By W. Vishnu Gupta –

Across many political systems, conspiracy theories have become a recurring feature of political competition, elite strategy, and public discourse. Scholars increasingly argue that conspiracy theories should not be understood solely as psychological phenomena or irrational beliefs. Instead, they can function as strategic political tools, deployed by ambitious actors seeking to reshape political environments, mobilize supporters, or destabilize opponents. In this context, Sri Lanka offers a compelling example. Observers note that since the 1970s, political actors across the ideological spectrum have used conspiracyladen narratives to influence electoral outcomes, justify policy decisions, and reconfigure political alliances.

Let’s examines the political motivations behind conspiracytheory politics in Sri Lanka through the lens of the garbage can model of choice and social choice theory, situating these dynamics within broader patterns of political competition and institutional development.

Strategic Political Tools

Political scientists have long recognized that conspiracy theories can serve instrumental purposes. Rather than emerging solely from public paranoia or rational bias, conspiracy narratives can be deliberately constructed and disseminated by political entrepreneurs seeking to alter the political landscape. Scholars argue that such narratives can:

* Delegitimize opponents

* Mobilize disaffected constituencies

* Create alternative explanations for political failures

* Justify extraordinary political actions

* Shift public attention away from policy shortcomings

In this view, conspiracy theories are not random or irrational. They are lowcost, highimpact instruments within what some analysts call the politics of disruption—a set of strategies used by outofpower actors to destabilize existing power structures.

The Garbage Can Model and Political Innovation

The garbage can model of choice, originally developed to explain decisionmaking in “organized anarchies,” provides a useful framework for understanding how conspiracy theories emerge in political contexts. The model theorizes that:

* Problems, solutions, and participants exist in separate streams

* Decisions occur when these streams intersect by chance

* Solutions often precede problems

* Choices may not resolve underlying issues

Observers argue that Sri Lankan politics often resembles this model. Policy decisions, electoral strategies, and political narratives—including conspiracy theories—frequently arise not from coherent planning but from opportunistic alignments of political needs, available rhetoric, and public sentiment- for examples “Aragalaya and appointment of an unelected President, money horded in Uganda, Corruption of politicians-

In this environment, conspiracy theories become readymade solutions waiting for a suitable political moment.

Historical Context: The Rise of ConspiracyTheory Politics in Sri Lanka

Analysts tracing Sri Lanka’s political history since the 1970s note that conspiracytheory politics has been used by multiple political leaders and parties. According to these interpretations:

* Early postindependence leaders used narratives about foreign influence, ethnic threats, and elite conspiracies to mobilize support

* Language policy debates were often framed through conspiratorial lenses

* Nationalization campaigns were justified through claims of hidden economic domination

* Electoral contests frequently featured allegations of secret plots or external manipulation

These narratives, scholars argue, were not merely rhetorical flourishes. They helped shape public perceptions, justify policy shifts, and consolidate political power.

Contemporary Illustrations and Political Narratives

Media reports and political speeches continue to reflect the strategic use of conspiracytheory rhetoric. For example, a Daily Mirror report from September 9, 2025, quoted a political leader questioning how certain political families accumulated wealth, referencing past campaign financing disputes. Analysts interpret such statements as part of a broader pattern in which political actors use allegations of hidden dealings or unexplained wealth to challenge opponents’ legitimacy.

Observers argue that these narratives serve several functions:

* Reframing political competition as a moral struggle

* Positioning the speaker as an anticorruption crusader

* Appealing to public frustration with elite privilege

* Shifting attention from policy debates to personal credibility

Such strategies are not unique to any single party or leader; they reflect a broader political culture in which conspiracytheory rhetoric is a familiar tool.

The Politics of Disruption and Entrepreneurial Strategy

The concept of political entrepreneurship helps explain why conspiracy theories persist. Outofpower politicians often face structural disadvantages: limited access to resources, weak institutional influence, and reduced media visibility. To overcome these constraints, they may adopt innovative or unorthodox tactics—what some scholars call the politics of disruption.

The Political observers argue that in Sri Lanka:

* Protest movements

* Antielite narratives

* Allegations of hidden plots

* Claims of foreign interference

* Accusations of institutional capture

have all been used as disruptive strategies to reshape political opportunities.

Some analysts interpret the 2022 protest movement (commonly referred to as Aragalaya) through this lens. While many participants viewed it as a grassroots uprising, certain commentators argue that political actors may have used the moment to reposition themselves or gain visibility. These interpretations remain contested, but they illustrate how conspiracytheory politics and disruptive strategies can intersect.

Policy Decisions and the Garbage Can Dynamic

Analysts of Sri Lanka’s policy trajectory argue that several major decisions—ranging from language reforms and nationalization initiatives to education reforms, land redistribution, and constitutional changes—were shaped by political narratives that often incorporated conspiratorial themes. These narratives tended to frame policy debates as struggles against hidden enemies, foreign interference, or internal saboteurs, influencing both the direction and the urgency of decisionmaking.

According to these assessments, the outcomes included:

Policy volatility, exemplified by the abrupt shift to an organiconly fertilizer policy under President Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

Institutional fragmentation, such as the increasingly convoluted and decentralized structures within the Education and Agriculture ministries.

Erosion of administrative capacity, including the weakening of state authority and bureaucratic coherence.

Longterm economic vulnerabilities, particularly the deepening dependence on imported energy sources.

Some scholars link these patterns to the structural weaknesses that contributed to the 2022 economic crisis. They argue that decades of politically motivated policymaking—at times justified through conspiracyladen rhetoric—undermined fiscal stability, institutional resilience, and overall governance.

Why Conspiracy Theories Persist

Political scientists point to several factors that make conspiracydriven politics appealing to political leaders:

Low cost — Conspiracy narratives are inexpensive to circulate, especially with the support of YouTubers, partisan media outlets, and informal communication networks.

High emotional impact — They tap into public frustration, fear, and distrust, making them powerful tools for shaping opinion.

Ambiguity — Their unfalsifiable nature allows them to withstand scrutiny, since they cannot be conclusively proven or disproven.

Flexibility — These narratives can be easily adapted to new political contexts, crises, or opponents.

Mobilization potential — They energize supporters, delegitimize rivals, and create a sense of urgency or threat that can be politically advantageous.

In contexts marked by institutional uncertainty, economic strain, or declining trust in government, such narratives become even more influential. Scholars note that in Sri Lanka, political actors across different periods have used conspiracyladen rhetoric to consolidate power, justify conflict, inflame ethnic tensions, or obscure policy failures. This pattern has contributed to cycles of mistrust and polarization that continue to shape the country’s political landscape.

Implications for Democratic Governance

The strategic use of conspiracybased narratives carries several consequences for how democratic systems function, especially in settings where institutions are already under strain. These effects tend to accumulate over time, shaping both political behavior and public expectations.

Erosion of institutional trust — Persistent claims of hidden plots or manipulated processes weaken confidence in electoral systems, public administration, and the legitimacy of those elected. This can influence the quality and credibility of parliamentary representation.

Polarization of political discourse — Leaders may appeal to specific ethnic, religious, or regional constituencies using narratives that have little connection to broader national priorities. This deepens social divides and makes consensusbuilding more difficult.

Reduced policy coherence — When decisions are driven by reactive or emotionally charged narratives rather than evidence, longterm planning becomes fragmented and inconsistent.

Delegitimization of political opponents — Conspiracy framing often portrays rivals as existential threats, undermining democratic norms such as pluralism, debate, and peaceful competition.-For example defaming the chief Buddhist monks for expressing opposite views-

Weakening of accountability — When narratives replace evidence, leaders can deflect responsibility for policy failures by attributing them to unseen forces rather than institutional shortcomings.

In Sri Lanka, observers note that these dynamics have contributed to recurring cycles of instability, abrupt policy shifts, and growing public disillusionment with political institutions. The cumulative effect has been a governance environment where trust is fragile, reform is difficult to sustain, and political competition often revolves around narratives of suspicion rather than substantive policy debate.

Conclusion

Conspiracydriven politics in Sri Lanka is best understood not as a purely psychological phenomenon or a simple byproduct of public misinformation, but as a strategic feature of political competition. Episodes such as the debates surrounding the Easter Sunday attacks illustrate how these narratives can become embedded in highstakes political maneuvering. In a system where political office is often perceived as one of the few pathways to rapid economic and social mobility, leaders have strong incentives to deploy narratives that heighten threat perceptions, redirect blame, or destabilize opponents.

The garbage can model and social choice theory help clarify how these dynamics operate. Both frameworks highlight environments where decisionmaking is fragmented, incentives are misaligned, and political actors rely on symbolic or disruptive tools to navigate uncertainty. Within such settings, conspiracy narratives function as versatile instruments—shaping agendas, mobilizing supporters, and reframing institutional failures as the work of hidden adversaries rather than structural weaknesses.

Situating conspiracy theories within these broader political and institutional incentives allows scholars to better understand their persistence and effects. The patterns observed in Sri Lanka echo dynamics found in other political systems marked by corruption, weak accountability, and intense competition for state resources. Examining these narratives through a structural lens offers insight into how they influence governance, public trust, and longterm institutional resilience.