APRC proposals, a sound launching pad

By Manjula FERNANDO

LSSP Leader and Senior Minister for Technology and research Prof. Tissa Vitharana who led the All Party Representative Committee for three years and heard concerns of all the major political parties in Parliament regarding a pragmatic solution to the issues of people of the North and East, before finally drafting a set of recommendations with the consensus of 13 political parties, spoke to the Sunday Observer on the proposed Parliamentary Select Committee on power sharing. He said, "According to the principles of their parties, everyone has a picture of an ideal solution to the problem in their mind, but ultimately we have to compromise. We have to agree on a set of proposals that the largest proportion of every community can accept, if it is to work. If they (TNA) become act spoilers in this process, they will lose support among the Tamil people."

"In my own view it is possible to reach a consensus. On the police question and land question, we reached consensus at the APRC. We disagreed with what was included in the 13th Amendment that there will be a separate Police Commission for each province to be responsible for setting the criteria and carrying out recruitment, promotions, transfers, and dismissals, etc."

"The 13th Amendment is based on what is done in India. India is a large country. Each state is bigger than Sri Lanka."

Q: Your party welcomed the setting up of a Parliamentary Select Committee as a means of finding a lasting solution to the issues of the North and East people. What can we expect from the PSC?

A: The President has decided on having a select committee. Now the process has been set in motion. Political parties represented in Parliament can nominate their representatives to this Committee. The number will be decided by the Speaker. Presumably each political party will get one representative at least. Depending on the size of the representation in Parliament they will get proportionately larger representation. The maximum is 31, within that number the speaker will set this up and identify a person to Chair the PSC. Then in terms of the mandate given, the committee will have to try to reach a consensus within a period of six months. We are keen to limit the sittings to six months.

If at the end of that period a consensus has not been reached there is provision for extension. So hopefully within the next month this process will be set in motion. Our hope is that all the political parties represented in Parliament will participate. It is particularly important that the Tamil National Alliance and the UNP as the leading opposition party participate.

Q: What will be the basis for deliberations, will the PSC start afresh or they will use the APRC proposals as a launch pad?

A: That is left to the Select Committee. They can work out their own terms. I hope to propose, in terms of the various political issues that need to be cleared up, suitable amendments and changes to the Constitution. We had had the All Party Representative Committee (APRC) process over a period of more than three years with 126 sittings. Seventeen political parties participated in it at various times other than the TNA, and ultimately there were 13 political party representatives left at the time we reached consensus.

I think when we identify the political issues, those issues which have already been discussed in the APRC could be a sound basis on which we could proceed our discussions. That would cut down on the time. Because on each of those issues the representatives of the political parties have not only thought in terms of the 13th Amendment and the previous efforts to work out a settlement which we have looked into, but drew on all that and we worked out what we thought was a set of solutions which are indigenous and meet the needs of our country. That is a reasonable basis on which to start the discussions. It is my view that with very little modifications of what is there it would be possible to reach a consensus. So the whole process can be sped up accordingly.

Q: In a recent interview with the Sunday Observer Ananda Sangaree expressed that it was time some solution is implemented to rectify the problems of the North and East people and the APRC was a good beginning. He was of the view there had been enough discussions on this topic?

A: I would be happy if that can be done because I think the solutions that had been arrived at as a result of the APRC discussions are appropriate for our needs and something that would be acceptable to the Tamil and Muslim parties as well. But certainly the TNA's views must be obtained as they did not participate in those deliberations.

I would think if the Government accepts the APRC proposals and then discuss them with the TNA, then that will quicken the process a great deal. I would agree with what Mr.Sangaree says.

But the reality is that the Government has not accepted the report in toto. About five of the APRC proposals have been incorporated in the 'Mahinda Chinthanaya Idiri Dekma'.

But the others have not been incorporated. These are still matters on which there isn't general agreement within the Government either.

I think the TNA's opinion is vital. I am happy that many other Tamil parties including Mr.Sangaree's TULF as well as PLOTE and EPRLF - those who are not represented in Parliament have also indicated they accept APRC proposals but the TNA has not clearly stated that.

Ideally APRC proposals could be a basis for the discussions as already quite a lot of consensus has been reached in it. The UNP also participated and during our discussions their inputs have already gone in. The chances are they will also need minor modifications of the proposals.

Q: At one time the TNA was regarded as the proxies of the LTTE in Parliament. And the party evidently avoided any genuine attempt at resolving the issues of the North and East people. How optimistic are you that the TNA has changed colours?

A: Well, the TNA first rejected the Members of Parliament who had been chosen by the LTTE and dropped them in their list of candidates at the last elections. That was a very good sign. They brought in people who had no connection with the LTTE which means that they now think not in terms of the LTTE, but trying to emerge as the true representatives of the Tamil people, to achieve that they must act in the best interest of the Tamil people.

Therefore I would imagine when we start discussing individual political issues, they would not only think in terms of the best interest of the Tamil people but also what is possible in the present context.

According to the principles of their parties, everyone has a picture of an ideal solution to the problem in their mind, but ultimately we have to compromise. And agree on a set of proposals that the largest proportion of every community can accept, if it is to work.

If they act spoilers in this process, they will not only lose the support from the rest of the country, but they will also lose support among the Tamil people. Because Tamil people today wants a reasonable solution. They know that the reason for the conflict was the absence of a proper sharing of power, both at the centre and the periphery, with the Tamil people. Unless that issue is addressed properly, the Tamil people won't be happy. They need a solution. If the TNA either keeps out altogether or if they participate and act as spoilers and the blame is put on them, they will lose the support among the Tamil people as well. I think the TNA will not go in for that course. Another good indicator is that if you look at the speeches that had been made in the recent past by Mr.Sambandan and also by Mr.Sumanthiran, they have been very constructive and not just oppositional for the sake of being oppositional.

Q: There seem to be a 'tug of war' between Tamil and other parties with regard to devolving Police and Land powers. In this backdrop can you expect them to ever reach consensus on these critical areas? In an instance of a stalemate, wouldn't a referendum be more appropriate to clear the path, than delaying the whole process?

A: No. In my own view it is possible to reach a consensus. On the police question and land question, we reached consensus at the APRC.

Just to give you an example, we disagreed with what was included in the 13th Amendment that there will be a separate Police Commission for each province to be responsible for setting the criteria and carrying out recruitment, promotions, transfers, and dismissals, etc. If we have a separate commission in each province, you will find different methods being adopted in the different provinces which is completely unworkable and will lead to all sorts of problems because ultimately even those who serves within a province should be eligible to apply for posts in the all island service. This means they would come under a different set of criteria, it will lead to endless confusion. We decided that there should be only one Police Commission for the whole country.

The 13th Amendment is based on what is done in India. India is a large country. Each state is bigger than Sri Lanka. So having a separate police commission there, where you have so many different languages, racial groups, religions, cultures, is reasonable. But in a small country like Sri Lanka which is so mixed, that set up is highly unworkable. You find Tamils not only in the North but right throughout. In fact there are more Tamils outside than in the North and the East, they are spread out, similarly for Muslims. So we changed that. I think in that way it is possible to work out what is workable.

We can also have a phased out approach. I know that there are certain people in one Sinhala political party who do not want an armed police force to be given straight to the Northern province where the TNA is very likely to be voted into power. In that context we can have some transitional arrangement where initially they can be carrying only batons instead of guns, and gradually as they establish themselves and the country gains confidence that they will act in a responsible manner, then you can give them more weaponry.

These are things which are not impossible obstacles, these are problems we should be able to tackle with a reasonable approach.

Q: Will this Parliamentary Select Committee take stock of the problems of all minority sections of the community equally? Because once the power devolution is settled giving priority to Tamils' issues, there could probably be a Muslim uprising next?

A: In the APRC all the Muslim parties were represented. They raised their issues which were different from the Tamils. Even there were certain issues raised where they wanted, within the Eastern Province itself provisions which would ensure their safety. I am not going to go into those proposals now.

There were different types of proposals that were submitted. We examined them all and we agreed on finally something that was acceptable to everybody.

Within PSC not only the interests of the Tamil people but the interests of the Muslims and the other smaller communities would be looked at.

Q: What would you describe as the major milestones of the APRC?

A: Well, the APRC process started very heatedly, in fact at the first meeting I thought that, that would probably be the last meeting. But I am happy to say that, I was able to get agreement on how we should conduct our discussions and everyone cooperated. Then gradually the animosity, the confrontational attitudes which we have seen in Parliament, wore out and we became good friends. Those who were meeting - representatives of the different political parties - were very cooperative and stated their party positions at the outset. But when we got to the particular issue that was under discussion, phase by phase, they were able to depart from their original stands in terms of the discussions taking place. Everyone then saw the sense of coming to the final conclusion that we reached, as the most reasonable way to tackle the issues.

That was when the APRC became, rather than an emotional forum, a rational forum where people from different political persuasions were able to look at issues more objectively. That was when the APRC really jelled together as one body which then proceeded very smoothly thereafter. We had our ups and downs where some parties withdrew at various stages, for instance the JVP said they were opposed to devolution and pulled out. As you say there were different milestones in the progress that we made. But I think those were tackled sensibly. Another major milestone I would think was the fact when it was conveyed the SLFP as well as three or four other parties were not prepared to think outside a unitary framework, while others were entertaining even the possibility of a federal solution. Then it became necessary to work out how we can achieve the necessary levels of devolution within a unitary framework, without having to go into a federal system. We all went as a team to Britain and saw how within a unitary framework the Northern Ireland problem had been solved through a process of devolution. That was after about two years of deliberations.

Even those who were insisting on federalism then said 'Ok' let us see how we can work out a solution within a unitary framework. That was a very healthy development. This reduces the dangers of separation. Now it makes the path to solution within the PSC also very much easier.

Q: Is power devolution actually necessary? Some argue if economic needs of the people of North and East are met that will resolve all problems?

A: For successful economic development right throughout the country and to eliminate corruption and get the maximum effort from the people, empowering of the people is important. That is why in the APRC process we stressed the importance of going back to the traditional village committee system. Working on the principle of subsidiarity- which means people in a village should be given necessary power, funding and administrative back up to enable them to attend to their needs. They can work out their own priorities, build their own roads because these are being constructed for their own use. The contractor doesn't suffer if the roads are built badly. He tries to make as much money out of the process and the officials and the politicians behind also try to do the same.

But if the construction is done and supervised by the people who are going to use it, they will make sure it is done up to the standards. To get the best, we have to give power right down to the people. The power that has been concentrated in Colombo has to flow down to the village. It has to be graded to the provinces, divisions, districts and the village. This is the real answer to economic development. Those who think in terms of an economic solution are defeating their own cause by not resorting to devolution.

Q: The local government members are the leaders of the village level. But even there the corruption is rampant?

A: There is corruption in local government bodies. In the present electoral system, old wards system was done away with. Earlier the ward was a small unit, may be one or two grama sevaka wasams. They elected a representative who was responsible for the people in the ward. He was answerable. Now you have the divisions, 30-40 wasamas are now in one electorate. The people who contest are not answerable to any of those in a wasama. They could always say we got the votes from some other people.

The whole system is so crooked that the people are distant from those who they elect. This is one of the biggest failures of the 1978 Constitution. The electoral system was deliberately framed so that the close nexus which existed earlier between the people and the elected representative was distanced. As a result no one is answerable. Those who were elected can take their own decisions. The whole atmosphere of bribery, corruption, maladministration and everything is related to that factor. The LSSP together with the entire Left had been advocating very strongly for proper electoral reforms. The report of the select committee on electoral reforms of which I was also a member has not been implemented.

Q: Is there really an issue of an ethnic nature in Sri Lanka? Can all these issues be related to social and economic problems of a developing nation?

A: It is a fact that we have a bureaucracy which is abusing power, it is there in all other developing countries and it is there in varying extents in developing countries. That is a different matter. People get harassed and so on if they are poor and without power. All that is there. It is part of the global scene.

But in Sri Lanka you have to accept that there has been a whole sequence of events which saw discrimination. This started in 1948 with the Citizenship Act and this was done by the UNP rule at the time. The Act deprived the Tamil people on the plantations of their franchise and citizenship rights. In 1956, the official language English was replaced by Sinhala only. The LSSP together with other Left parties made a strong plea at the time to make Tamil also as an official language. Today, the Tamil language has been made an official language and the various fears raised to whip up racial hatred were proven to be completely unfounded.