Minuses in the provincial system

PRESIDENT Maithripala Sirisena this week made an impassioned speech in support of the devolution of power and insisted that decentralisation is an important part of the Government’s agenda. However, if the provincial system is looked at from an angle wider than the ethnic issue, it is clear that there is much about it that needs to be improved.

Many are the critics of the provincial council system. Born of the contentious Indo-Lanka Accord and the 13th Amendment, its usefulness has been questioned time and again. Detractors have pointed out that the existence of provincial councils is a waste of resources as it only serves to duplicate central government activities and pile on a futile layer of bureaucracy. 

With many essential social services, including transport, education and health, the system has proven to be an encumbrance.

But the architects of the 13th Amendment had other intentions as well, mainly to provide decentralisation and allow the people of that province to make policies and decisions that are best suited to them and elect people to govern them in a way they wish to be governed. In other countries such as India this has proven to be beneficial for all those involved.

A province is allowed a certain level of autonomy and in doing so they can craft their own future, especially economically. In other countries that practice the provincial council system, the ruling party, especially the chief minister, vies for investment opportunities. They encourage local entrepreneurship, employment and are in competition with other provinces to win economic growth.

Gujarat is a fantastic example of this. On the strength of his performance in the province, Gujarat’s Chief Minister Narendra Modi was handed the reins to the second most populous nation on earth. Could the same be said for any of Sri Lanka’s chief ministers? 

Ironically, far from competing for growth, Sri Lanka’s chief ministers do the exact opposite. They turn their province into a fiefdom of sorts and rule with an iron fist. In such an environment, economic stagnation and corruption is the eventual result.

Chief ministers and provincial councillors who are imprudent enough to forget their voters do sometimes get voted out, but only after an intense battle – usually involving bloodshed and destruction of property. 

In 2014 the Uva Province was an unfortunate example of this. The public’s decision, especially after a bruising election battle, was loud and clear. The people wanted better management. Uva, despite its proximity to Hambantota and its history of housing former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s nephew as its previous chief minister, failed to impress economically. It has not attracted significant investment, nor has it borne impressive homegrown industry.

True, few other provinces can make the same claim but it is a symptom of why people prefer to have low expectations of provincial councils. In fact the central government is usually aware of this and tends to ignore them after handing out the usual spoils. 

At the last elections it was reported that 17 out of the 34 elected members had some form of kinship to existing politicians, making the case even less favourable for the residents of Uva.

For the provincial system to be effective chief ministers and fellow members need to bring good governance, transparency and equitable development back to their regions. They need to ensure infrastructure in the region is used for industries, especially when resources for tourism development exist abundantly. They should attract investors and improve the quality of life of their voters. They need to make provincial councils matter again.