Traffic congestion in Kandy is of no consequence to people living in Kegalle let alone those in Galle and Batticaloa. Colombo people are hardly worried about the quality of service of Kandy hospitals. People in Negombo may be worried about pollution of the Dutch Canal but Kandy people are worried about the pollution of the Meda Ela.

In a democracy addressing these local issues requires the understanding and support of the local people. When that understanding and support are absent it is much harder to make changes that are designed with good intentions for the greater good of the community. We are aware of the controversy that arose in respect of the one-way traffic system on Peradeniya Road and Gopallawa Mawatha. We won't comment on it because it is currently under judicial review.

Reconciling the conflicting interests of the different stakeholders is a major challenge that local officials face when implementing new projects that result in change. Development means change. Change produces winners and losers. The concerns of the losers have to be addressed to maintain community harmony and norms of democracy. In some cases the losers have to be adequately compensated for their loss. However, that does not mean that projects that are for the greater good of society have to be sacrificed to satisfy the selfish needs or each and everybody.

Balancing the sectional interests of different groups require political skill and sound management. The Kandy City Wastewater Disposal Project is a good example. The project was originally proposed in 1998. A rapidly growing city such as Kandy cannot survive without a wastewater disposal system. The pollution of the Meda Ela and especially the pollution of the Kandy Lake and the recent spread of hepatitis in Gampola bear ample testimony to that.

A battle of the sites delayed the project by about five years. “Not in my backyard” objection to the site selected for the purification plant was the main reason for the delay. Some of the sites selected for pumping stations, especially the one in Heerassagala, also provoked objections from local communities. Managers of the project believe that the delay has increased the cost of the project by at least by Rs1.0 billion.

It has taken several years for the government officials concerned to overcome these objections and launch the project. It is to the credit of the senior officials of the National Water Supply and Drainage Board that they are making a concerted effort now to educate and inform the public about the project and solicit their support.

Not all objections against public infrastructure development projects are raised with genuine public interest in mind. Some objectors are in the act for pure personal gain. They want to get the maximum amount in various compensations by holding the project to virtual ransom. It is now a well known fact that this has become a common tactic in major public works such as road construction. The government should look into this problem and if necessary amend the law.

Is Sri Lanka a Failed State?

In the past twelve months the term “failed state” has entered the popular political discourse of this country. Spokespersons for the main opposition UNP frequently describe Sri Lanka as a failed or failing state implying that the Mahinda Rajapakse government is responsible for the alleged failure.

Sate failure is not a new concept in poetical science. Much of political science has always dealt with the successes and failures of the state. However, the concept of “failed state” began to attracted popular attention a few years ago when two US organizations Fund for Peace (http://www.fundforpeace.org/programs/fsi/fsindex.php) and the foreign affairs magazine Foreign Policy got together to construct a “Failed State Index (FSI).”

Quantitative measurement of socio-economic and political phenomena is a part of modern social sciences methodology. Economics is the social science that uses most such indices. Economic growth rates and per capita income are familiar measurements to most people.
In the past twenty years constructing composite indices to measure more complex political, economic and social development has become a popular methodology in the social sciences. The Human Development Index (HDI) of the UNDP has been with us for nearly thirty years. This index places Sri Lanka at a relatively high level among developing countries on account of our better performance in health and education.

The Failed State Index is also a composite index that is designed to capture 'state failure.” The authors of the index define state failure in terms of the following four characteristics. The loss of control of territory is the first. As long as the LTTE controls a part of the country Sri Lanka will be a relative failure in terms of this characteristic. The recent military success in the East that helped reestablish government control over the province will have to be considered as a reduction in that failure.

The second, characteristic is the “erosion of legitimacy of the state.” This is a more nebulous concept that is harder to measure precisely. Opinions polls may help to get some handle on this. However, in Sri Lanka nobody really knows how people, especially the Tamil people, living in the north and east view the legitimacy of the government.

The inability of the state to provide “reasonable” public services are also considered as a characteristic of a failed state. In the present world the obvious examples are countries such as Somalia. Although Zimbabwe has a government, reports coming from that country suggest that the Mugabe administration is finding it increasingly hard to provide reasonable public services to the people.

In general the Sri Lankan state is able to provide public services to the people. However, the evidence also shows that after the ethnic war intensified after 1983 some services that the state provides, especially health has not been delivered in adequate quality and quantity to the war areas. Until the Ceasefire Agreement came into effect the French humanitarian organization MSF provided doctors and ancillary health personnel to some parts of the north and east. The presence of a large number of IDPs is also an indicator that the areas in question are not fully secured and state services have failed.

The fourth characteristic of a failed state is the inability to maintain inter-state relations. Sri Lanka obviously is not in this category.

The authors of the index use 12 indices to measure these four characteristics. Two are economic, five are political and the balance five are social. The authors give a value ranging from zero (best possible performance) to 10.0 (worst possible performance) for each index.
Each of the twelve indicators is measured by looking at a variety of conditions and events. For example, the economic performance indicator is described as “Sharp and/ or severe economic decline.” This is measured by looking at a large number of variables ranging from GNP, national debt, child mortality to the exchange rate and commodity prices. The Rule of Law and Human Rights Indicator is described as “Suspension or Arbitrary Application of the Rule of Law and Widespread Violation of Human Rights.” Under this the authors look at a variety of conditions ranging from “emergence of authoritarian, dictatorial or military rule in which constitutional and democratic institutions and processes are suspended or manipulated to outbreak of politically inspired (as opposed to criminal) violence against innocent civilians” to “widespread abuse of legal, political and social rights.”

The FSI has provoked a lot of controversy in Sri Lanka. Some have used it to suggest that the Rajapakse administration is failing. Others have criticized it implying that it is a part of some sort of western conspiracy to discredit Sri Lanka. Both perspectives are questionable.
The FSI has 146 countries. It certainly was not constructed to specifically target Sri Lanka or any other one country or group of countries. However, one can certainly criticize some of the methodology that is used to construct the index. To the extent that the methodology is faulty the results too are faulty. For example, the choice of indicators and the decision to give equal weight to each of the twelve indicators is in the final analysis a value judgment that some others may disagree with. One could argue, for instance, that in poor countries success or failure in poverty reduction must be given more weight than, say, the preservation or violation of press freedom.

A second, problem with the index is that some of the indices may be based on inaccurate quantitative and qualitative information. Using qualitative information poses two problems. Such information could be less than perfect and sometimes even be inaccurate. Imputing a numerical value to qualitative data involves a judgment that can be challenged. Quantitative information too can sometimes be misleading.

But the above shortcomings do not mean that such an exercise is totally useless. The FSI is an attempt to construct an overall picture of the success or failure of a country. It is a legitimate exercise. With or without an FSI, in public discourse, we refer to some countries as being more successful than others. For example, if the comparative performance of Sri Lanka and Malaysia in the past three decades is compared it is hard to dispute that overall Malaysia has done very much better than Sri Lanka in terms of economic progress, poverty reduction, and maintaining ethnic peace. This is reflected in the fact that Malaysia occupies the 79th position from the top in the 2006 FSI whereas Sri Lanka occupies the 152nd position. In fact allowing us to compare countries based on some set of defined criteria is useful to understand the status and performance of countries in a global context and over time. (Note: In the table that has been published on the web Sri Lanka occupies the 25th position and Malaysia 98th. The worse the performance (greater the state failure) higher the score in the FSI. That means in the official FSI website table you will see the countries that are more tending towards failure at the top of the list.)

Sudan with 112 out of a maximum possible 120 has the worst (highest) score. This is not surprising given the conditions in Darfur. But it is very likely that the Sudanese would contest this assessment. With the exception of the economic performance index for which the score is 7.5 all the other indices for Sudan get a score above 9.0. Given the recent oil-based economic boom in Sudan it is arguable that at least for the economy the country should get a better score.

The best country in FSI is Norway with a score of 17. The smaller Western European countries such as Sweden, Denmark and Finland as well as Japan are among the 13countires that are placed in the first tier with a score that is below 30.

The 26 second tier countries are in the 30-59.9 range and includes, among others, USA, UK, Germany, Singapore, South Korea and Oman. USA, for instance, scores poorly on human rights mainly on account of the situation connected with Iraq. It also gets a poor score for the economic inequalities that exist in the country.

The 78 third tier from 60 to 89.9 includes Malaysia, India, Thailand and China. According to the FSI assessment they are performing reasonably well but have significant scope for improvement.

It is the 28 countries in the fourth tier scoring anywhere from 90 to 120 that the authors say gives cause for much concern. Sri Lanka with a score of 92 is at the lower end of this tier. In this tie rwe keep company with, among others, Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is no question that all these countries are much troubled and not very stable.
Sri Lanka's best score (5.7) is in economic performance. All the other indices score above 7.0. An average score of 7.5 pushes a country to the last tier where we are. We get very bad scores for refugees and IDPs, for the sharp divisions that exist in the Sri Lankan political leadership and for the poor human rights record of the recent past.

My overall conclusion is that as long we appreciate the weaknesses of the FSI and use it with due caution, it is a useful indicator that gives some helpful insights into the conditions of our country and the direction in which we are moving. It gives a rough indication of where we stand on important areas of public life and where the government, civil society and the public at large must focus to improve conditions.