W D K (Kasturiratne) Gunawardene as a young man (left) and at 80
Kasturi was born in another century in what now feels like an entirely different country. It was called Ceylon, a British colony, and the year was 1933.
Kasturi’s was a very ordinary life, which was mostly dedicated to education. But it was punctuated at various points by key events of his country and people. Tracing his life thus offers us some glimpses of his nation’s turbulent times.
At age two, he survived malaria during the major epidemic of 1933-35 which killed as estimated 80,000 to 100,000 Lankans. (He lived to see malaria being eradicated from Sri Lanka by 2016.)
At 15, as a schoolboy he walked to Colombo’s Torrington square to personally bear witness to Ceylon becoming independent (1948). The following day, he wrote the best essay in class in which he outlined high hopes and dreams for his now self-governing nation.
At 20, he entered the University of Ceylon and was among the first students to experience the newly established Peradeniya campus where he studied history and Sinhala language. From the scenic hills, he would see the political transformation of 1956, as well as the cultural revival heralded by Maname (landmark Sinhala drama) and Rekava (landmark Sinhala movie).
At 25, as a fresh graduate entering the world, he witnessed the 1958 ethnic riots that foreshadowed the Sinhala-Tamil ethnic conflict that consumed his nation for the next half century. Among much else, it evaporated young Kasturi’s dreams of an inter-racial marriage.
At 50, as a teacher and father, he saw the far worse anti-Tamil pogrom of 1983. For the next quarter century, he would watch in horror — and guilt — as his generation’s collective blunders consumed the next generation’s future.
At 76, as a senior citizen still active in social work and literacy circles, he saw Sri Lanka’s civil war being ended brutally (2009). He had the audacity to hope once more, even if only cautiously. And yet again, his and many others’ hopes were dashed as political opportunism and corruption soon trumped over true healing and nation building. The nation was polarised beyond recognition.
At 82, he voted for a common opposition candidate (January 2015) and for political parties (Aug 2015) who pledged good governance (yaha-palanaya). That was his last public gesture, after having voted at all national elections during his time, and having spent 25 years as a public servant. He played by all the rules, but was let down by the system.
At 84, as he coped with a corroding cancer, Kasturi watched in dismay the much-touted promise of yaha-palana being squandered and betrayed. On 13 September 2017, he departed as a deeply disappointed man who remained highly apologetic for many wrong-turns taken by his generation.
Kasturi isn’t a figment of my imagination. Neither is he a composite character. Until yesterday, Kasturi was all too real. He was my father, whom we returned to the Earth today at a simple funeral. – Nalaka Gunawardene
We as a nation collectively uttered these words as we raised our heads after the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 2004. That mega-disaster, which caught our government unawares and society unprepared, devastated many coastal areas, killing around 40,000 and displacing over a million people.
Even a 30 minute early warning could have saved many of those lost lives, by simply asking them to run inland, away from the waves. But there was no such warning.
Badly shaken by that experience, the then government reformed disaster related laws and institutions. Until then, dealing with disaster response was lumped under social services. The new system created a dedicated ministry for disaster management, with emphasis on disaster risk reduction (DRR).
Living amidst multiple hazards is unavoidable, but preparedness can vastly reduce impacts when disasters do occur. That is DRR in a nutshell.
But in immature democracies like ours, we must never say never again. Our political parties and politicians lack the will and commitment required to meet these long-term objectives. Our governance systems are not fully capable of keeping ourselves safe from Nature’s wrath.
Disaster resilience is not a technocratic quick fix but the composite outcome of a myriad actions. Good governance is the vital ‘lubricant’ that makes everything come together and work well. Without governance, we risk slipping back into business as usual, continuing our apathy, greed and short-termism.
This big picture level reality could well be why disaster response has been patchy and uncoordinated in both May 2016 and last week.
Fundamental issues
As the flood waters recede in affected parts of Sri Lanka, familiar questions are being asked again. Did the government’s disaster management machinery fail to warn the communities at risk? Or were the hazard warnings issued but poorly communicated? And once disaster occurred, could the relief response have been better handled? Are we making enough use of technological tools?
Finger pointing won’t get us very far, even though public anger is justified where governmental lapses are evident. We need to move beyond the blame game to identify core issues and then address them.
In my view, two high level issues are climate resilience and improved governance.
DRR is easier said than done in the best of times, and in recent years human-made climate change has made it much harder. Global warming is disrupting familiar weather patterns and causing more frequent and intense weather. What used to be weather extremes occurring once in 25 or 50 years in the past now happens every few years.
Climate imperatives
The UN’s climate panel (IPCC) says that global average temperatures could rise by somewhere between 2 degree and 6 degrees Centigrade by 2100. This would trigger many disruptions, including erratic monsoons, the seasonal oceanic winds that deliver most of our annual rains.
That is more than two thirds of the total number of 646,500 people affected by floods and landslides in the South, as counted on June 1. But slowly-unfolding droughts never get the kind of press that floods inspire.
One thing is clear: disaster management can succeed today only if climate realities are factored in. And coping with climate change’s now inevitable impacts, a process known as climate adaptation, requires technical knowledge combined with proper governance of both natural resources and human systems.
Sri Lanka: Not only oscillating between droughts and floods, but now also having both disasters at the same time. Cartoon by Gihan de Chickera
Adapt or Perish
Sri Lanka joined the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992. But 25 years on, climate considerations are not fully factored into our development planning and public investments. State agencies in charge of roads, railways, irrigation works and utilities don’t appear to realise the need to ‘insure’ their installations and operations from climate impacts.
Climate adaptation is not something that the disaster ministry and DMC alone can accomplish. It needs to be a common factor that runs across the entire government, from agriculture and health to power and transport. It needs to be the bedrock of DRR.
We need aware and empowered local communities matched by efficient local government bodies. This combination has worked well, for example, in the Philippines, now hailed as a global leader in DRR.
From that day, the island nation’s 21 million citizens can exercise their legal right to public information held by various layers and arms of government.
One month is too soon to know how this law is changing a society that has never been able to question their rulers – monarchs, colonials or elected governments – for 25 centuries. But early signs are encouraging.
Sri Lanka’s 22-year advocacy for RTI was led by journalists, lawyers, civil society activists and a few progressive politicians. If it wasn’t a very grassroots campaign, ordinary citizens are beginning to seize the opportunity now.
RTI can be assessed from its ‘supply side’ as well as the ‘demand side’. States are primarily responsible for supplying it, i.e. ensuring that all public authorities are prepared and able to respond to information requests. The demand side is left for citizens, who may act as individuals or in groups.
In Sri Lanka, both these sides are getting into speed, but it still is a bumpy road.
Cartoon by Gihan de Chickera, Daily Mirror
During February, we noticed uneven levels of RTI preparedness across the 52 government ministries, 82 departments, 386 state corporations and hundreds of other ‘public authorities’ covered by the RTI Act. After a six month preparatory phase, some institutions were ready to process citizen requests from Day One. But many were still confused, and a few even turned away early applicants.
Such teething problems are not surprising — turning the big ship of government takes time and effort. We can only hope that all public authorities, across central, provincial and local government, will soon be ready to deal with citizen information requests efficiently and courteously.
Some, like the independent Election Commission, have already set a standard for this by processing an early request for audited financial reports of all registered political parties for the past five years.
On the demand side, citizens from all walks of life have shown considerable enthusiasm. By late February, according to Dr Ranga Kalansooriya, Director General of the Department of Information, more than 1,500 citizen RTI requests had been received. How many of these requests will ultimately succeed, we have to wait and see.
Reports in the media and social media indicate that the early RTI requests cover a wide range of matters linked to private grievances or public interest.
Under the RTI law, public authorities can’t play hide and seek with citizens. They must provide written answers in 14 days, or seek an extension of another 21 days.
To improve their chances and avoid hassle, citizens should ask their questions as precisely as possible, and know the right public authority to lodge their requests. Civil society groups can train citizens on this, even as they file RTI requests of their own.
That too is happening, with trade unions, professional bodies and other NGOs making RTI requests in the public interest. Some of these ask inconvenient yet necessary questions, for example on key political leaders’ asset declarations, and an official assessment of the civil war’s human and property damage (done in 2013).
Politicians and officials are used to dodging such queries under various pretexts, but the right use of RTI law by determined citizens can press them to open up – or else.
The Right to Information Commission will play a decisive role in ensuring the law’s proper implementation. “These are early days for the Commission which is still operating in an interim capacity with a skeletal staff from temporary premises,” it said in a media statement on February 10.
The real proof of RTI – also a fundamental right added to Constitution in 2015 – will be in how much citizens use it to hold government accountable and to solve their pressing problems. Watch this space.
Science writer and media researcher Nalaka Gunawardene is active on Twitter as @NalakaG. Views in this post are his own.
One by one, Sri Lanka public agencies are displaying their RTI officer details as required by law. Example: http://www.pucsl.gov.lk saved on 24 Feb 2017
Now, as we enter 2017, civil society faces the twin challenges of holding the current government to account, and preventing yaha-palanaya ideal from being discredited by expedient politicians. At the same time, civil society must also become more professionalised and accountable.
‘Civil society’ is a basket term: it covers a variety of entities outside the government and corporate sectors. These include not only non-governmental organisations (NGOs) but also trade unions, student unions, professional associations (and federations), and community based or grassroots groups. Their specific mandates differ, but on the whole civil society strives for a better, safer and healthier society for everyone.
The path to such a society lies inevitably through a political process, which civil society cannot and should not avoid. Some argue that civil society’s role is limited to service delivery. In reality, worthy tasks like tree planting, vaccine promoting and microcredit distributing are all necessary, but not all sufficient if fundamentals are not in place. For lasting change to happen, civil society must engage with the core issues of governance, rights and social justice.
Ideally, however, civil society groups should not allow themselves to be used or subsumed by political parties. I would argue that responsible civil society groups now set the standards for our bickering and hesitant politicians to aspire to.
Take, for example, two progressive legal measures adopted during 2016: setting aside a 25% mandatory quota for women in local government elections, and legalising the Right to Information. Both these had long been advocated by enlightened civil society groups. They must now stay vigilant to ensure the laws are properly implemented.
Other ideals, like the March 12 Movement for ensuring clean candidates at all elections, need sustained advocacy. So Lankan civil society has plenty of unfinished business in 2017.
Nalaka Gunawardene writes on science, development and governance issues. He tweets from @NalakaG.
Note: Cartoons appearing here did not accompany the article published in The Sunday Leader.
After 18 months in office, Sri Lanka’s President Maithripala Sirisena seems less keen on his electoral promises of good governance, which he had articulated with lots of help from civil society. Cartoon by Gihan de Chickera, Daily Mirror, 24 June 2016.
Nalaka Gunawardene speaks at RTI Seminar for Sri Lanka Parliament staff, 16 Aug 2016
On 16 August 2016, I was invited to speak to the entire senior staff of the Parliament of Sri Lanka on Right to Information (RTI) – South Asian experiences.
Sri Lanka’s Parliament passed the Right to Information (RTI) law on 24 June 2016. Over 15 years in the making, the RTI law represents a potential transformation across the whole government by opening up hitherto closed public information (with certain clearly specified exceptions related to national security, trade secrets, privacy and intellectual property, etc.).
This presentation introduces the concept of citizens’ right to demand and access public information held by the government, and traces the evolution of the concept from historical time. In fact, Indian Emperor Ashoka (who reigned from c. 268 to 232 Before Christ) was the first to grant his subjects the Right to Information, according to Indian RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak, Coordinator, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI). Ashoka had inscribed on rocks all over the Indian subcontinent his government’s policies, development programmes and his ideas on various social, economic and political issues — including how religious co-existence.
Nalaka Gunawardene speaks at RTI Seminar for Parliament staff, Sri Lanka – 16 Aug 2016
Therefore, adopting an RTI law signifies upholding a great Ashokan tradition in Sri Lanka. The presentation looks at RTI good practices and implementation experiences in India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Maldives – all these South Asian countries passed an RTI law before Sri Lanka, and there is much that Sri Lanka can learn from them.
The presentation ends acknowledging the big challenges in implementing RTI in Sri Lanka – reorienting the entire public sector to change its mindset and practices to promote a culture of information sharing and transparent government.
On 11 May 2016, Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Parliamentary Reforms & Mass Media convened a meeting with the senior managers of print and broadcasting media house to discuss how media can support the new Right to Information (RTI) law that has recently been tabled in Parliament.
Nearly 15 years in the making, the RTI law is to be debated in June and expected to be adopted with multi-party consensus. The law represents a transformation across government by opening up hitherto closed public information (with certain cleared specified exceptions).
While media can also benefit from RTI, it is primarily a law for ordinary citizens to demand and receive information related to everyday governance (most of it at local levels). For this, citizens need to understand the RTI process and potential benefits. Media can play a major role in explaining RTI law, and promoting its use in many different ways to promote the public interest and to nurture a culture of evidence-based advocacy for good governance and public accountability.
This presentation was made by media researcher and columnist Nalaka Gunawardene in his capacity as a member of the voluntary Right to Information Task Force convened by the Ministry of Parliamentary Reforms & Mass Media. He illustrates how RTI can benefit citizens, and shares examples from other South Asian countries where newspapers and broadcast houses have been promoting RTI in innovative ways.
In this week’s Ravaya column (appearing in the print issue of 1 May 2016), I return to the topic of Sri Lanka’s new Right to Information (RTI) law that has recently been tabled in Parliament.
Over 15 years in the making, the RTI law is to be debated in June and expected to be adopted with multi-party consensus. The law represents a transformation across government by opening up hitherto closed public information (with certain cleared specified exceptions).
While media can also benefit from RTI, it is primarily a law for ordinary citizens to demand and receive information related to everyday governance (most of it at local levels). For this, citizens need to understand the RTI process and potential benefits. Media can play a major role in explaining RTI law, and promoting its use in many different ways to promote the public interest and to nurture a culture of evidence-based advocacy for good governance and public accountability.
In this column, I look at how RTI can benefit citizens, and share examples from other South Asian countries where even school children are using RTI to solve local level problems that affect their family, school or local community.
RTI Law is like a key that opens government information
In this week’s Ravaya column (appearing in issue of 17 January 2016), I critique the public communications practices President Maithripala Sirisena of Sri Lanka – and call for better listening and more engagement by the head of state.
I point out that Sirisena is in danger of overexposure in the mainstream media, which I call the ‘Premadasa Syndrome’ (as this bad practice was started by President R Premadasa who was in office from 1988 to May 1993). I argue that citizens don’t need to be force-fed a daily dose of presidential activities on prime time news or in the next day’s newspapers. If public documentation is needed, use the official website.
Like other politicians in Sri Lanka, Sirisena uses key social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to simply disseminate his speeches, messages and photos. But his official website has no space for citizens to comment. That is old school broadcasting, not engaging.
This apparent aloofness, and the fact that he has not done a single Twitter/Facebook Q&A session before or after the election, detracts from his image as a consultative political leader.
On the whole, I would far prefer to see a more engaged (yet far less preachy!) presidency. It would be great to have our First Citizen using mainstream media as well as new media platforms to have regular conversations with the rest of us citizens on matters of public interest. A growing number of modern democratic rulers prefer informal citizen engagement without protocol or pomposity. President Sirisena is not yet among them.
“For only the second time in my life, I voted for a winning candidate on 8 Jan 2015. I now keep insisting that Maithripala Sirisena delivers on his promises.” – Nalaka Gunwardene, blogger and tweep
It was also Sri Lanka’s first national level election where smartphones and social media played a key role and probably made a difference in the outcome. During the weeks running up to 8 January, hundreds of thousands of Lankans from all walks of life used social media to vent their frustrations, lampoon politicians, demand clarity on election manifestos, or simply share hopes for a better future.
As I documented shortly afterwards, most of us were not supporting any political party or candidate. We were just fed up with nearly a decade of mega-corruption, nepotism and malgovernance. Our scattered and disjointed protests – both online and offline – added up to just enough momentum to defeat the strongman Mahinda Rajapaksa. Just weeks earlier, he had appeared totally invincible.
Thus began the era of yaha-palanaya or good governance.
In real life, democracy is a work in progress and good governance, an arduous journey. In this week’s Ravaya column (appearing in issue of 10 January 2016), I argue that voting in two key elections during 2015 (including Parliamtnary Election held on 17 August) was the easy part. We citizens now have to be vigilant and stay engaged with the government to ensure that our politicians actually walk their talk.
Here, we can strategically use social media among other advocacy methods and tools.
මැතිවරණඅතරතුරකාලයේදේශපාලනයහාආණ්ඩුකරණය(politics and governance) එමකාර්යයේපූර්ණකාලීනවනිරතවනදේශපාලකයන්පිරිසකටපවරාඅපේවැඩක්බලාගෙනඔහේඉන්නටඉඩක්අපටනැහැ. දශකගණනක්එසේකිරීමේබරපතලවිපාකඅපදැන්අත්විඳිනවා.
Under the agreement, signed in New Delhi on 16 February 2015 during President Maithripala Sirisena’s first overseas visit, India will help Sri Lanka build its nuclear energy infrastructure, upgrade existing nuclear technologies and train specialised staff. The two countries will also collaborate in producing and using radioactive isotopes.
On the same day, a story filed from the Indian capital by the Reuters news agency said, “India could also sell light small-scale nuclear reactors to Sri Lanka which wants to establish 600 megawatts of nuclear capacity by 2030”.
This was neither confirmed nor denied by officials. The full text has not been made public, but a summary appeared on the website of Sri Lanka’s Atomic Energy Board. In it, AEB reassured the public that the deal does not allow India to “unload any radioactive wastes” in Sri Lanka, and that all joint activities will comply with standards and guidelines set by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a UN body in which both governments are members.
According to AEB, Sri Lanka has also signed a memorandum of understanding on nuclear cooperation with Russia, while another is being worked out with Pakistan.
Beyond such generalities, no specific plans have been disclosed. We need more clarity, transparency and adequate public debate on such a vital issue with many economic, health and environmental implications. Yaha-paalanaya (good governance) demands nothing less.
South Asia’s nuclear plans
The South Asian precedent is not encouraging. Our neighbouring countries with more advanced in nuclear programmes have long practised a high level of opacity and secrecy.
Two countries — India and Pakistan – already have functional nuclear power plants, which generate around 4% of electricity in each country. Both have ambitious expansion plans involving global leaders in the field like China, France, Russia and the United States. Bangladesh will soon join the nuclear club: it is building two Russian-supplied nuclear power reactors, the first of which will be operational by 2020.
Both countries have historically treated their civilian and military nuclear establishments as ‘sacred cows’ beyond any public scrutiny. India’s Official Secrets Act of 1923 covers its nuclear energy programme which cannot be questioned by the public or media. Even senior Parliamentarians complain about the lack of specific information.
It is the same, if not worse, in Pakistan. Pakistani nuclear physicist Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy, an analyst on science and security, finds this unacceptable. “Our nuclear power programme is opaque since it was earlier connected to the weapons programme. Under secrecy, citizens have much essential information hidden from them both in terms of safety and costs.”
The bottomline: all South Asian countries need more electricity as their economies grow. Evidence suggests that increasing electricity consumption per capita enhance socio-economic development.
The challenge is how to generate sufficient electricity, and fast enough, without high costs or high risks? What is the optimum mix of options: should nuclear be considered alongside hydro, thermal, solar and other sources?
In 2013, Sri Lanka’s total installed electricity generation capacity in the grid was 3,290 MegaWatts (MW). The system generated a total electricity volume of 12,019.6 GigWatt-hours (GWh) that year. The relative proportions contributed by hydro, thermal and new renewable energies (wind, solar and biomass) vary from year to year. (Details at: http://www.info.energy.gov.lk/)
In a year of good rainfall, (such as 2013), half of the electricity can still come from hydro – the cheapest kind to generate. But rainfall is unpredictable, and in any case, our hydro potential is almost fully tapped. For some years now, it is imported oil and coal that account for a lion’s share of our electricity. Their costs depend on international market prices and the USD/LKR exchange rate.
Image courtesy Ministry of Power and Energy, Sri Lanka, website
Should Sri Lanka phase in nuclear power at some point in the next two decades to meet demand that keeps rising with lifestyles and aspirations? Much more debate is needed before such a decision.
Nuclear isn’t a panacea. In 2003, a study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on the future of nuclear power traced the “limited prospects for nuclear power” to four unresolved problems, i.e. costs, safety, waste and proliferation (http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/).
A dozen years on, the nuclear industry is in slow decline in most parts of the world says Dr M V Ramana, a physicist with the Program on Science and Global Security at Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. “In 1996, nuclear power contributed about 17.6% to the world’s electricity. By 2013, it was been reduced to a little over 10%. A large factor in this decline has been the fact that it was unable to compete economically with other sources of power generation.”
Safety issues
Beyond capital and recurrent cost considerations, issues of public safety and operator liability dominate the nuclear debate.
Take, for example, Pakistan’s recent decision to install two Chinese-supplied 1,100 MW reactors near Karachi, a megacity that packs almost Sri Lanka’s population. When concerned citizens challenged this in court, the government pleaded “national security was at stake” and so the public could not be involved in the process.
Dr Hoodbhoy is unconvinced, and cautions that his country is treading on very dangerous ground. He worries about what can go wrong – including reactor design problems, terrorist attacks, and the poor safety culture in South Asia that can lead to operator error.
He says: “The reactors to be built in Karachi are a Chinese design that has not yet been built or tested anywhere, not even in China. They are to be sited in a city of 20 million which is also the world’s fastest growing and most chaotic megalopolis. Evacuating Karachi in the event of a Fukushima or Chernobyl-like disaster is inconceivable!”
Princeton’s Dr Ramana, who has researched about opacity of India’s nuclear programmes, found similar aloofness. “The claim about national security is a way to close off democratic debate rather than a serious expression of some concern. It should be the responsibility of authorities to explain exactly in what way national security is affected.”
Following Fukushima, public apprehensions on the safety of nuclear power plants have been heightened. Governments – at least in democracies – need to be sensitive to public protests while seeking to ensure long term energy security.
By end 2014, India had 21 nuclear reactors in operation in 7 nuclear power plants, with a total installed capacity of 5,780 MW. Plans to build more have elicited sustained protests from local residents in proposed sites, as well as from national level advocacy groups.
India’s Nuclear Liability Law of 2010 covers both domestic and trans-boundary concerns. But the anti-nuclear groups are sceptical. Praful Bidwai, one of India’s leading anti-nuclear activists, says the protests have tested his country’s democracy. He has been vocal about the violent police response to protestors.
Nuclear Power Plants in India – official map 2014
Meanwhile, advocates of a non-nuclear future for the region say future energy needs can be met by advances in solar and wind technologies as well as improved storage systems (batteries). India is active on this front as well: it wants to develop a solar capacity of 100,000 MW by 2022.
India’s thrust in renewables does not affect its nuclear plans. However, even pro-nuclear experts recognise the need for better governance. Dr R Rajaraman, an emeritus professor of physics at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, wants India to retain the nuclear option — but with more transparency and accountability.
He said during our online debate: “We do need energy in India from every possible source. Nuclear energy, from all that I know, is one good source. Safety considerations are vital — but not enough to throw the baby out with the bathwater.”
Rajaraman argued that nuclear energy’s dangers need to be compared with the hazards faced by those without electricity – a development dilemma. He also urged for debate between those who promote and oppose nuclear energy, which is currently lacking.
Any discussion on nuclear energy is bound to generate more heat than light. Yet openness and evidence based discussion are essential for South Asian countries to decide whether and how nuclear power should figure in their energy mix.
In this, Sri Lanka must do better than its neighbours.
Open Minds! (formerly: Moving Images blog) 