-up has been the best way to address the problem of specific different community interests. The PA's proposals for the Draft Constitution, which I helped formulate, are very similar in approach. The Draft Constitution proposal speaks of a 'union of regions' which is clearly a form of federalism. If we reject separation, then federalism is the answer.

Q. Some people are worried that the courts system now in operation under the LTTE are signs of an evolving separate State.....

A. What we have in the areas under control of the LTTE are a system of maintaining a modicum of law and order in a piece of territory where the law of the jungle once ruled. For years those areas only experienced war and terrorism. No law and order prevailed. Now, in the process of making peace, we should be happy to see some form of law and order being maintained in these areas. We should not see that as a separate 'courts' system. Rather, it must be regarded as a non-formal situation in a process of moving towards normalcy under the normal laws of the country. The peace process will finally result in that: the whole country will once again be under a single constitution and the justice system in all regions will be linked to the national law.

Q. Will the federal system provide for a separate armed force in any region?

A. Of course not. That is the reality we face today - we have a separate armed force operating in a part of the country. The on-going peace process and the mutually agreed goal of federalism imply an end to the current state of affairs. The final political solution will ensure an end to this state of affairs. The whole idea is to unify the country and a single form of governance and national security.

Q. Does this mean that the LTTE forces will ultimately be incorporated into the Sri Lankan State forces?

A. That is the direction in which are moving. This country will have a single armed forces structure. That is to be seen in all models of federalism worldwide.

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager