Some Concrete Thoughts on the Creation of a Federal State
by Wakeley Paul, August 21, 2004
The ISGA sets out the interim structures for an ultimate Federal Constitution. This must first be given the chance to work in order to determine what further restructuring is necessary.
Both main ethnic groups must acknowledge that the whole quest and need for a Federal structure in SL has been generated by the fact that the Tamil people in the Northeast need to be liberated from the grip of Sinhalese supremacy. Everyone must recognize that the foundation and the need for change from a unitary constitution stems from the evil of Sinhala supremacy over the other communities.
Examples from other nations cannot be used as precedents, because the reasons and circumstances surrounding their creation of a Federal structure differ from ours. The original thirteen states in the United States, for instance, surrendered limited powers to a federal government to strengthen themselves against foreign forces by unifying their economic resources to fight those more powerful nations with an eye to expanding their colonial possessions. We do not share that concern, since our economic resources could well remain coordinated under a federal structure on the one hand; and unity for reasons of national security is a farce. The SL army is a hindrance to Tamil aspirations, not the outside world. It does absolutely nothing to deter foreign forces from overpowering the island militarily, if they so desire. Our problem is a problem in reverse.
Our concern is to ensure that no one ethnic group traumatizes the other. Sinhalese supremacy has been and is the root cause of our nightmare. The centralization of power in the hands of one ethnic group is the bugbear we seek to overcome. In order to achieve this, we must focus on the fact that the regionalization of powers is more vital than the centralization of them. We must all begin to realize that Centralization of power is the evil we seek to overcome. It is centralization, not regionalism, that has divided us. The reduction of central power in favor of regional power is the spice rack we should all reach for.
Loose generalizations about Federalism and separation should give way to a concrete emphasis on the need to regionalize. To use American constitutional jargon, those they called federalists who have favored a concentration of power in the center must yield to advocates of regional power over central control. Our whole concentration of effort should be in favor of power to the regions away from central control, as it has been central control that has brought us to our present predicament.
The first question to ask is, what are the areas in which a national policy is so necessary as to override the need for regional control? Instead of asking the Tamils who support regionalism to outline the areas that call for exclusive regional control, it should be up to the Sinhalese leaders to outline areas where national control is so vital as to make regional control of these areas detrimental to the national interest. That might prove more difficult for them to establish than can be imagined. The burden must be shifted from the supporters of regionalism to prove their case to the supporters of a strong central government to justify their need to retain central control over the island. We must reverse our priorities.
Finances to fund regional needs have in the past been a crucial concern. This is because we all mistakenly assumed that there was a presumption in favor of maintaining a strong central government. The focus should instead be on the regional powers to have maximum functions with almost exclusive taxing powers, leaving the central government with much less power and far fewer reasons to tax the citizens than they have now.
Foreign policy in SL cannot be reserved exclusively for the central government for the simple reason that racial bias has even dominated our dealings with foreign powers and institutions. Racial bias has underlined all government policy. A glaring example of this is that foreign aid has in the past been used to the detriment of the Northeast based on ethnic bias. Moreover, foreign policy could also be used to restrict and control the trade polices of the regions. Foreign policy should either be a shared function, or each region should be allowed to determine its own foreign policy. Is there any valid reason, other than the right to Sinhalese supremacy, why we need a national as opposed to separate regional foreign policies, each with their own embassies and personnel to deal with foreign governments and institutions. This may seem to border on separation, but how does this hurt either side? It only hurts those who are determined to preserve Sinhala supremacy. The whole object of a Federal or regional structure in SL is to prevent the Sinhala supremacists from holding sway. This should be the background upon which a regional structure is to be built. To do otherwise is to swing away from the reality behind the need for change and to succumb to the dictates of the Sinhalese supremacists, who after all are the cause of our current crisis in the first place.
None of us can ever ignore the underlying reality that the island’s joint national resources will be the unifying factor that will continue to bind the two arms of government into a single unit. It will also be the fractious cause for debate and disagreement as to how those resources should be divided for use. This will be the troublesome new dimension that can keep us from reaching the much-desired conclusion to the conflict, hedged as it is with uncertainty. That, on the other hand, should hopefully be our last bone of contention.
To sum it up, the move should be away from Sinhalese supremacy to regional supremacy. Unless the rational, reasonable Sinhalese recognize this, all efforts at peace and the creation of a federal structure will have to fail. The Tamils of the Northeast do not regard themselves as Sri Lankan. It is only the Sinhalese supremacists who do.