by V. K. Nanayakkara
( November 9, 2017, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Over the last few decades there has been a wave of experimentation with the issue of decentralisation of governance in Sri Lanka without any fresh thinking on the decentralized spatial unit beyond Colebrooke’s narrow vision of revenue administration in 1833. Why have our leaders failed to think beyond revenue administration in an era, when the state has a direction–giving role in development administration?
From the colonial beginnings and right through the post-independence era, the two streams- One for strong centralised government and the other for devolved government continued. Decentralization takes two basic forms: deconcentration and devolution. Deconcentration entails a transfer of authority to local branches of the state central agencies, whose primary accountability is to the central government. An example would be the transfer of powers of GA to Divisional AGAs (DROs) and Divisional Secretaries. Devolution involves the handing over of actual decision-making authority outside the centre of power. Elected regional and local governments thereby acquire autonomy and legitimacy to exercise powers within their jurisdictions. The District Political Authority, the District Minister system and the Provincial Councils are examples of decentralisation efforts which fall within the rubric of devolution.
Physical units comprising the Provinces are artificial and unreal entities. They were carved out for a different purpose by the colonial rulers who were unfamiliar with the local terrain. If regional units are to be established, what should their boundaries be, and on what criteria should those boundaries be drawn? There are no inherent guidelines for a demarcation of sub-national space. But, a variety of reasons could be given such as administrative convenience, devolution of powers and functions closer to the people, accommodation of regionally distinct communities and socio-economic functionality.
How did the present territorial divisions come about? In the haste to appease Indian pressure, Jayewardene administration fell back on a unit, namely the ‘province’. For regional administration, the province was discarded in 1955, in place of the ‘district’ which had become the preferred unit of administration since then. Obviously, the clock had been entirely turned back. The provincial entities that had been arbitrarily carved out for revenue purposes by the colonial rulers were devoid of intrinsic cohesion. Imposed haphazardly, this entity embodies no coherent philosophy. Clearly, decades of bureaucratic centralism could not suddenly be undone by political decentralisation at the provincial level. It virtually nullified administrative decentralisation at the level of the district resulting in a loss of administrative efficiency. The District Government Agent of yesterday, despite being an agent of the centre, was far closer to the people than the present day elected provincial authority.
What are the reasons for the failure of the Provincial Council system? Amongst the many reasons, such as wasteful duplication, ambiguous distribution of competence delineation, incoherent ‘national policy on all subjects and functions’ , inadequacy of statute making capacity, inadequacy of funds and competent staff, replication of provincial powers at the centre, one problem stands out. That is the unit of devolution itself.
Why has the implementation of the 13th Amendment proven difficult? It is solely due to the nature of the boundaries and the configuration of provinces. Let me take just one example to illustrate this point, namely, the subject of irrigation in the Provincial list to demonstrate the impracticability of implementing the constitutional provisions.
Productivity of land, particularly in the Dry Zone, is dependent on the availability of water. In the Thirteenth Amendment, the subject of irrigation is assigned to the provinces. But its implementation is beset with failure, simply because of the configuration of the provinces. A Provincial Council can handle ‘irrigation’ only where the stream originates and terminates within the region.Appendix II item 2:1 of the 13th Amendment states that only the central government can ‘utilize water from rivers flowing through more than one province’.
As all rivers end up in the sea, landlocked provinces such as the North Central, Central, Uva and Sabaragamuwa find this subject allocation, “planning, design, implementation of all irrigation works” meaningless. Moreover, other provinces also find this provision redundant as the streams cut across provincial boundaries where again the subject falls within the domain of the central government. Despite ‘provincial major irrigation’being the responsibility of the Provincial Councils, the spatial configuration of the provinces denies them any meaningful decision making over land and water within their jurisdictions. Water has to be managed within the framework of the integrated water resource management philosophy, on a catchment basis.
Existing provincial boundaries render it extremely difficult to manage natural hazards. Very often, riparian areas belong to different provinces, where the provision of relief and mitigation measures is hampered by separate administrative authorities. For effective control of floods, the entire river basin is best administered as one unit.
A new spatial unit
Our suggestion to create a spatial unit that will remove the impediments to socio-economic development, points to the ‘watershed’ as the best criterion to delineate sub-national territorial entities. A watershed is simply an area of land that drains into a single waterway. It is the most optimal natural region which permits decision makers to focus on land use, soil conservation, flood control, forests, management of natural hazards etc. A watershed boundary always passes through sparsely populated areas unlike the existing provincial boundaries which separate human activities at their most dense points.
How many first order political subdivisions should Sri Lanka choose to divide itself logically? A first order political subdivision means the first spatial level of government below the central authority. There is a fairly extensive literature on the optimalnumber and size of first order sub-national units. They range from a minimum of four to a maximum of eleven. Several eminent persons and organizations have expressed views in the past.Professionals such as Dennis Fernando advocated four regions, the traditional Ruhunu, Maya, Pihiti (Rajarata) and a new entity exclusively for the Mahaweli Basin. V.K.Nanayakkara has argued for eleven regions. They are all based on the watershed as the spatial boundary. The Institute of Policy Studies supported five economic zones (2002).
Sri Lanka Association for the Advancement of Science and the Organization of Professional Associations stand foremost amongst the contributors who advocated watershed boundaries for sub-national units in Sri Lanka. To the present writer, the most optimal formulation of first order sub-national units is the one presented by Prof Madduma Bandara wherein he argues for seven regions based on river basin watershed criteria.
The present form of the provincial entity is a relic of the early days of colonial government when communications were more difficult. Provinces are artificial creations based on the revenue sub-divisions of the colonial rulers. This unit of devolution has been re-introduced regardless of the spatial dimension required for a development administration. In 1987, recentralisation commenced under the innocuous banner of ‘Provincial Councils’ by shifting the locus of decision making from the district to a province. In 1833, the boundaries of the newly established five provinces did not matter very much as the colonial administration had very limited functions of peace keeping and revenue collection. With independence and self-rule, the requirements have changed. Today, the government is no longer a passive observer of the development scene but an active participant in the process. Current provincial entities frequently transcend major cultural and geographical divides, encompassing areas that have little in common.
Way Ahead
As constituted today, the Provincial Councils invite failure simply because constitutional provisions for devolution are not implementable within the existing spatial divisions. How can Provincial Councils be made more meaningful? This can be done in two ways. First is by improving the competence jurisdiction in the three lists through greater clarity. Second is to devolve power into a newly delineated, rational spatial unit. Any spatial policy which ignores production relations will not only failbut also add to uneven development resulting in a continued spiral of confrontation and conflict. Provincial irrigation is meaningless as all significant rivers flow across provincial boundaries. The writer is all for giving to sub-national units more subjects and functions than what is presently assigned in the 13th Amendment, in fact it should be 13 plus but within a meaningful unit.
The seven-fold demarcation of regions proposed by Prof Madduma Bandara appears the most rational and optimal divisions for devolution of power in Sri Lanka. Its implementation requires a significant change of attitude amongst key political and bureaucratic elites. Perhaps, the making of a new Constitution will provide the spur to realign sub-national (provincial) boundaries in a more constructive way to address the socio-economic issues that beset the periphery. Time is opportune to draw a new internal map of Sri Lanka, delineating development oriented first order sub-national entities erasing thereby the irrational, anachronistic colonial legacy. The issue is not unitary or federal but the unit of devolution. Public debate has revolved around such inconsequential matters as unitary status and religionwhereas the all-important cruxof the issue – the unit of devolution has been neglected. Despite submissions to the Public Representations Committee on Constitutional Reform, the subject has not been adequately discussed. Over to you, the framers of a new constitution.
(The writer belonged to the Sri Lanka Administrative Service and served as Secretary to the Prime Minister and as Secretary to a number of Ministries.)
Higher Education and Highways Minister Lakshman Kiriella, Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and Finance and Mass Media Minister Mangala Samaraweera.
The bicycle was certainly not the stuff of politics or performance in the days of the Rajapaksa Regime. When did the last President or any of his close followers, from his family and outside, think of having any popular bicycle show of action, in nearly ten years of power?
