 |
Sri Lankans make a unique and hilarious knicker-twisted nation,
exasperated over lengthy fuel lines to the point of ousting a president
and then entire families sweating lengthier lines under umbrellas to see
his residence. |
Any
uprising cast as being spontaneous invariably runs into a bunch of
problems, the most serious being the one about credentials. Who speaks
for the aragalaya, one could ask. If anyone claims he/she speaks for the aragalaya
(and many have, as individuals or groups), the immediate question is,
who gave him/her the authority and on what grounds? This of course
doesn’t necessarily mean that spontaneous mass uprisings are bad or are
bound to fail. Sometimes things unfold and it is in the unfolding that
leaders emerge.
As one might expect, the surge, whether all
spontaneous or subtlety orchestrated (yes, such things happen too), made
many want to have a piece of it. It was a low-cost adventure for many
who had for years benefitted from a rotten system but had never once
complained. Yes, they would whine now and then when preferred
parties/politicians were out of power but even when sworn enemies were
in power, they never balked at exploiting the very same rotten system.
There
were those kinds of people, largely Kolombians who had most likely
voted for Ranil/UNP or Sajith/SJB, Kolombians who were suffering from
lifestyle deprivation but were certainly not feeling anything like the
pinch that most people in the country were experiencing. They were a
small but significant minority in the aragalaya. Their posts were in
English. When they tried to speak in Sinhala, it was actually funny.
Mind you, the issue was not that Sinhala was not their mother tongue.
Why
am I talking about these politically marginal set of people, you may be
wondering. Well, there’s a note that’s being circulated titled ‘’Why
did we join the aragalaya?’ It is signed by ‘We, the people.’ Obviously convenient but possible dodgy. An interesting and telling read, though.
Here it is:
1.
WE…protested against the Rajapaksa regime. 2. WE…protested against
corruption, nepotism, violation of the rule of law and of human rights.
3. WE…protested in favour of economic stability, civil liberties and
rights, the upholding of the constitution, the legislature and the
preservation of our democratic values. 4. WE…protested as a Sri Lankan
along with my brothers and sisters, for what I believed would be a new
future for my country that is shaped in accordance with our
constitution. 5. WE…DID NOT PROTEST in favour of anarchy, violence or to
empower subversive elements who would deem to overthrow our democratic
values. What’s happening now is NOT OUR ARAGALAYA!
In Number 4,
there’s a slip from ‘we’ to ‘I’. I noticed in similar posts that this
has been since corrected. It’s a personal angst obviously, but then
again it is collectively subscribed to, going simply by the fact that it
is being shared on multiple social media platforms. Ok, that’s out of
the way.
So, ‘these people’ claim they protested against the
Rajapaksa regime. Fair enough. They’ve protested against corruption,
nepotism, violation of the rule of law and of human rights. Again,
legit. Now, is it the case that all these nasties (corruption, nepotism,
violation of the rule of law and of human rights) was the preserve of
Gotabaya Rajapaksa or indeed the Rajapaksa clan? Obviously not. We saw
such things galore even during the Yahapalana times during which there
was little ‘yaha’ and even less ‘palana’ and, mind you, without having
to deal with decades long buttressing of the import mafia, dependency on
remittances and tourism, Covid-19 related shocks that lasted for two
whole years etc.
Here are some questions: did ‘these people’ a)
benefit or not from ‘the system’? b) did they always vote SLFP (or
SLFP-led coalition) or did they vote for Ranil/UNP or Sajith/SJB? c) did
they ever protest these nasties when the UNP or UNP-led coalition or
coalitions the UNP was part of?
There’s talk of economic
stability, civil liberties and rights, the upholding of the
constitution, legislature and the preservation of democratic values.
Lovelies, all of them, BUT, again, were these things sitting pretty
until November 2019? We can run through three to four decades, name
parties, name individuals and name ideologies and policies that took
potshots at one and all. So here’s the question: did these worthies
utter a single word about those other transgressions?
The
darlings are claiming that they did not favour anarchy, violence or
empowerment of subversive elements who would deem to overthrow
democratic values. Lovely. Let’s break it down.
Anarchy.
Violence. Subversion. Democratic Values. Repeat after me. Anarchy.
Violence. Subversion. Democratic Values. Anarchy. Violence. Subversion.
Democratic Values. Anarchy. Violence. Subversion. Democratic Values.
Anarchy. Violence. Subversion. Democratic Values. Anarchy. Violence.
Subversion. Democratic Values.
Throughout this aragalaya there
were calls for and affirmation of anarchy. Sure, not all aragalists were
anarchists in ideological bent or in action, but only the myopic and
naive could dismiss the possibility that anarchy of the worst kind was
festering and could very well erupt. Forget all that. Did these lovelies
who are now in whine-land ever once say ‘hey, hey, hey…ease off guys’?
Mirihana. Rambukkana. Warakapola. Temple Trees. Galle Face. President’s
House. Ranil Wickremesinghe’s residence. Parliament. And let’s not
forget the vandalism, arson, thuggery etc., that followed the unleashing
of thugs from Temple Trees by forces beholden to or controlled at that
time Mahinda Rajapaksa. Who called for, who indeed demanded anarchy and
violence? Who called for and demanded subversion, who indeed subverted?
What were the democratic values affirmed by pillage, destruction of
public property, arson and thuggery? Why this sorrow now, but not then?
Is it ok to be selective about these things? Is it ok to just go along,
look askance when unpleasant things happen until the process yields an
outcome that is, well, ok? And if the outcome is ok for you but not for
others, if those others continue to do what you called for, cheered,
took part in perhaps or supported one way or another, do you have a
moral right to object?
Regardless of who started the fire (and
it was certainly not lit in November 2019), if those who were mandated
to quash it did not or could not, regardless of unforeseen and
unfortunate circumstances (Covid-19, which by the way Gotabaya Rajapaksa
did much to quash — efforts which were scoffed at by, I suspect, ‘these
[very] people’: no cheers for all that by the way), then they can, do
and even must come under fire, so to speak.
People were angry.
People protested. Legit. People made demands that could not be
delivered. That’s ok, for that is all legitimate in politics. Gotabaya
could have come clear, said the unpalatable truths, expressed regret for
errors despite good intention (let’s say), stated options being
considered (if there were any) or simply said ‘there is a crisis of
legitimacy, I agree, and therefore I believe that the democratic thing
to do is to hold elections so the people can decide for themselves.’ He
didn’t. Is that enough to call for his blood, though? If it was enough,
then why didn’t ‘these people’ call for the blood of other who did much
worse for so many decades?
Democracy. Let’s get back to the
word/term. There are values associated with democracy and ‘these people’
have mentioned this. There’s also a thing called ‘representation.’ And
so, sorry lady/ladies and/or gentleman/men, we need to unpack ‘the
people’ a little, if you don’t mind.
How do we know what a
collective really wants? How do we obtain the popular will? Well,
elections. Sometimes there are mass uprisings. Mass uprisings can be
orchestrated, particularly in times of hardship, but let’s assume that’s
not what happened here, just for argument’s sake. So yes, there’s a
mass uprising. What was it about? Well, it was reduced to evicting an
elected president. There were some noises about system change, yes, but
nothing to write home about.
And so you had ostensibly classless,
religion-free, ethnicity-erased and even ideology-free people coming
together. They even said it was a ‘nirpaakshika aragalaya’ or a
struggle free of political parties. Now, they got what they wanted: Gota
left. All well and good. Now what? Struggle done and dusted? Victory
achieved? Now that Gota has gone home, should everyone else also go
home? But why should everyone go home? There was no agreement was there
that if and when Gota does go home, everyone would pack up and go home
themselves? Things evolve and even if they didn’t, there are people out
there who are not necessarily ‘these people.’ They have political
aspirations whose shelf life haven’t expired. There was no referendum on
what ought to happen, after all. It was assumed that the entire
country, the entire voting population wanted Gota out. Now, without a
referendum, can anyone claims that the entire country wants the aragalaya to fold up and the aragalists
to go home? That’s the problem of representation. No election, no way
to verify anything like that. If some want to go home, sure. If others
don’t, so be it. And those who left cannot tell those who didn’t ‘well,
the kind of anarchy we cheered is no longer acceptable.’
Democracy.
There’s more to it. ‘These people’ didn’t give a hoot about established
democratic procedures and institutions until Gota left. They didn’t
give a hoot about constitutionally sanctioned procedures. Now, all of a
sudden, they are swearing by the very same institutions, values and
processes they themselves were ever ready to subvert.
‘These people’ claim, ‘What’s happening now is NOT [THEIR] ARAGALAYA! So what happened before ‘no’ WAS their aragalaya?
The arson, thuggery, looting, pillage and destruction of public and
private property before July 9 WAS their kind of Aragalaya? And is it
that THEIR aragalaya is done? Is Sri Lanka now ‘all set’? Is there no political crisis any more? Has the economic crisis been resolved?
Let’s
hypothetically fast-forward to, say, August 9, 2022. There are still
long queues for petrol and diesel. There’s still galloping inflation.
The constitution is intact (interesting fact: talk of repealing the
20th, restoring the 19th and so on seems to have disappeared).
Presidential powers: intact. Sajith Premadasa is the President. There is
no IMF bailout or there is and they’ve imposed conditions which
exacerbate inequities and deprivation over and above ensuring chronic
dependency and slavery. People are as or more anxious, fearful and
incensed as they were in April, May, June and early July, 2022. The
people storm the barricades. The people weather teargas, disregard water
cannons, brush aside policemen and soldiers and aim to re-take
President’s House, Temple Trees, Prime Minister’s office and the
Presidential Secretariat. What would be the take of ‘these people’?
Would they spur the aragalists to do what they’ve done in all these past
few months? Would they say ‘go ahead and threaten politicians’? Would
they, on social media platforms egg them on to search, ransack and burn
houses? And if all that did happen, would ‘these people’ (as they did
before) remain mum?
‘These people’ are not woolly-headed. They
are not in cloud cuckoo land. They knew and know what they wanted/want.
There are outcome preferences that have nothing to do with systems,
systemic flaws and assaults on the rule of law, democratic institutions
and values, and human rights.
‘We the people.’ I would love it
if anyone who has posted, re-posted or shared that note has the courage
to put his/her name to it. Then, we can do a background check and figure
out who is who and what is what. In the name of democracy, decency,
transparency etc., etc., etc. How about it, ‘[the] people’?
RELATED ARTICLES:
When the centre cannot hold...
Recipes for co-opting and subverting #peoplepower
#De-dollarize!
The international community, the opposition and 'the people'
The 'ada davase mahanakama'
#Aragalayaleft?
Personalities and systems
The 'aragalists' and the challenge of re-mapping Sri Lanka
Tomorrow, tomorrow and so forth...
A season of (il)legitimacies
The brink and beyond
Spontaneity and its discontents
The BASL Proposals: A review
[Malinda
Seneviratne is the Director/CEO of the Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian
Research and Training Institute. These are his personal views.]
