Wednesday, 1 October 2014 01:25
-
- {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
Chief Minister Shasheendra Rajapaksa and the rest of the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) winners were sworn in as members of the Uva Provincial Council on Tuesday by President Mahinda Rajapaksa. Given that he is taking on his second term at a much-reduced people’s mandate, it is worth looking at what the provincial council can do to justify its existence.
Many are the critics of the provincial council system. Born of the contentious Indo-Lanka Accord and the 13th Amendment its usefulness have been questioned time and again. Detractors have pointed out that the existence of provincial councils is a wastage of resources as it only services to duplicate central government activities and pile on a futile layer of bureaucracy.
In many instances of essential social services, including transport, education and health, this argument holds true on many fronts. But the architects of the 13th Amendment had other intentions as well, that is to provide decentralisation and allow people of that province to make policies and decisions that are best suited to them. To elect the people to govern in the way they wish to be governed.
In other countries such as India this has proved to be beneficial for all those involved. A province is allowed a certain amount 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, vie 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 and on the strength of his performance in one province voters decided to hand over the second most populous nation on earth into the hands of its former Chief Minister Narendra Modi. 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. Uva is unfortunately an example of this. The public’s decision, especially after a bruising election battle, was loud and clear. The people want better management.
Uva, despite its proximity to Hambantota and boasting President Rajapaksa’s nephew as its Chief Minister, has failed to impress economically. It has not attracted significant investment, nor has it borne impressive home-grown 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. It was reported that 17 out of the 34 elected members have some form of kinship to existing politicians, making the case even less favourable to the residents of Uva.
Given a second chance, the Chief Minister and his fellow members need to bring good governance, transparency and equitable development back to Uva. They need to ensure infrastructure into the region is used for industries, especially when resources for tourism development exist abundantly. They should attract investors. They need to make provincial councils matter again.
