By Asoka S. Seneviratne –

“A ruler who heeds the counsel of the wise is like a traveler with a lamp; they may stumble, but they will never lose the way.” — Ancient Buddhist Aphorism

The recent intervention by the four Mahanayake Theras regarding the appointment of the Auditor General has reignited a perennial debate in Sri Lankan politics: what is the appropriate role of the Buddhist clergy in governance? History shows that while the Sangha serves as the nation’s moral compass, success lies in “counseling” rather than “intervening  or requesting.” This article explores the delicate balance required to maintain a “comfortable zone” between the prelates and the government, ensuring that religious guidance strengthens democracy without causing political friction or institutional embarrassment.

The Role of the Sangha: Counseling, Not Directives

According to the teachings of the Buddha, the relationship between the Sangha (the monastic community) and the state is one of mutual respect but distinct boundaries. The Buddha envisioned a clear separation: the government manages the secular welfare of the people (safety, economy, infrastructure), while the prelates manage the ethical and spiritual welfare through:

* Counseling (Anusasana). This is the primary role. Prelates act as Kalyanamittas (noble friends) to rulers. They do not draft legislation; they offer advice on how to govern with compassion (Karuna) and equanimity (Upekkha).

* The Framework of Dasa Raja Dhamma. The involvement of the clergy is traditionally filtered through the “Ten Duties of a King.” By critiquing a government’s failure to uphold virtues such as Ajjava (Honesty) or Avirodha (Non-obstruction of the people’s will), prelates can provide a moral check without overstepping into executive administration.

* The Boundary of Non-Interference: The Sangha is cautioned against Agati (bias or corruption). When religious leaders begin favoring specific political parties or “outsider” appointments based on personal loyalty, they risk losing their moral authority. The “Comfortable Zone” is maintained when the prelate remains a mirror, reflecting the government’s own moral image rather than trying to influence or seize the wheel.

Historical Success: Guidance Without Friction

History provides profound examples where the “Counseling” model transformed empires without causing friction.

* Emperor Ashoka and Moggaliputta Tissa: In the 3rd Century BCE, the elder monk Moggaliputta Tissa did not issue “orders” to the Mauryan Emperor. Instead, he taught the Dhamma. This subtle guidance led Ashoka to renounce violence and establish the world’s first “Welfare State.” The monk remained in the monastery; the King ruled from the throne, but the spirit of the rule was Buddhist.

* The Era of the Mahavamsa: In Sri Lankan history, the relationship was formalized as a state-religion partnership. Kings like Devanampiyatissa and Dutugamunu sought the “validation” of the Sangha. This wasn’t because the monks held legal power, but because a King’s legitimacy depended on his adherence to the Dhamma. Friction was avoided because the monks focused on public benefit (hospitals, irrigation, justice) rather than seeking administrative titles for themselves.

The Cost of Being Ignored: Lessons from Recent Decades

When the boundaries of this relationship are blurred, it often leads to embarrassment for both the clergy and the state.

In December 2011, the Mahanayake Theras intervened in a dispute within the UNP, writing to Ranil Wickremesinghe to urge the appointment of Karu Jayasuriya to strengthen the Opposition. By making a request deeply entangled in the internal “mechanics” of a political party, the prelates entered a zone where the ruler felt empowered to ignore them.

Similarly, in 2014, the Rajapaksa administration ignored the prelates’ protests against car races held in front of the Dalada Maligawa. These instances were embarrassing because they cast the prelates as “petitioners” who could be rejected, rather than “moral guides” whose wisdom was indispensable. When a request is too specific or involves the ruler’s “ego,” the “comfortable zone” collapses, leaving the clergy looking politically weak and the government looking spiritually bankrupt.

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) now finds himself at a similar crossroads. The Mahanayake Theras have warned that the delay in appointing an Auditor General fuels debate over public financial mismanagement and integrity. For a government that campaigned on a platform of good governance (Yahapalana) and “system change,” ignoring the counsel of the prelates is a risky mission. If AKD proceeds with “parachuting an outsider” to safeguard party interests—as the critics suggest—he may risk appearing as an “autocratic” leader blind to reality. Unlike his predecessors, AKD’s mandate is built on the promise of transparency. Failing to heed the prelates’ call for an internal, experienced candidate like Dharmapala Gammanpila could create a “moral deficit” early in his presidency, which may lead to the same public resonance that fueled the downfall of previous “supermajorities.”

Decision and Discernment: Knowing When to Speak

The Strategic Mandate of the Sangha: A Framework for Moral Governance

To preserve the “Comfortable Zone”—that delicate equilibrium where the Sangha influences the state without being consumed by it—the Chief Buddhist Prelates must master the art of strategic restraint. This is not a retreat from responsibility, but a sophisticated exercise of moral discernment. By focusing on sustainability, symbolic protest, and systemic integrity, the Sangha ensures its voice remains a definitive moral compass rather than a political echo.

The Pragmatism of “Affordability”

The Sangha’s influence relies on its perceived wisdom. When religious leadership demands the impossible—policies that would lead to economic collapse or legal anarchy—they risk being viewed as detached from the suffering of the common person.

* Sustainability over Sentiment: Requests made to the state must be vetted against the reality of the national treasury and the rule of law.

* The Credibility Gap: Every time a government is forced to say “no” to the Sangha because a request is physically or legally impossible, the Sangha’s aura of infallibility diminishes. By avoiding “un-affordable” demands, the Prelates maintain a 100% “success rate” in their interactions with the state, preserving their psychological edge.

Pattanikkujjana: The Sovereignty of Silence

History proves that the most devastating critique is often the one left unsaid. Pattanikkujjana, or the “turning of the bowl,” represents the ultimate spiritual sanction. It is the withdrawal of the one thing a ruler cannot buy or coerce: legitimacy.

The Power of the Void: By refusing to accept alms or provide spiritual counsel, the Sangha creates a “moral vacuum.” This forces the ruler to face their own reflection without the shield of religious endorsement.

Unlike a protest letter, which can be debated, or a street demonstration, which can be suppressed, silence is unassailable. It strips the ruler of their “righteous” identity, signaling to the populace that the mandate of heaven (or Dhamma) has shifted.

Systemic Advocacy: Principles over Personalities

The fastest way for the Sangha to lose its “Comfortable Zone” is to be perceived as a kingmaker for specific individuals. When monks back “Person A,” they inherit Person A’s scandals and failures.

* The Meritocratic Shield: By advocating for meritocracy, seniority, and transparency, the Prelates exert control over the quality of leadership without becoming entangled in the identity of the leader.

* Neutralizing Cronyism: If the Sangha demands that a position be filled by “the most senior qualified professional,” they effectively block a corrupt ruler’s cronies without ever having to mention those cronies by name. This keeps the Sangha “above the fray,” acting as the architects of the system rather than the players in the game.

The Middle Way of Governance: A Blueprint for National Stability

The “Comfortable Zone” is not a place of complacency, but a dynamic equilibrium—a Middle Way that prevents the state from becoming a secular machine and the clergy from becoming a political faction. It is a social contract where the government yields on ethics and the Sangha yields on administration. In the current landscape, this balance is the only safeguard against the friction of radical ideology and the erosion of tradition.

The Government’s Duty: Protecting the Sasana through Ethical Listening

The state’s obligation to “protect and foster the Buddha Sasana” has often been misinterpreted as a mere architectural duty—building stupas or funding festivals. However, true protection of the Sasana is found in the integration of Dhamma into governance.

* Beyond Ritualism: A government that builds temples while practicing corruption is not fostering the Sasana; it is undermining it. The state must recognize that the Sangha is the repository of a 2,500-year-old ethical framework that transcends election cycles.

* The Warning System: When the Chief Prelates issue an “ethical warning,” it should be viewed by the President and Parliament as a vital democratic feedback loop. Listening to the Sangha is not a sign of weakness or “interference”; it is an act of political humility that acknowledges the state does not have a monopoly on wisdom. By aligning policy with these ethical guardrails, the government gains a level of public trust that no “steamroller majority” can provide.

The Prelates’ Duty: The Nation’s “Moral Auditor”

The role of the Mahanayake Theras is not to manage the nation’s accounts, but to ensure the nation remains accountable. When the Sangha intervenes in matters like the appointment of an Auditor General, they are acting as the ultimate oversight body—the Moral Auditor.

* Ajjava (Honesty) as State Policy: In Buddhist governance, Ajjava is not a personal virtue but a requirement for leadership. When the Prelates speak on administrative integrity, they are not meddling in bureaucracy; they are defending the spiritual health of the nation. Corruption in high office is a form of “social dukkha” (suffering) that the Sangha is duty-bound to address.

* The Power of the Moral Majority: A President may command the legislature, but the Sangha commands the “Moral Majority.” If the government ignores the Sangha’s counsel on integrity, it risks a fundamental decoupling from the people. The Sangha provides the moral legitimacy that allows a leader to govern effectively; without it, power becomes mere coercion. By advocating for meritocracy and honesty, the Prelates ensure that the state remains a vehicle for the common good rather than a tool for partisan interests.

Conclusion: Bridging Ideology and Tradition

The “Middle Way of Governance” offers President Dissanayake a historic opportunity to move beyond the binary of radical secularism versus religious nationalism. By treating the Sangha’s “wise counsel” as a strategic asset rather than a political obstacle, his administration can achieve a rare synthesis: a state that is modern in its delivery yet timeless in its moral foundation.

For a leadership rooted in NPPJVP ideology, the challenge has often been reconciling revolutionary social goals with the traditional cultural fabric of the nation. The Middle Way provides the bridge. When the government adopts the Sangha’s calls for Ajjava (honesty) and meritocracy, it isn’t “yielding” to religious pressure; it is utilizing a traditional vocabulary to validate modern reforms. This creates a Dual Mandate:

* Administrative Mandate: Derived from the “steamroller majority” in Parliament to execute technical and economic policy.

* Moral Mandate: Derived from alignment with the Sangha’s ethical standards, ensuring the “Moral Majority” of the people remains supportive.

If the President ignores this counsel, he risks a fracture that has historically toppled powerful governments. A regime that operates solely on legislative power, divorced from the “Moral Auditor” of the Sangha, eventually loses its soul and, subsequently, its public legitimacy.

Conversely, by fostering a relationship of mutual respect and functional distance, the President can insulate his administration from charges of corruption or elitism. He transforms the Chief Prelates from potential critics into the guardians of the state’s ethical gate.

The Path Forward: The goal is a state that is progressive in its administration—utilizing science, technology, and efficient law—and ancient in its ethics—utilizing the Dhamma to ensure those tools are used for the common good.

In this synergy, the “Comfortable Zone” becomes the nation’s greatest strength. It creates a government that is not only powerful enough to lead but humble enough to listen, ensuring that the march toward progress never leaves the nation’s values behind.

A regime that operates solely on legislative power, divorced from the “Moral Auditor” of the Sangha, eventually loses its public resonance. Conversely, by fostering mutual respect and functional distance, the President transforms the Chief Prelates into guardians of the state’s ethical gate. The result is a state that is progressive in its administration and ancient in its ethics—a truly resilient model for the future.

This video provides the direct context of the Mahanayake Theras’ recent formal communication to the President regarding the Auditor General vacancy, which serves as the primary case study for this article.

*The writer, among many, served as the Special Advisor to the President to the Office of the President of Namibia from 2006 to 2012 and was a Senior Consultant with the UNDP for 20 years. He was a Senior Economist with the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (1972-1993). He can be reached via asoka.seneviratne@gmail.com