Council of State: A sound plan for India?

It’s a dreadful cliché, but perhaps it best explains a proposal by former Sri Lankan president Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga to change the governance structure of her country in response to the terrible crisis it faces. “Necessity is (indeed) the mother of invention” in this case. But what is that necessity? “The key problem,” she told me, “is that Sri Lankans have lost all faith in politicians”. Now isn’t that a predicament we face as well? So, could her solution work for us? I think it might.

What Ms Kumaratunga is proposing is an institution that will function alongside but parallel to the government. It will, of course, be subordinate to it, but it must always be consulted and, as she adds, “heard very seriously”. This institution — and in a moment I’ll tell you about it — is designed to give space and an opportunity to be heard to leading members of civil society.

Called the “Council of State”, it will have a five-year term and comprise 36 members, nine of whom are politicians, but 27 others nominated by civil society organisations such as the professions, business and the private sector, academia and a variety of non-government organisations. Members nominated by civil society will outnumber politicians 3:1. The chairman will be a distinguished citizen. It could be a former politician, but he cannot be a practising one. Ms Kumaratunga says this council has two key functions. “It will review important laws and policies before they are presented to Parliament by the government”, particularly those to do with the economy, governance, health and education. Second, “it may also propose laws to the cabinet and government”.

If you sense this is in some way similar to the United Progressive Alliance’s National Advisory Council, you would not be mistaken. But it’s a lot more than that. For a start, it’s not limited to people Sonia Gandhi admires and respects. It will include people of all viewpoints. They simply have to be distinguished in whatever field they’ve chosen to plough.

Ms Kumaratunga also intends this to be a formal and permanent part of Sri Lanka’s government and not an emergency response to the present crisis. If passed, incoming administrations will hereafter appoint a “Council of State” that will serve coterminously with the government.

I guess the intention behind Ms Kumaratunga’s proposal is obvious and straightforward. It’s not just to provide a permanent platform for independent, respected, sagacious and informed voices to advise and guide the government but also to broaden the base from which ideas for governance are sought, discussed, amended and, finally, agreed upon.

To put it pithily, it gives the cognoscenti — even if Italian, it’s certainly the mot juste in the circumstances! — who are otherwise limited to discussions on television and columns in newspapers, a means to be heard directly by the government and specifically consulted before key decisions are made. Of course, the government is free to disregard the Council. If that were not the case, Ms Kumaratunga accepts the government would be “degraded”. But the Council must be given adequate opportunity to be consulted and its views, critical or appreciative, must be considered seriously.

That, of course, is the catch. What would amount to proper consultation and effective consideration? Could it be evaded or diminished by sleight of hand? Of course, it can. But if it’s formally required,

THE COUNCIL OF STATE WILL BE A PERMANENT PLATFORM FOR INFORMED VOICES TO ADVISE THE GOVERNMENT AND ALSO TO BROADEN THE BASE FROM WHICH IDEAS FOR GOVERNANCE ARE SOUGHT, DISCUSSED, AMENDED AND, FINALLY, AGREED UPON

it has to be formally gone through. That will lessen the opportunities to circumvent. After that, we can only rely on everyone’s sense of honour and integrity.

I think something similar would make a lot of sense in India, perhaps, particularly at this moment when the country is increasingly polarised and the government is perceived as divisive.

If we had a Council of State, I doubt if demonetisation would have happened. I’m sure the Goods and Services Tax would have been better thought through. And almost certainly a lockdown at four hours’ notice would have been inconceivable. Could these be three good reasons why former president Kumaratunga’s proposal might work for us as well?

Karan Thapar is the author of Devil’s Advocate:

The Untold Story The views expressed are personal