Trying to solve ethnic conflict through federalism will lead to bigger ethnic trap

August 15th, 2007
By Thomas Johnpulle

Supporters of federalism have spun up ahead of the ‘final’ battle in the North. Most of them fear that if the armed forces defeat the LTTE militarily, along with it the devolution endeavour will die. There are both supporting and opposing arguments; however, the real issue is the desirability and sustainability of a federal set-up.

Federalism cannot bring peace
A simple question posed by many opposed to federalism is ‘can it bring peace’. The answer is no. Many proponents of federalism argue that a utopian devolution mechanism to which everyone would eventually subscribe will cause things to happen in favour of bringing about peace. But the causal connection is too remote to rely on. Our bitter experience is that there can never be any practical devolution unit/mechanism/degree that all stakeholders can agree upon. Also the few available devolution mechanisms failed miserably to achieve any hint of peace. On the contrary; it was the 13th amendment and the resultant PCs that dragged the LTTE back to war (with the IPKF); it was CBK’s ‘package’ that caused so much pandemonium within and outside the parliament and eventually led to the untimely demise of her 2000-elect administration; devolution and its extent (ISGA verses nothing from the government) was the cause for the breakdown of peace talks in 2002. This is why successive governments call it a two-pronged strategy, a military strategy on one hand and a devolution attempt on the other. What this means is that Fed. or no Fed. war will continue until the annihilation of one fighting party.

Suppose a federal structure was put in place; then what? If the armed forces continue to remain in the N-E thereafter and even after the LTTE is ‘militarily weakened’, what are the chances of peace in the N-E? Many fear a jobless army is more dangerous as the US army in Japan, the IPKF in Jaffna after they ‘liberated’ it and the Russians in East Germany! On the other hand, if the armed forces leave the N-E, the ‘weakened LTTE’ will bounce back.

More complex issues exist about the police force.

Therefore, federalism cannot bring peace and only law and order can. For peace to hold, unlawful armed groups should be disarmed and lawful armed groups should uphold the law!

What does federalism has for the majority Sinhalese?

If nothing or nothing significant, call them whatever you will, they won’t support it; it is as simple as that. When a new election system was proposed recently, the SLMC declared that it will reduce the number of Muslim representatives in parliament and therefore they oppose it. Same fate will befall the federalism endeavour if the majority are not awarded substantial or at least significant benefits. In this context, it is important to consider the plight of minority Sinhala settlements in Trinco, Batti, Ampara, Vavuniya, Nuwara-Eliya, etc. under a federal set-up. They should be convinced that they will be better-off than they are under the central government. This is a very difficult thing to achieve given the complete lack of Sinhala representation among the political parties that are in strength in the N-E including TNA, SLMC, EPDP, PLOTE, TMVP, etc. The bottom line is they don’t trust these race-based political parties however much they try to contradict the ground realities - they are unable to command any trust from the Sinhala voters.

I have not seen anywhere how federalism can (as opposed to any other set-up) give the Sinhalese anything ‘extra’. Hence, most of them will not support a federal system. Their desire for a peaceful settlement of the ‘conflict’ should not be mistaken for a ‘federal system’ that places them under Tamil and Muslim political parties in whom they have zero trust and will add another overhead burden on the country just as the PCs.

A sustainable solution as opposed to one adopted under duress

If the international community pressurise the voters, parties and the government to agree to a federal set-up, the question arrises how sustainable it is?

Suppose, a federal solution is put in place after a lot of haggling, pressurising, etc. If it cannot bring about economic and political betterment in tangible proportions, the opposing forces will amass votes to bust it and that’s exactly what they will do when elected. Therefore, federal systems will not be able to be sustained unless they can add sizable amount of value to the aspirations of the majority. There is no point calling them names in order to avoid such an eventuality as it will surely happen. Can the international community suppress the opposing forces forever and can they continue to sustain the fragile ‘yes’ vote in favour of it? Very unlikely.

On the other hand, if a resolution can be reached that gratifies the popular vote base; such a system will be protected and promoted by the masses.

It is regrettable that most ‘political solutions’ disregard the aspirations of the majority and I do not think they will keep silent once the federalism matter hots up. Some of their (popular) leaders should be blamed for their part for not actively engaged in the process apart from opposing it outright.

Economics of federalism and the economic resources of regions
Who should benefit from the economic benefits of the Trincomalee harbour; the so-called ‘oil reserves’ off Manar; the remnants of the Mahaweli project in the N-E; huge mineral deposits especially along the N-E coastline?

Should it be the residents in these regions or the nation as a whole? Should these be sold outright, processed and then sold or left untouched?

These are the questions that can cripple any federal set-up. Regional leaders and national leaders will have widely opposing views. It is easy to say the whole country will eventually benefit, but practically it is very difficult as evidenced from around the world. Matters will get even worse if foreign parties enter the fray which is very likely to happen. Should we end up as East Timor where its oil resources are used by Australian companies with no benefits to East Timor and Indonesia?

On another count, should the Centre manage foreign investment inflows based on national criteria or should the regions manage it. The USD 300 million annually collected from the Tamil Diaspora will play a major role (it is approximately 1.3% of the GDP and without an obligation to repay) if utilised to achieve sectarian ends.

Already many concerned individuals have pointed out this matter and there will surely be more forthcoming.

Diplomacy
Should the regions be allowed to formulate their diplomatic priorities or should they follow the central government? If they do not have such powers, the regions will surely demand it. It is no secret that Tamils want much closer ties with Canada, UK, Switzerland and Tamil Nadu than now and similarly Muslims would want closer link-ups with the Islamic World. Tamil Nadu, Canada, Saudi Arabia and Iran are likely to have heightened diplomatic importance to the various regions. Apart from obvious conflicting interests among Saudi and Iranian interests (there were a few disturbing developments in the East last year), how can Tamil Nadu and Indian interest be managed by the Lankan central government and the regions? These conflicting interests will surely interplay with other matters like the Chinese developments in H’tota that includes a navel base.

Simply we are heading into diplomatic anarchy under federalism. On the other hand, if the regions’ rights to diplomatic interests are curtailed, would federalism achieve its desired targets?

National elections

Federalism can bring about more or less self-governing authorities in the regions. As a result, people’s interest in national elections may reduce. It should be noted that the voters’ turnout at the last presidential elections from 1988 to 2005 has been below 40% for the N-E as a whole. In the 1994 general election only 8 (eight) votes were cast from Jaffna district. If this happens, the significance and influence of national elections will reduce and as a result, the rights of individuals of certain communities will reduce. This is a very dangerous situation especially for the minorities living outside the N-E.

It is impossible to sustain a similar level of interest for regional elections and national elections at the same time when the regions enjoy substantial autonomy. Making it compulsory to vote as in some other countries would achieve little in this country.

Conflicts over water resources

A classic example is the Murrey Darling Basin development program of the Australian federal government. This is not supported by states amidst a severe drought that has hit Australia. Victoria has repeatedly and decisively declined to cooperate as it has enough water resources. Sri Lanka is not too far away; it should be recalled that this concern was embedded into the ISGA-2003 proposals by the LTTE which stated (the reality) that most waterways flow from outside their territory and hence water users in upper areas should use it carefully. The severity of this is so enormous that the government restarted the war in 2006 following the Mavilaru incident.

It will be unimaginably chaotic in a federal set-up and the army will have to be called-in to settle the matter given the fact that water is as important as gold in the dry zone. Prolonged and persistent conflicts can take a heavy toll and things will surely escalate when political forces interplay with them.
It is foolhardy to expect that our politicians would have national interests in mind than their Australian counterparts!

The risk of outside interferers

Another big risk for the country and the regions is the risk of heightened outside interference. NGOs and even the UN may run their own zones within some regions. In the absence of an acceptable regulator to both the regional and the central governments, these issues are likely to take the centre stage in any federal setting in Lanka.

There are a few defence pacts the country has already signed and there will be conflicts if the regions refuse to honour them. For an example consider the ’super secret’ defence pact with the US. Can US ships (en route to an attack in the Middle East) call at the Trinco navel base when it comes under a predominately Muslim council?

Should the state be selective in its arms purchase that Israeli weapons will not be deployed in certain areas?

If the World Tamil Congregation (banned in India recently) tries to hold their rally in the N-E with the approval of the regional council, can the Sri Lankan government ban it likewise? I doubt it as the government couldn’t ban such events as the ‘Pongu Thamil’ that was nothing but separatist propaganda.

Can India allow federalism to take root in Sri Lanka?

May be yes in 1987 but not now. In 1992 India banned the LTTE not because of Rajeev Ghandi or Sri Lanka, but rather because its influence on India’s own territorial integrity. This was evident in the report that called for a continued ban on the LTTE that was presented to the Indian parliament in 2007. Citing this, prominent constitutional lawyer HL de Silva stated that division of Lanka would be the epitaph of India.

Provided that a federal set-up will result in a more disintegrated Lanka, it is unlikely that India would support it wholeheartedly. It is also concerned about possible Western/Islamic influence in its backyard. This may in part explain why India has played a dormant role as regards federalism in Lanka; even the 13th amendment 20 years ago had little Indian input.

However, what is considered in Sri Lanka is much more dangerous than federalism itself; it is a strange variant that can be described as ‘racial-federalism’. This doesn’t sound well but that’s exactly what most politicians in favour of federalism demand. A separate Muslim Unit within the Tamil Homeland? Separate Sinhala units within each of them? How ridiculously racial? We are likely to fall into a bigger ‘ethnic’ trap if we try to solve the ‘ethnic’ conflict by federalism. My personal view is that we should be moving in a different direction that can integrate the ethnic groups. We don’t differentiate ethnic celebrations, ethnic foodstuff and ethnic attire. We need more than Dosai Villas, Buhari Cafes and Bath Kades; we need our fellow citizens who run them to live and thrive in our nation among us.

Federalism, however, goes against this Lankan spirit to start with! No wonder the forefathers of Lankan federalism were not from Sri Lanka

Entry Filed under: Federalidea