Sweet Taste Of Federalism Through Good Governance
Ayathuray Rajasingam
The communal riots which began from 1958 in Sri Lanka demonstrated that the Unitary form of government has proved to be a futile exercise in not complying with the legitimate aspirations of the Tamils. Ethnic conflicts had plagued Sri Lanka because successive governments have been in the practice of encouraging intolerance for minority Tamils, commencing from the passing of the Sinhala Only Act, Standardization, forcible colonization commencing from Kantalai-Minneriya, etc. Laws were enacted in Parliament by the ruling politicians who abused them to harass the opponents including the Tamils and posed as a threat by way of poor governance. Good governance was never expected especially after 1956. The Land Acquisition Act was a case in point. Though the affected person could seek remedies in the courts, it proved to be procedural constraints for development. Meanwhile the growth of Wahabbism in Sri Lanka especially after 1989 diverted the attention of the Muslim community from the concept of Federalism, which could have been suitable remedy.
The requisite of neutrality cannot be expected where the conduct of the Executive possess full powers in a country with uni-cameral system. Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority (national government) and constituent political units (provincial government). No sooner the politicians assume power, they are keen to take revenge on the opponents and not on the development of the economy of the country. If any economic development takes place, Ministers are heavily benefited by it, in addition to their pensions and other privileges. A comparison of economic development with other developing countries, would show how Sri Lanka’s politicians were instrumental for the deterioration of the economy.
Further, after the introduction of the 1972 Constitution, the protection of the civil liberties of the ethnic Tamils has been a recurrent problem in Sri Lanka which even affected the economy of the country. The British failed to realize the consequences of the confrontation that would take place between the Sinhalese and Tamil leaders before granting independence. The British had in mind about the need for a relatively centralized economic and political government units to facilitate rapid economic development and national control but ignored the desire for self-determination of the minority Tamils. The Soulbury Constitution that afforded constitutional protection for the minorities was done away with the replacement of the 1972 and thereafter by the 1978 Constitution both of which were framed by the political leaders in power and aimed at oppressing the minority Tamils. The process of oppressing the minority Tamils paved way for poor governance. Now, the question of economic freedom under the 13th Amendment appears to be a question mark. The forward thinking in strengthening the protection of the minorities was lacking among the politicians. Read More
