Digging up the Divi Neguma Bill

The Divi Neguma Bill has put forward new questions regarding transparency and good governance in Sri Lanka as well as the role played by powerful politicians in moving away from best practices under the guise of assisting people “for the greater good”.

In a nutshell, the Supreme Court last week told Parliament that the Bill needs to be passed by Provincial Councils as it deals with issues that commonly come under the purview of these regional institutions. The other issues primarily concern the wide powers given to the Economic Development Minister and access to funds of over Rs. 80 billion.

Good governance activists are also worried by a clause that prevents officials from divulging any wrongdoing to the public, effectively ending any hope for transparency. The fact that the Bill converts around 260,000 Divi Neguma officials into fully-fledged public servants has seen it get support in some quarters but the majority of Sri Lankans remain unaware of its detrimental aspects.

On Tuesday the Western Provincial Council passed the document, setting the stage for the rest of the country to follow. If or rather when the bill reaches Parliament, there is every chance that it will be passed with the two-thirds majority at the Government’s disposal. Deputy Economic Development Minister Lakshman Yapa Abeywardana told media last week that the Government would not back off, effectively throwing the gauntlet at the opposition to try and stop this questionable bill.

The bill seeks to repeal the Southern Development Authority, the Udarata Development Authority, and the Samurdhi Development Authority, transferring their powers and functions to the Department of Divi Neguma Development. This new department would function countrywide and would have no differentiation between national and rural policies.  

Other than the fact that the Bill allegedly infringes on the Constitution, the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has pointed out in a statement that it raises serious concerns, not merely of centralisation and the consolidation of power, but also of the political will of the Government in terms of its pledges to implement to the full existing provisions in the Constitution on devolution.

The statement points out that the bill will take away the ambit of oversight mechanisms, especially in the area of financial control and accountability. CPA also raises questions as to why a secrecy provision for officials should be included in respect of a department that is meant to serve and be accountable to the people.

Recent newspaper articles have also quoted opposition politicians expressing dismay at the use of microfinance outlined by the Divi Neguma Bill and its ability to establish lending institutions that do not need to be registered with the Central Bank, thus leaving room for a whole gamut of malpractices  

In response the Government insists that the bill will negate several white elephants and bring poverty eradication programs under one department for better coordination and effective implementation. Representations made on behalf of Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapaksa to court point out that much of the bill is drawn from existing legislation and does not undermine provincial council powers in carrying out rural programmes.

A statement from the Ministry says the object of the proposed department is to carry out such development activities as may be required to alleviate poverty and to bring about a society guaranteeing social equity. This includes livelihood promotion, speed up national development including infrastructure, provide microfinance, upgrade human capital, and create social security for vulnerable groups.

The Government’s ostensible battle for social equity needs to be openly evaluated and discussed so that the more disputable aspects are found alternative mechanisms. If not the results would be felt most by the people that the Divi Neguma Bill professes to help the most.