Whither APRC: One step forward, two steps back?

Minister Tisa Vitharana has once again announced that the final draft report of the All Party Representative Committee would be handed over to the President soon.

By Sumanasiri Liyanage

(September 25, Kandy, Sri Lanka Guardian) In spite of the fact that all basic elements of constitutional changes are flagged in the constitutional discourse in the last 25 years and that the APRC does not have to invent the wheel once again, people have been enthusiastically looking for how APRC would propose to combine those elements in its final proposals. Democratic forces in the country have recognized that the new constitution includes a multi-tier system of government, two chamber central legislature, judicial review and comprehensive chapter on fundamental rights and the supremacy of the constitution.

Sinhala nationalists have criticized many a time the APRC process and its chairperson, Minister Tissa Vitharana, for its pro-powersharing position. On the hand, the democratic forces and numerically small national groups in the country expected that the APRC would come up with innovative proposals to make the Sri Lankan state more accommodative and democratic so that it would be acceptable to Sri Lanka’s numerically small nations and ethnic groups. When the President announced that his government would implement the thirteenth amendment to the constitution fully until new proposals are ready, many believed that the thirteenth amendment would be the point of departure or benchmark in future constitutional reforms. Since the features mentioned above may be combined in multiple ways, it was anticipated that the final outcome would lie between the thirteenth amendment and 2000 constitutional draft proposals. We may see both positive and negative signs at the horizon. Basil Rajapakse in his visit to India pledged that the government would make necessary legal changes to make the Sri Lankan state more accommodative to the demands of Tamil nationalism. Dr Palitha Kohona, Foreign secretary, has recently announced that the thirteenth amendment will be implemented fully. The President has silenced some members of the coalition who began to voice against power-sharing solution and said in an interview with N Ram that new constitutional proposals will be put into effect after the next presidential election implying that the proposals would be put before the people prior to the election. The negative signs are visible in the arena of real political practice. First, there is no genuine effort to implement the thirteenth amendment. Secondly, the implementation of many development programmes is done by the central government almost completely neglecting elected provincial bodies. This is clearly visible in the Eastern Province. Thirdly, the President has so far not taken any action against the activities of the Governor in the Eastern Province whose actions are under constant contestation of the elected provincial council. Finally, there has been significant Sinhala national opposition within and without the government to any kind of power-sharing arrangement.

It seems that the final proposals of the APRC would reflect these power configurations. Hence, the proposals would definitely be a much watered-down version of Tissa Vitharana’s own proposals about three years ago. What I pick up from my infrequent visits to Colombo suggests that the final proposals are in on some matters are in fact regressive. Thirteenth amendment clearly specified that there shall be two sectors in the Sri Lankan police service, namely, (1) national police service and (2) provincial police service. The provincial police service consists of deputy inspector general of police and SPs and ASPs on secondment from the national service and junior level police officers recruited from respective provinces. In addition to that there shall be a local police service commission the function of which includes local recruitments, transfers and disciplinary actions. Although provincial councils have so far failed to pass statutes to make these provisions of the thirteenth amendment operational, the provincial police powers are a devolved subject. As I heard, the APRC is making regressive proposal by diluting this provision in the thirteenth amendment. And the worst is the limited police powers it proposes to give to the provincial councils are taken away from the elected chief minister and given to the appointed provincial governor. Hence Minister Tissa Vitahrana appears to be capitulating to the Sinhala chauvinist pressure that is coming from the political parties within the government. The security is one of the main issues raised by Tamils. As a result, from the very beginning, Tamil nationalist parties demanded limited police powers to the provinces. In India, provincial chief minister can exercise comprehensive powers on maintaining provincial law and order.

Of course, APRC proposals may include some positive features. However, with its suggestion to dilute the police powers enshrined in the thirteenth amendment, it may not be acceptable to political parties of numerically small nations. Hence the time and money spend on the APRC process would be a waste.

-Sri Lanka Guardian