“When you are in local government, you are on the ground, and you are looking into the eyes and hearts of the people you are there to serve. It teaches you to listen; it teaches you to be expansive in the people with whom you talk to, and I think that engagement gives you political judgement.”
— Valerie Jarrett, Chief Executive Officer of the Obama Foundation
Local governance is about managing public affairs at the community level, involving local governments, citizens and organisations in making and implementing decisions for services such as roads, sanitation, schools and parks. It aims to be responsive, efficient and representative of local needs through participatory processes such as budgeting, planning and service delivery. It decentralises power, bringing government closer to people, fostering democracy and addressing local development issues.
The question is whether local communities in Sri Lanka participate in, or have a say in, any of the above activities. Overall, it appears that elections to local government authorities have become a referendum on the national government and a hotbed for national political battles thereafter. While there may be some local bodies that are engaged in genuine local governance involving their communities, broadly speaking there appears to be very little engagement with local communities to discuss, identify and agree on local priorities, or to monitor progress against such agreed priorities. There are virtually no avenues or arrangements for local communities to meet the councillors they have elected and who supposedly represent them.
From all accounts, electing local councils at a huge cost to taxpayers appears to have been an absolute waste of money. If the elections were meant to foster and strengthen democracy and promote discussions on local issues, they have been a farce as far as local communities are concerned. The focus has been on national partisan politics, with little or nothing to do with local issues.
As the Museum of Australian Democracy notes, “democracy is fundamentally about discussion, often referred to as ‘government by discussion’, because it relies on consultation, debate and the free exchange of ideas among citizens to make informed decisions, manage differences, and ensure the collective good through peaceful, inclusive dialogue rather than force. This ongoing conversation, requiring active listening and flexible thinking, sustains democratic life by allowing diverse viewpoints to be considered and integrated.”
The overall governance model in Sri Lanka—whether at national, provincial or local government level—does not subscribe to this ideal. The practice of democracy is largely limited to periodic voting to elect a national Parliament, provincial councils and local councils. Even this exercise generally involves very little direct engagement between those seeking election and those who vote.
The recent local government elections, and the manner in which some councils were formed, amply demonstrated the antithesis of what local governance and democratic ideals should be. This trend has continued, as seen in subsequent developments in some councils where budgets were defeated despite councils being formed with majority support, either by a single party or through coalitions. The elections themselves focused on national politics rather than local issues, and subsequent council formations were driven primarily by attempts to demonstrate either support for, or opposition to, national government policies. This was all in the pursuit of power rather than service to local communities.
Looking to the future, a genuine system change is required if a truer sense of democracy is to be practised at all levels of governance.
It is hoped that the new Constitution, expected to be drafted following a consultative process and presented for a referendum, will address a critical missing element of democracy: mechanisms for meaningful discussion and debate between those seeking election and those voting, both during elections and thereafter.
With regard to local governance, the following key aspects merit consideration by elected local government councils:
- Shifting the emphasis from national issues to local community issues, while also providing avenues for communities to engage in discussions on national matters.
- Providing essential local services such as waste management; coordinating water and electricity supply; road maintenance; local government health services including preventive and basic primary healthcare; development of parks and other recreational facilities; housing, including zonal planning; promotion and provision of sports facilities; and efficient library services.
- Managing resources, enforcing environmental regulations, and promoting green initiatives such as waste reduction and renewable energy.
- Creating business-friendly environments, supporting local entrepreneurs, and developing green jobs to stimulate the local economy and create employment.
- Strengthening citizen engagement by involving residents and community groups in discussions and decisions that affect their lives through regular constituency meetings, using both online and offline methods (meetings, surveys and digital platforms), and ensuring accessibility and representation for all groups (for example, through translated materials and accessible venues).
- Acting as a link between citizens and the broader provincial and national governments, reflecting local interests, perspectives and concerns.
- Developing five-year strategic plans for each local government entity that reflect community priorities identified through discussion and consultation. These plans should include clearly defined goals and objectives, action plans, estimated and allocated funding, and monitoring mechanisms to ensure compliance. The entity’s budget should comprise a five-year forward estimate based on the strategic plan, along with an annual budget reflecting actual allocations for the financial year. Such forward planning, coupled with annual reviews and adjustments, would provide local communities with greater certainty about the entity’s longer-term programme of action.
- Engaging in data-driven policy formulation that directly addresses community needs, such as tailored housing or transport solutions.
These key aspects could be implemented immediately, including mechanisms to engage national parliamentarians in discussions at the local government entity level. The government and the opposition could nominate and allocate a number of local government entities to individual Members of Parliament, who would attend periodic meetings of those entities. This would facilitate discussion of national priorities, how they apply locally, and the exchange of views between national and local representatives. However, it must be emphasised that the primary purpose of local governance is to serve the community within each local government entity, not to advance national political agendas or party interests.
Ideally, partisan politics and political parties should not dominate local government entities. Members should be elected in their individual capacities, based on their ability to convince constituents that they are best suited to serve them. Partisan politics in Sri Lanka has been, and continues to be, deeply divisive and has not served citizens as it should have. The lack of unity among national political parties in the face of the worst cyclone disaster experienced in Sri Lanka in living memory clearly demonstrates the damage such partisanship has caused and continues to cause.
A well-functioning local governance model—one that prioritises community interests, encourages participation in decision-making, and supports inclusive policy formulation—will form the bedrock of a grassroots, bottom-up political process. A small number of individuals in Parliament, provincial councils or local government entities should not assume the role of sole thinkers and decision-makers. Sri Lanka possesses a wealth of untapped knowledge and talent, and engaging citizens meaningfully in policy development would undoubtedly benefit the country.
