Individuals, not Ethnic Groups, Need Political Space

"Tying devolution to communal demands or race-based regionalisation is wrong as it makes devolution lose its effectiveness and appeal. If so tied, devolution becomes part of the problem and not a solution. Another political solution would be needed to address the aggravated problem."
............................................

by Thomas Johnpulle

(August 09, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) The issue of political space has come up for discussion yet again in the context of finding a political solution. Some political commentators seem to have missed the woods for the trees when discussing political space. Every adult must have political space in a democratic society. His/her race, creed, caste or whatever, is irrelevant when it comes to political space. On the other hand, ethnic groups per se are not necessarily entitled to political space. It is the individuals of all ethnic groups who need and deserve political space as individuals, not the ethnic group as such. In the Sri Lankan context, Tamils (and others) must all have political space of their own as individuals, certainly not as an ethnic community. If ethnic groups own political space which belongs to the individual that is a crime because the aspirations of individuals not necessarily match that of his/her race. It also ties everyone to a race which is a waning consideration in the modern world. In simple terms, a man or a woman would do things in a certain way not because he/she belongs to a particular race.

Democracy is about individuals taking part in the decision making process as individuals. Representative democracy is one again individuals making decisions as individuals where they vest their direct authority in the governing body not on a tribal council. There is no middle layer where the individual delegates his/her power in a race to a tribal council and then the council taking the matter with the governing body.

This should not be confused with decentralized governing bodies. There is absolutely no law in the world that decentralized governing bodies should be race-based.

Political Space for Tamils as a Group Verses Political Space for Tamils Individually

The two are widely different. It is a habit of parties with vested interests to mix-up the two. Sri Lanka, as a democracy, must ensure all it’s citizens have equal political space, individually. However, there is no compulsion or a need to create political space for ethnic groups. Individual political ambitions widely differ from political ambitions of ethnic groups. It is this individuality that must be upheld.

The absurdity of pooling individuals’ political space and creating group political space came to light on two counts. The first case is communism. Collective enterprises, collective farms and other collective political entities destroyed the individual’s political space. This is the primary cause of the Soviet collapse. Today individuality in political space is a very important and valuable right around the world. No one has the right to take decisions on be half of an individual on what is good for him/her.

The second case is the fate of the LTTE. It is a classic case of political space centred around an ethnicity (Tamil). LTTE claimed to be the sole representative of Tamils. In other words, LTTE created political space for Tamils as a group. In it, the individual’s wishes were not relevant. This was a disaster from the start because naturally, Tamil individuals had other ideas. And they will like any other would have their own ideas that are not dictated by race.

In fact, it was this diversion that brought peace to the country. LTTE endorsed the ITAK/TNA to be its representatives at the 2001 General Election. However, a large number of Tamils didn’t follow this and they voted for the UNP which was crucial for the UNP to come to power. An era of relative peace dawned from 2002 - 2005. Unfortunately, the UNP government fell into the sole representative trap and withdrew from contesting in the North and the East at the 2004 election. Batticaloa was a complicated case and sadly, bloodshed resulted in due to a misunderstanding pertaining to the sole representative claim of the LTTE. This resulted in another party sweeping the polls. Same thing was repeated in 2005. A considerable number of Tamils followed the group political space view and abstained from voting. The result was disastrous for them. Those Tamils who voted defying rumours and sole representative claims, did the right thing.

Creating political space for Tamils, Sinhalas and Muslims as groups, and not as individuals, is a sure way to aggravate this.

Individual Political Space is Island-wide whereas Racially Demarcated Political Space is Regional

Today more than 50% Tamils live outside the North and the East. They will be left out in a regionalised solution. At the other end, the East is mostly non-Tamil today. If race-based regionalisation is used as the solution, the East must still be separated from the North. The large number of Tamils in the East will also not benefit from a race-based regionalisation scheme. Only Tamils in the North would find some relevance of it. That is just 30% or less of the total Tamil population! Nevertheless, it’s not only Tamils living in the North. Following the end of the war, Muslims and Sinhalas are settling down in the North just as Tamils settle down in Colombo. The solution should not be pose problems for them. However, if race-based regions come into existence, non-Tamils will find it a problem than a solution. To make matters worse, political parties that dominate the North are highly communal from their names to their demands. These parties include Tamil Congress, Tamil Kadchi, Tamil Front and Tamil Alliance while their demands are Tamil homelands, Tamil aspirations, etc. It is incredible how non-Tamils would survive in such an atmosphere. Therefore, race-based regionalisation is not the solution for an essentially multiethnic society spread island-wide.

On the other hand, if individual political space is provided to Tamil individuals all over the island, they can decide what is best for them. Most of them will become ‘unit holders’ in multiethnic political parties. This is the best that can happen towards peace and coexistence.

Under the communal group political space system, individuals will be discouraged from reaching out to ‘outsiders’, especially by communal political parties as it makes these parties irrelevant.

The Need for Devolution

There is a genuine need for devolution in Sri Lanka. Devolution is best achieved by devolving power to the smallest measurable political unit. In the case of Sri Lanka, the smallest, measurable political unit is the electorate. Provincial Council elections, General elections and Presidential elections are held by the electorate. That means if voters are unhappy of the performance of the electorate, they can change it. And they change it by the electorate, not by the district or province. The only other competing unit is the LG (Local Government) area. LG elections are held by the LG area, which may be a PS (Prathesiya Saba), UC (Urban Council) or MC (Municipal Council). Devolution of power must happen at either the electorate level or the LG area level to be meaningful.

In every district, each electorate has it’s own specific needs. While general needs are best served by a national governance structure, specific needs are best catered by an electorate or LG area based devolution system.

When individual’s general governance needs are addressed at a national level and their specific needs addressed at the electorate/LG area level, he/she becomes politically contended as individuals. They get a say in national affairs to some extent and a bigger say in specific hometown matters. This is devolution’s contribution to a political solution.

When looked this way, nonsensical hair splitting over unitary, united, federal, confederation, etc. don’t come to haunt decision makers and people get the solution they need, wherever they live.

Tying devolution to communal demands or race-based regionalisation is wrong as it makes devolution lose its effectiveness and appeal. If so tied, devolution becomes part of the problem and not a solution. Another political solution would be needed to address the aggravated problem.