With its final foray into Northern Ireland, Norway and Denmark, the LTTE has completed its series of foreign visits for consultations on its proposals for an interim administrative structure for the north east. There is no doubt that the LTTE used this period to meet with its friends and allies in its most important support bases worldwide. The LTTE will need support in the days and months ahead, as much as the government, which has its Prime Minister also circling the globe in search of support. Both are taking steps into an uncertain future, the government as much as the LTTE.

The day of reckoning is believed to be November 1, by which date the LTTE will publicly announce its proposals and their rationale. They will do so in an unsettled political context in the south of the country, with the main opposition parties still trying to find common cause to topple the government.

There are stories being floated that the release of the LTTE's proposals will be the occasion to mobilise patriotic citizens against the perceived betrayal of the country, and might even lead to a use of the President's enormous powers to cut short the tenure of the government.

There is no doubt that the LTTE's interim administration proposals will be ambitious ones. They can be expected to befit an organisation that fought relentlessly for Tamil rights and independence for twenty years. But, instead of being discouraged or disconcerted by what is presented, Sri Lankans should welcome the opportunity to see another vision of what their country might be. In other words, the LTTE's proposals present an opportunity for Sri Lanka to engage in a paradigm shift, which is to see reality in a fresh way.

Paradigm shifts generally do not simply come out of the air or from pure inspiration. Most often they come because of intense pressure to get out of a problem from which there seems to be no other escape.

Ironically, it is more often from our enemies and opponents that we find what is wrong with us, than from our friends and relatives. Both as individuals and as institutions we are blind to our own defects, and imagine that they are less than what they really are, preferring to remain as we are, rather than make a change.

At this decisive time it is worth remembering that the peace process commenced with a paradigm shift. In its most ideal characterisation, it was seeing the enemy with new eyes as a partner in the creation of a new, prosperous and just society.

This is what made the difference between war and peace. All the ingredients for peace had been laid in place by the government of President Chandrika Kumaratunga at the time of its electoral defeat in December 2001, mired in the midst of an increasingly costly war. But the paradigm shift had to await the new government.

Positive aspect
The acceptance of Norwegian facilitation and support of the international community, the acceptance of the federal principle in the form of the devolution package and the relinquishing of hope in the military solution had all been obtained during the period of the previous government.

But it required a further shift of vision to see the LTTE as a potential partner, and not merely as an enemy. At the outset of the peace process, when the newly elected government lifted security barriers, the economic embargo and the ban on the LTTE, there were many who thought that the government had gone too far.

The reason why the LTTE's interim administration proposals are potentially positive is that they are a catalyst for change. Without a powerful force pushing for change, inertia sets in and does not permit change.

Today Sri Lanka is far behind countries such as Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, which it was far in front of fifty years ago. For the country to take the leap into the new era of dynamism, it needs to get rid of its inappropriate structures of governance, the worst of which is centralised decision -making in Colombo. It made sense for the British rulers to concentrate powers of governance in Colombo during the colonial era in order to keep the dynamic energies of the people suppressed and minimise the costs of governance. Centralisation of power also implies that the people are uniform and not diverse, which is not true of Sri Lanka. A multi-ethnic society that seeks to maximise the life opportunities of its people, and free their creative energies that feed into self-sustaining development, needs to find a way out of centralisation.

Federalism is the answer to centralisation. At the Oslo peace talks in December 2002, the government and LTTE issued a joint declaration about exploring a federal solution.

The problem is that federalism is not a familiar concept to Sri Lankans. It is natural that Sri Lankans know little about federalism, when for the past 170 years, since the Colebrook-Cameroon reforms of 1833, Sri Lanka has had a centralised administration.

The problem for Sri Lanka in getting out of the straitjacket of the unitary state is that it has no experience of federal governance. Therefore there is little practical expertise in this field within the country. Most local commentators on the ills and pitfalls of the federal system have lived most of their lives in one of the most centralised systems of government in the world, which is what the Sri Lankan system has been since the Colebrook-Cameroon reforms. The critiques and fears of federalism come from theory and not from lived experience. This may explain why there is so little constructive discussion about the most appropriate form of federalism for the country.

International experience
The contribution of the international community to provide resources for the LTTE and other Sri Lankan leaders to travel abroad and study federal systems at first hand is a great contribution towards the peace process. Through exposure to the federal experience of foreign countries, ranging from Belgium to India, we would realise that federalism encompasses a variety of power sharing schemes. No one would doubt that Malaysia, for instance, is today a very prosperous, powerful and united country. But to protect the way of life and ethnic majority status of indigenous people living on some of their islands, even Malaysians need to have a passport to go to those places.

India has a very well developed experience of federal governance that would be wise for both the government and LTTE to consider. India is a success story of an evolution of federalism, whereby tremendous ethnic, linguistic and religious diversities have been contained within one framework of governance. On paper the Indian federal system is described as quasi federal or semi federal. But in practice today, through both judicial interpretation and electoral realities, the Indian federal system has evolved into a genuine one, in which the central government does not interfere with the autonomy of the states.

The powers of regional units in federal systems over police, land, taxation and judiciary, said to be claimed by the LTTE, are basic to most federal systems. Of course, in democratic societies federal powers are not only a matter of regional elites wresting powers from central elites. This is presently the case in Sri Lanka, where the interim administration would see the LTTE get power legally transferred to it from the central government.

But in true federal systems, there are elaborate systems of checks and balances, which include accountability to higher levels of authority and, ultimately, to the people themselves at free and fair elections. This is a reality that the LTTE needs to realise and hopefully will respect when it puts out its interim administration proposals.

In recent weeks India has taken a very forthright and constructive stance towards the peace process. It has discounted fears that there is a security threat to its investments in the east of the country due to any LTTE military build up. It has also said that it expects the LTTE to be reasonable and comprehensive in the proposals it makes regarding an interim administration, and stressed that it should be linked to the final settlement.

The linkage of the interim administration to the final solution is important because it implies that there will be a progression towards a federal and democratic system.

At present neither of these is present in the north east. The interim administration that is permissible, and realistic to achieve, at this stage will necessarily have less powers and democracy in it than the final solution, which must see the full flowering of democracy and sharing of power at all levels and for all communities.

It is likely that there will be elements of the LTTE's proposals that will be immediately acceptable, and others that will not be acceptable. It will be necessary to negotiate until both sides agree. In the days and months ahead, both sides will need international advice to find a just and efficient solution that will be new to both, and to all of us as well.