Category Archives: Federalism

Before the pandemic, at most of my speeches to business and civil society groups, a question or comment was almost always made about why we dont abolish state governments. The reasons were many and varied but all around a theme: a basic concern was that Australia is overgoverned; concern about the counterproductive consequences of the governance structures, in terms of blame and competition, or competitive federalism; that there are too many politicians; and that government is too expensive.

Reform has always been difficult, but more so now. State border closures have been seen by many as a significant retrograde step, harking back to the inefficiencies and disruptions of the days of separate rail gauges, but they have also been popular. The situation has been further complicated by the overlapping of responsibilities and unnecessary duplication in the bureaucracies engaged in the provision of government services, as well as the resistance to ensuring the consistency of regulations across borders in most policy areas.

Another complication from the pandemic has been the concept and role of the so-called national cabinet. It is not really a cabinet, nor is it fully representative. It was simply an initiative of a desperate prime minister wanting to ensure some engagement and relevance in the response to Covid-19. It was sold as a co-ordinating body, but it has clearly failed.

Essentially, national cabinet operates along the following lines: the states agree on a way forward on the various challenges, and then Scott Morrison announces it, writing his government into the process, trying to make it look as though he is in charge. This obviously resulted in some very real tensions within the federation, which Morrison has compounded by shirking or ducking clear responsibility.

For example, the Commonwealth has constitutional responsibility for quarantine yet he failed to underwrite purpose-built national quarantine facilities. Similarly with aged care, where Morrison sought to blame the states as Covid-19 ran amok, despite having clear obligations set out by the royal commission into the sector.

I must admit that I got very enthusiastic when Tony Abbott announced, as an early initiative of his government, that he would have two inquiries one into the structure and operation of our federation and one into the tax system. It is important that these issues are looked at together reform is a two-staged process, which first must agree on a structure of our federation, with a clear allocation of responsibilities, minimising duplication, and which then must consider the most effective and fair way to fund this structure.

Unfortunately, these Abbott inquiries never happened as initially announced. Although the federation review was established, it was soon terminated as it began to look like some of the issues could become politically difficult for his government. The terms of reference for the tax review were never issued, so that went nowhere.

Both issues have been left to drift. Our tax system has limped along with some very serious structural weaknesses, the reform of which is fast becoming an imperative. Discussions of the clear allocation of responsibilities to one level or other of government have identified a number of important criteria. For example, the effectiveness of service delivery.

As the states, not the Commonwealth, own schools and hospitals, it has been accepted that they should carry direct responsibility here, yet many feel we need a national framework to set and enforce national standards and a curriculum.

Of course, education extends well beyond schools, from preschool education through to universities, which are mostly state-owned. Again, it seems sensible that education overall should be a state responsibility. Indeed, it raises the obvious question as to whether we actually need a minister for education in the national government. Canada, for example, doesnt have one education is entirely a provincial responsibility. Similar considerations apply to hospitals. The scope to reduce duplication and to cut the costs of government significantly is potentially quite significant in these two areas.

Nevertheless, there are important exceptions. The Great Barrier Reef is a significant national asset, the responsibility for which should be national. Other areas are also clearly of national significance, such as industrial relations, transport regulation, climate, manufacturing industry and so on.

Aged care stands as a disturbing example of a lack of precision in the allocation of responsibility. The national government currently sets the policy and does the funding and regulation. Therefore, it has been seen to carry overarching responsibility. Several of the states used to own and operate nursing homes but sold or closed them. The Howard governments Aged Care Act opened the door to more privatisation, which has been less than successful in terms of the quality, cost and availability of care, as well as putting pressure on and creating a wasteful bureaucracy.

In recent years concern has grown about the failures of governments in the delivery of essential services such as power and telecommunications, as well as health and aged care. In many cases these responsibilities have been abrogated to the private sector, which is driven more by profitability than cost-effective delivery of quality services.

Another contentious area has been climate change, where the failure of the national government to develop a relevant and deliverable policy has seen the states step up to fill the void. They have acknowledged a climate emergency, adopted net-zero targets, and funded technology development. The result while positive at a state level has been a mishmash of initiatives and considerable uncertainty for the private sector and its financiers.

Service delivery is another major issue. Most federal departments have no experience in it. This was most conspicuous during the pink batt scandal, where the Rudd government attempted to deliver that policy by relying on the federal Environment Department, which had no experience in service delivery. The results were disastrous. Morrison compounded these kinds of issues during his initial briefing to the national public service, where his instruction was that their primary role and responsibility was in service delivery rather than policy development, which he said was the domain of him and his ministers. Clearly neither the public service nor his ministers were qualified for these roles, most often with no coalface experience.

Federation reform is emerging as an issue for the next election. Anthony Albanese was asked about his plans in this respect at his recent address at the National Press Club, particularly as to the future of national cabinet. His response was most instructive: ... you cant say that you want to work with states and territories and then impose things from the Commonwealth. But what you can do is engage in a spirit of goodwill. And can I say that I have spoken to premiers, not just Labor premiers, on an off-the-record basis, and youd expect me to do that. We need a clearer delineation of who is responsible for what.

Albanese seems to get it. He acknowledges the need for federation reform as part of what he calls the growth agenda and the microeconomic reform and productivity agenda. He has the experience to push a collaborative agenda that will inevitably require a deal with the states. But would it be a priority of an Albanese government? It certainly should be a priority of the next government it would be overwhelmingly in our national interest. Going by Morrisons past attitudes and actions, it is unlikely to be a priority for him.

Tax reform is complicated as both the Commonwealth and the states have tax bases and a couple of the state taxes, such as land and payroll, are potentially among the most effective tax bases but have been neutered in a process of competitive federalism where the states compete to attract people and business to their states.

Also, as politically clever as it may have been at the time for Howard to commit all goods and services tax revenue to the states, in practice it has only ensured what has become a yearly shit fight about its distribution. More than that, it is difficult to increase its coverage or increase the rate without the full agreement of the states. The GST is also a pressure point because it has not been the growth tax that the states had hoped, given that the spending it is levied on is growing less fast than the spending it is not levied on.

There are a number of other tax system complications and issues, including the overall resilience of the system; the sustainability of the profit-based corporate tax system; the many inequities favouring the wealthy, including on housing and superannuation; trusts; and the many corporates that dont pay any tax. These and others are important in themselves, but they complicate overall systemic tax reform.

It is ridiculous to most Australians that our state and federal governments cannot work together in the national interest. The bottom line is problems dont get solved. People are tired of weasel words, abrogated responsibility and the blame game. At a time when people are worried and stressed about their futures, the governments we elect need to remember who put them there and why.

This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper onFeb 5, 2022 as "On the levels".

A free press is one you pay for. In the short term, the economic fallout from coronavirus has taken about a third of our revenue. We will survive this crisis, but we need the support of readers. Now is the time to subscribe.

Read the original here:

Why federation reform should be an urgent priority - The Saturday Paper

On January 26, 1950 when the Indian Constitution came into force, it was a big step for the nation that had longed to achieve the ideals of justice, equality, liberty and fraternity. Our Constitution tried to give a definite shape to the aspirations of the people for a sovereign, socialist, secular democratic republic through provisions like fundamental rights of all citizens. In a country of subcontinental proportions, it is necessary that the ideals mentioned in the Preamble to the Constitution should extend to all levels of governance. The overall emphasis on equality in the Constitution is visible in all arrangements made around the federal spirit and ideas.

Conscious of the differential needs of the populations of different states, the drafters of the Constitution made provisions for an equitable share of powers and responsibilities among different levels of governments. The lists in the 7th Schedule of the Constitution Union, state and concurrent are an example of this division, wherein each level of government has its own sphere, enabling context-sensitive decision-making. Later, institutions for local self government were added through the 73rd and 74th amendments, which strengthened grass roots democracy.

Article 246 and Article 243 G provide for this division of responsibilities. Article 280 provided for the constitution of Finance Commission to define the financial relationship and terms between the Union and states. Apart from these institutions and the Rajya Sabha, the Constitution makers also left much scope for consultative and deliberative bodies so as to strengthen the spirit of cooperation and federalism. Article 263 provided for the establishment of an Inter-State Council for smooth transition of business between the Union and states and resolution of disputes.

The Planning Commission always had space for discussion on issues concerning the federal nature of the polity and was sensitive to the different developmental requirements of states. The inter-state tribunals, the National Development Council and other informal bodies have served as vehicles of consultations between the Union, states and UTs. These bodies have been instrumental in tackling difficult issues democratically through deliberations while upholding the cooperative spirit between the Union and states. Unfortunately, we are now witnessing the worst assault on the federal system and on institutions.

The Planning Commission has been scrapped. The Inter-State Council has met only once in the last seven years while the National Development Council has not met at all. The tenure of the 15th Finance Commission was mired in controversy and many states expressed apprehensions about devolution. The misconceived GST has already taken away much of the autonomy available to states and has made the countrys indirect tax regime unitary in nature. Many important and politically sensitive decisions are taken without reference to, and consultation with, the concerned states. Article 370 was removed without consulting the state legislature.

Parliament legislated on agriculture, entry no. 14 in the state list, to enact the three contentious farm laws, overstepping its jurisdiction and imposing a law on the states. Students in Tamil Nadu have committed suicide over the discriminatory nature of the NEET examination. Other centralised examinations are also indifferent to languages spoken in different parts of India and education boards of different states. The New Education Policy has been flagged as encroaching on the federal nature of the polity. The BSFs jurisdiction was extended in Assam, West Bengal and Punjab without any consultation with the concerned states. The constitutional office of governor has come under scrutiny several times for encroaching on the powers of state executive and legislature. Recently, the rejection of the Republic Day tableaux of Kerala, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal by the Centre prompted protests by the respective states.

These developments stem from an ideology that has disregard for the diversity of the country and a contempt for constitutional values. These are rooted in a monolithic conception of the country, which is the hallmark of the RSS and the BJP. Their obsession with homogeneity and the idea of Hindi-Hindu-Hindusthan is blinding. The philosophy of uniformity and flattening out diversity has disastrous consequences for our republic, society and ways of life. The obsession with homogeneity can escalate and destroy the progressive ideals of secularism, tolerance and mutual respect. It should be underlined that Article 1 of our Constitution declares that India that is Bharat is a union of states, and that devolution of powers is necessary in such a setting. A conscious recognition of the federal character of our polity is essential to protect our national character. A struggle at all levels against the Union governments moves to usurp federal rights has to be waged.

This column first appeared in the print edition on January 21, 2022 under the title The missing federal spirit. The writer is General Secretary, CPI

Read this article:

The Republic Day is a reminder of the spirit of federalism and why it is under strain - The Indian Express

With national-level Democrats stymied in their efforts to pass social welfare and voting rights bills, what's next? Maybe they should try looking to the states.

Alexander Sammon never uses the word "federalism" in a new piece at The American Prospect. But he does argue that state-level Democrats like California Gov. Gavin Newsom and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul should take federal gridlock as a sign that it's time to "think big" about what they can accomplish on issues like health care, education, and affordable housing and hope that the political benefits trickle up.

Sammon writes that "the big, ambitious projects side of governing has effectively fallen to state-level Democrats, especially those in populous states without meaningful Republican obstruction. From here out, statehouse work in Sacramento, Albany, and elsewhere is the party's best bet to accomplish what might otherwise be expected from Democrats in Washington, D.C. They're going to have to do Joe Biden's job for him."

State and local organizing aren't exactly new to Democrats and progressives. That's where efforts to raise the minimum wage and legalize marijuana have had their most success. But liberals are less likely to talk romantically about states as "laboratories of democracy" than their conservative counterparts. Left-of-center rhetoric embracing state power usually peaks only when Republicans control the government, and then Democrats see it as a formof resistance to conservative federal authority. When the GOP is running Washington, one activist said in 2017, "progressives are likely to respond by going local, where there's more latitude to make progress."

They certainly have an opportunity to take big swings at the state level. As Bloomberg's Amanda Albright points out, states are currently awash in billions of dollars in federal pandemic aid, which gives Democratic governors the resources to try big new things. "We can do it all," New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) said this week.

That's more than Washington can do right now. With the filibuster still firmly in place in the U.S. Senate, lefty activists may decide it's time to treat the government run by President Joe Biden as functionally under the control of Republicans.

Read this article:

Should Democrats look to the states? - The Week Magazine

Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, chairman of the State Administration Council, said that peace talks would be held if the NCA and the constitution do not affect the building of a union based on democracy and federalism.

This was stated by Senior General Min Aung Hlaing at a meeting of the State Administration Council in Nay Pyi Taw on January 20.

Peace talks must be based on the Union. In the case of all ethnic groups, the federal states are given equal rights in a democracy and federalism. All ethnic nationalities must be given equal opportunities and cannot be prioritized by one person alone. Therefore, the peace process will be accepted as long as it does not affect the building of a union based on the NCA and the constitution and democracy and federalism, said Senior General Min Aung Hlaing.

During the reign of the NLD government, the NLD often came to me to negotiate to amend Article 59 (f) of the Constitution. The Tatmadaw worked to amend the constitution in 2011-2015 period as well as in 2015-2020 period. Since the Constitution was start drafted around 1990, it is inconsistent with the current situation and understands that it needs to be amended. However, he added that the factors that could jeopardize our three main objectives were not included.

There are ethnic armed groups that have signed the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA), non-signatory ethnic armed groups and subsequent terrorist organizations. We are in regular talks with the NCA signatories and informally with the non-signatories. The KIA and KNPP, which are part of the non-signatory group, have supported CDM groups, provided bomb disposal training and provided ammunition. They themselves are involved in acts of terrorism and were involved in blowing up the roads and bridges, said Senior General Min Aung Hlaing.

The meeting was attended by Deputy Prime Minister and Vice-Chairman of the State Administration Council Vice-Senior General Soe Win, council members General Mya Tun Oo, General Tin Aung San, Lieutenant General Moe Myint Tun, Mahn Nyein Maung, U Thein Nyunt, U Khin Maung Swe, Daw Aye Nu Sein, Jeng Phang Naw Taung, U Moung Har, U Sai Lone Saing, Saw Daniel, Dr Banyar Aung Moe, Lieutenant General Soe Htut, U Shwe Kyein, Secretary Lt-Gen Aung Lin Dwe and Joint Secretary Lt-Gen Ye Win Oo.

Continue reading here:

Peace talks will be held if the NCA and the constitution do not affect the building of a union based on democracy and federalism: SAC's Chair - Eleven...

The governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the 2015 and 2019 General Elections in Lagos State, Mr. Jimi Agbaje, has said that the party is prepared to take over power from the All Progressives Congress (APC) at the centre in 2023. Speaking in an interview with Oladipupo Awojobi, the PDP chieftain stated that state police would help reduce insecurity in the country, while also calling for true federalism. Excerpts

What is the situation with the PDP in Lagos State now?

The situation of the PDP in Lagos State is that we had congresses and we did not conclude the processes, we had wards and local government congresses and the executives have been inaugurated. What is left is the state executive and the national had to appoint the caretaker committee because the tenure of the last executive committee had expired and we didnt want to create a vacuum. So the committee was set up and their tenure would expire in February and the state exco would come up through a congress, whether by consensus or whatever. So that is what is left as far as the PDP in Lagos State is concerned. You have tried in the past to go into public office and this is the era of declaration for political offices, one wonders if you are throwing your hat into the ring again? The issue does not arise for me, but I remain in politics and time will tell what I will do again. The issue of putting my hat in the ring does not arise for me at this point in time.

In recent times, there have been calls for power rotation to the South and some people including Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, and Dele Momodu have come out for the presidency and some people are rooting for the likes of the Vice President, Professor Yemi Osinbajo, under the APC. But it seems, your party, the PDP is not keen about that

At this stage, I think its not much of my concern, I dont think I can talk much on that. When they have a candidate I can talk about him. But as for people expressing interest I think its their fundamental human rights to do that. As for personal opinion, it doesnt arise because its a party affair, so let them resolve that and come up with their candidate, then I can talk about him. Definitely he would not have my vote if the person is contesting under the APC. But as far as the PDP is concerned, we have taken a position. We will see how events unfold. There are two perspectives on this, there is a perspective that the presidency should be on a rotational basis, and if it is that,then there would be zoning. Then there is the other tendency that talks about the fact that we should have the best candidate for Nigeria and abandon zoning. But if there is a clear candidate that is acceptable to everybody, and he has to be very clear, then he would be supported. If he comes from the wrong side against zoning, then he will fall flat as far as elections are concerned.

Some people are even of the view that the South Easterners should be given a chance since we have not had a South Easterner as the Nigerian President since 1999

Yes, that is what I am saying that for those who believe in zoning, its clear where the rotation is going or what direction it should be going. But there are those who are saying that we need the best candidate for Nigeria at this point in time. I say that this can only work where the candidate is a clear choice of the majority of Nigerians. But where the person is not a clear choice of the people then that party would fall flat on election day.

The issue of insecurity is also there and we heard that people are being kidnapped on the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway and everywhere, what do you think the government should do about this?

That is a matter of concern for everybody. Insecurity is now not limited to any part of the country. Its all over like the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway has become a topic of interest. If you dont have a secure country you cannot have development. Nobody can invest in a country, where there is insecurity. You can see why we are losing a lot of investment to a county like Ghana because people feel more secure and they dont have the kind of insecurity we have. Though the bulk of their businesses are in Nigeria, they feel more secure in Ghana. These are some of the issues and we need to address the security issue urgently.

How best can we handle this, should we go for state police?

I have been an advocate of state police from the beginning. State police is not just for security purposes. In a federalism, every state should have its own police because if I am concerned about traffic, effectiveness of my laws, it is not a priority for federal police because they have bigger things to deal with and they are few in number. But what concerns me can only be done by me. In a country, where federalism is practised to the letter, police are not limited to the state, the local government and even the universities abroad have their own police. These are the things that should be obtainable in a true federal state. So, Im a long-term advocate of state police and it would help tackle insecurity. You can see that Amotekun is also playing their own roles where they are setup and that is an outfit that is not allowed to carry arms and they have played their own roles very well.

How prepared is the PDP to return to power at the Federal level in 2023?

You can see that a lot of activities are going on at the national and state levels. Even the state governors have just met at a well publicised Governors Forum. You can see that we have a new executive and we have done our convention. Moreso, we have been able to show maturity with the way we have conducted our affairs. We have a party that has set up a machinery that is ready for actions. We have an effective machinery to take over power at the centre.

How would you want restructuring to be done in Nigeria as people have said that we are not practising true federalism, do you think this government is moving towards that?

In all honesty I dont think that the body language I get from this government shows that they are ready to address that frontally. I think this should be an issue for the next campaign, where people are able to break down what they would do in terms of federalism. We mentioned state police, a party that wants to win election should tell us what it stands for. People should be able to demand for this clear position as to what the party and the candidate stand for. Now, we have a situation, where the party campaign for restructuring and the winner of the election says he never campaigned for that. So this time around, I think the people want to hear from the candidate what he understands by restructuring so that it comes out from the candidate and the party. It is then that when you get into office you will be on the same page with the National Assembly. Then you would have campaigned as a candidate and for the party and your members in the National Assembly would be committed. So, it is important that the candidate speaks to restructuring. Break it down and tell us what they mean. Are you looking at the revenue allocation? What quantity should the federal carry and what quantity should the state and the local governments carry?

Do you think the INEC would give Nigeria a credible election in 2023?

I wish I had a magic ball to look at that. Let me say that I hope that they would give us a credible election. Of course, they can only do that, when the new electoral bill is passed into law because there are a number of innovations and clauses in it to give us a credible election. I am not in a position to doubt that, but I believe that when and if the Electoral Act Amendment Bill is passed into law, it would give us a credible election.

Like Loading...

Related

Go here to read the rest:

PDP ready to shove APC out of power at the centre Agbaje - New Telegraph Newspaper

Another basic concept embodied in the Constitution is federalism, which refers to the division and sharing of power between the national and state governments. By allocating power among state and federal governments, the Framers sought to establish a unified national government of limited powers while maintaining a distinct sphere of autonomy in which state governments could exercise a general police power. Although the Framers' sought to preserve liberty by diffusing power, Justices and scholars have noted that federalism has other advantages, including that it allows individual states to experiment with novel government programs as laboratories of democracy and increases the accountability of elected government officials to citizens.

Although the text of the Constitution does not clearly delineate many of the boundaries between the powers of the federal and state governments, the Supreme Court has frequently invoked certain constitutional provisions when determining that Congress has exceeded its constitutional powers and infringed upon state sovereignty. One well-known provision, regarded by the Court as both a shield and sword to thwart federal encroachment, is the Tenth Amendment, which provides that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. In modern times, the Court has vacillated between the view that the Tenth Amendment operates to restrict Congress' power and the view that the amendment is a mere truism that cannot be used to strike down federal statutes. Other notable provisions addressing Congress' power relative to the states that the Court has debated include the Supremacy Clause in Article VI, which establishes federal law as superior to state law; the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, which grants Congress the authority to legislate on matters concerning interstate commerce; and Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants Congress the power to enforce that Amendment's guarantees against the states through the enactment of appropriate legislation. More broadly, federalism principles also undergird many Supreme Court decisions interpreting individual rights and the extent to which the Court should federalize, for example, the rights afforded to state criminal defendants. But judges and scholars disagree on how basic principles of federalism should be realized, and a key point of controversy is whether the judiciary should enforce the interests of the states against the federal government or leave the resolution of such key questions about the relationship between federal and state power to the political process.

Originally posted here:

The Constitution's Basic Principles: Federalism ...

Expressing reservations over the proposed amendment of IAS cadre Rules 1954, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, in a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, said the amendment is against the federal structure and will dampen the harmonious relationship between the Centre and the state. She also requested withdrawal of the amendment.

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee expressed her 'strong reservations' against the amendment to the IAS (Cadre) Rules,1954 and claimed that it will hamper "co-operative federalism".

Not only is the proposed amendment against the spirit of co-operative federalism but the same also upsets the time-tested harmonious arrangement which has existed between the Centre and States in the matter of posting of IAS and IPS officers, she wrote in her letter.

Such amendments seem to make a permanent dent in the spirit of cooperative federalism and the consultative approach. Mamata Banerjee said in the letter.

Seeking PMs intervention into the matters, Banerjee also requested the Prime Minister to keep "the federal spirit of the Cadre Rules unviolated by withdrawing/ not giving effect to the proposed amendment".

Continue reading here:

Proposed amendment to IAS cadre rule 1954 'against spirit of cooperative federalism': Mamata Banerjee writ - Economic Times

The leaders of the ruling alliance on Tuesday agreed to hold local elections in April and May, as proposed by the countrys Election Commission.

A meeting was convened by the ruling five-party alliance led by Nepali Congress leader Ram Chandra Paudel at the prime ministers residence in Baluwatar to decide on the fate of elections.

Government spokesperson and Minister for Communication and Information Technology Gyanendra Bahadur Karki, who is also a member of the committee, said the elections will be held on time.

The discussion was focused on holding the local election on time. The election will be held as per the provision in the Constitution. We have been consulting with the Election Commission, Karki said.

Underlining the governments commitment to strengthen federalism, he said, The government is serious about making federalism stronger and provide effective service to the people through the local government by holding elections on time as mandated by the Constitution.

The meeting, which saw the attendance of Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, CPN (Maoist Center) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Federal Council Chairman of Janata Samajwadi Party (JSP) Baburam Bhattarai, Rashtriya Janamorcha vice-chair Durga Paudel among others, also discussed the upcoming national assembly elections that are scheduled to be held on January 26.

For a long time, local level polls, as proposed by Election Commission, remained in limbo as major political parties were seeking more time for preparations.

The Election Commission set the date for local polls on April 27, if it were to be held in a single phase. And April 27 and May 5, if it is held in two phases.

The main opposition CPN-UML is pressing for holding local elections on the commission-proposed date, while the ruling coalition partners the CPN (Maoist Centre) and the CPN (Unified Socialist) wanted to delay it.

The local elections are going to be held in six metropolitan cities, 11 sub-metropolitan cities, 276 municipalities and 460 rural municipalities.

It will be the second time that local level elections would be held since the adoption of the new constitution in September 2015.

See the original post here:

Nepal`s ruling coalition parties agree to hold local elections in April - WION

By P.K.Balachandran

Colombo. January 14-16 (Weekend Express): In the 1980s, India had assumed the responsibility to protect the minority Tamils of Sri Lanka. But it is in a bind now. Firstly, the Tamil parties have split on what they should request from their guardian across the Palk Strait. Secondly, India has to tread warily in all matters relating to Sri Lanka because it cannot alienate any community in the island nation, including the majority Sinhalese. Any missteps in regard to the majority community could lead to Colombos moving further away from New Delhi towards Beijing to the detriment of the former.

A bid at unifying the demands of the Tamils through the formulation of a Common Minimum Program failed miserably because the interests of the North-Eastern Tamil parties and those of the Indian Origin Tamils in the Central and Western provinces of Sri Lanka clashed.

Subscribe to ourTelegramchannel for the latest updatesfrom around the world

India had apparently wanted all Tamils to negotiate together on the basis of a lowest common denominator by which it meant the full implementation of the 13 th.Amendment (13A) of the Sri Lankan constitution that flows from the India-Sri Lanka Accord of July 29, 1987. The India-Sri Lanka Accord and the 13A, which had given elected provincial councils a modicum of powers, are the only realistic levers India has vis--vis Sri Lanka.

The 13A has not been fully implemented. Some powers, like those on land and police, have not been handed over at all. Many powers devolved by the 13A have been taken away by successive Lankan governments. The 13A is now in danger of being swept away in President Gotabaya Rajapaksas bid to bring about a new, highly centralized, constitution. This worries both India and the Tamil parties.

READ: China-India trade hits record high of $126 billion, up 43.3% y-o-y despite tension

However, the Tamil parties are divided on the 13A. Those from the Northern and Eastern provinces that are predominantly Tamil, see saving the 13A only as a stepping stone to achieving a federal structure. But the Indian Origin Tamil parties, based in the Sinhalese-majority South, see saving the 13A as the main goal because to them, federalism is a dangerous goal. They fear that the Sinhalese majority, amongst whom the Indian Origin Tamils live, will be livid if federalism is pursued as the all-Tamil goal. For the Sinhalese majority, federalism is but a stepping stone to secession.

Abortive Bid for Unity

Towards the end of 2021, the Tami Eelam Liberation Organization (TELO) leader, Selvam Adaikalanathan, launched a bid to form a united front of all Tamil-speaking parties for the purpose of seeking a solution to the Tamil political question by using the good offices of the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. But Adaikalanathans attempt failed miserably. The North-Eastern parties, demanding federalism, finally decided to approach the Indian Premier separately with their submission. The parties of the Central and Western Provinces then decided to approach India on their own with their demand for the full implementation of the 13A. But in order not to embarrass the North-Eastern Tamils, they stated that they would lend support to them from outside. The North-Eastern parties would be meeting the Indian High Commissioner, Gopal Baglay, on January 18 with a 13-page letter stating their case and seeking Indias help as per the commitments it had made in the India-Sri Lanka Accord and its pronouncements on the Tamil issue in subsequent years.

READ: Menike Mage Hithe is BJPs theme song in Uttar Pradesh elections

Conundrum for India

But the million-dollar question is: can India press the Lankan government to adopt a federal constitution when Sri Lankan governments (the present one included) have set their face against federalism, considering it a stepping stone to secession? All that India can press for, realistically and especially under the current circumstances, is the full implementation of the 13A which flows from the 1987 India-Sri Lanka Accord. The 13A was passed with four-fifths majority by the Sri Lankan parliament and had got the nod of the Supreme Court also. The 13A is therefore on solid ground, giving legitimacy to any Indian bid to press Colombo to implement it.

On the other hand, a federal structure is beyond the Accord, and beyond Indias reach, Prime Minister Modis earlier advocacy of cooperative federalism notwithstanding. Furthermore, India may not have the moral authority to demand federalism in Sri Lanka while diluting federalism in India itself. The scrapping of Art. 370 of its constitution that had granted autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir State, has disabled Indias moral authority to plead for federalism in other countries.

READ: Indian-origin Chancellor Rishi Sunak: British Prime Minister in waiting?

But even the moral authority to press for the full implementation of the 13A will have to flow from financial, economic or military power. India has no such power over Sri Lanka at the moment. Besides, it is not the sole foreign power with influence in Sri Lanka anymore. China is a very influential factor. It has a strong financial and economic presence in the island nation. That power is growing as Sri Lanka sinks deeper and deeper into an economic mire due to a combination of the effects of COVID lockdowns, mismanagement and wrong decisions. Any extra pressure from New Delhi on Colombo, on any issue, will only result in the latters veering more towards China, which is Indias geopolitical rival.

In recent years, New Delhi has taken to placating Colombo and expressing support to the majority Sinhala-Buddhist community to blunt Chinas growing influence on the island.

Be that as it may, the North-Eastern Tamil parties, especially the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Katchi (ITAK), feel politically compelled to pursue the goal of federalism. The ITAK was formed in the late 1940s to fight for a federal Sri Lanka. In their letter to the Indian PM, the North-Eastern parties have pointed out that the idea of federalism had been discussed at various times by various leaders and commissions for years. The present Foreign Minister, G.L.Peiris and the LTTE political advisor, A. Balasingham, had agreed, in the early 2000s, that a federal solution would be explored. Prime Minister Modi had himself told the Sri Lankan parliament that he is a believer in cooperative federalism.

The Tamils also say that since they had abandoned the goal of an independent Eelam and are demanding only federalism, the Sinhalese should go halfway and agree to federalism. But this proposition will not cut ice with the Sinhalese. And the Indian Origin Tamils know this, living as they do, among the Sinhalese. They told the North Eastern parties that the demand for federalism will totally alienate the Sinhalese from the Tamils, leading to a rejection of all the demands of the Tamils.

Given the split among the Tamils, the government of India will have no option but to treat the Sri Lankan Tamils of the North-East and the Indian Origin Tamils as separate categories.

While a tilt towards the Indian Origin Tamils may be tempting, India cannot ignore the aspirations of the Sri Lankan Tamils of the North and East either. The North Eastern Tamils have good political contacts in Tamil Nadu. And Tamil Nadu politicians have traditionally supported the North Eastern Tamils, and not the Indian Origin Tamils. The formers long, armed struggle for an independent Eelam has impressed Tamil Nadu politicians. New Delhi cannot brush aside the Tamil Nadu factor. In the months and years to come, New Delhi will have to walk the tight rope on the Lankan Tamil issue.

END

For similar articles, join ourTelegram channelfor the latest updates.click here

See the original post:

Beyond the Accord and beyond India's reach - NewsIn.Asia

The United States has the distinction of being the richest country in the world, and yet we have the highest number of COVID-19 cases and deaths. Nearly 59 million Americans have contracted the disease, and more than 837,000 have died from it.

Given the wide availability of the COVID-19 vaccination here and the vast number of people who have succumbed to the disease, one would think that the U.S. would be among the leaders in vaccination rates. Not so.

The latest data from the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Center show that 63.1% of the U.S. population has been fully vaccinated with at least two doses. The U.S. ranks behind 58 other countries on this statistic. These 58 nations include nine countries to our south: Chile (87.5%), Cuba (85.4%), Uruguay (77.3%), Argentina (73.6%), Ecuador (72.4%), Costa Rica (70.3%), Brazil (68.2%), Peru (66.4%) and El Salvador (64.5%). And Panama with a rate of 58.3% and Mexico at 57.1% are not far behind the U.S.

These 11 Latin American countries are far poorer and arguably less organized than the U.S. but have lost many fewer lives to COVID-19.

Mexico opened registrations for COVID-19 vaccines to the entire population over the age of 18 in July. And now Mexico has a higher vaccination rate than 18 U.S. states, with 10 of these in the South, four in the Midwest and four in the West. Idaho (47.6%), (42.2%) and Mississippi (48.8%) have the nations lowest vaccination rates.

Several sociocultural factors contribute to the higher vaccination rates in many Latin American nations, but what stands out is the cooperation among all age groups in complying with mitigation strategies wearing masks, social distancing, getting vaccines, and washing hands frequently and surfaces daily. Beginning in September, for example, Uruguay provided inoculation in the workplace to facilitate easy access during employees working hours. The prevention efforts are viewed as a social responsibility. This is not what is happening here.

In addition, the Catholic Church leadership, a salient institution in Mexico, launched a public health campaign to reinforce the basics of staying safe during the COVID-19 pandemic and promoting vaccination compliance. That has helped Mexico. This is going on in the U.S. to a certain extent. For example, a coalition of 28 U.S. Catholic organizations mobilized efforts to accept vaccines and promote equitable distribution of vaccines for the underserved and among communities of color. But this is a small effort compared with those happening elsewhere.

The reasons so many Americans less than 65 years of age have refused to get vaccinated are varied, but politics is a major dividing line. Seventeen of the 18 states that have lower vaccination rates than Mexico are predominantly red states. And it seems that people who have not received the vaccination have dug their heels in the ground with little movement.

Any use of mandates puts federalism to the test. The public sector has confronted numerous challenges, including obstinate employees, resulting in limited success. As such, the private sector needs to work alongside the public sector in the establishment of mandates requiring employees to be vaccinated with appropriate exceptions. A safe and healthy workplace is essential to establish a sense of security that is currently missing.

Achieving this goal will require acting on President Joe Bidens COVID-19 initiatives that spur business and protect the nations health. As six former members of the presidents COVID-19 advisory board recently pointed out, we also need to embrace the new normal, conceding the stark reality that we will never get 100% of the population vaccinated or defeat the virus.

Furthermore, it is critical to extend the series of business roundtables convened by strategic partnership in the corporate and nonprofit sectors such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, industry groups and leaders of communities of color. These groups would identify new financial incentives to help reduce barriers and encourage vaccinations.

We are all in this together. Being adaptive is surely well worth the cost given what is at stake.

Jacqueline Angel is a professor in the LBJ School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin.

Rogelio Senz is a professor in the Department of Demography at The University of Texas at San Antonio.

A version of this op-ed appeared in The Hill.

Originally posted here:

What US Gets Wrong About Vaccines That Other Countries Get Right - UT News - UT News | The University of Texas at Austin