By Jehan Perera –

It was three years ago that the Aragalaya people’s movement in Sri Lanka hit the international headlines. The world watched a celebration of democracy on the streets of Colombo as tens of thousands of people of all ages and communities gathered to demand a change of government. The Aragalaya showed that people have the power, and agency, to make governments at the time of elections and also break governments on the streets through non-violent mass protest. This is a very powerful message that other countries in the region, particularly Bangladesh and Pakistan in the South Asian region, have taken to heart from the example of Sri Lanka’s Aragalaya. It calls for adopting ‘systems thinking’ in which there is understanding of the interconnectedness of complex issues and working across different sectors and levels that address root causes rather than just the symptoms.

Ranil Wickremesinghe and Gotabaya Rajapaksa | Photo Anuruddha Lokuhapuarachchi

Democracy means that power is with the people and they do not surrender it to the government to become inert and let the government do as it wants especially if it is harming the national interest. This also calls for collaboration across sectors including, political parties, businesses, NGOs and community groups to create a collective effort towards change as it did during the Aragalaya. The government that the Aragalaya protest movement overthrew through street power was one that had been elected by a massive 2/3 majority that was unprecedented in the country under the proportional electoral system. It also had more than three years of its term remaining. But when it became clear that it was jeopardizing the national interest rather than furthering it, and inflicted calamitous economic collapse, the people’s power became unstoppable.

A similar situation arose in Bangladesh a year ago when the government of Sheikh Hasina decided to have a quota that favoured her ruling party’s supporters in the provision of scarce government jobs to the people. In the midst of economic hardship, this became a provocation to the people of Bangladesh. They saw the corruption and sense of entitlement in those who were ruling the country, just as the Sri Lankan people had seen in their own country two years earlier. This policy sparked massive student-led protests, with young people taking to the streets to demand equitable opportunities and an end to nepotistic practices. They followed the Sri Lankan example that they had seen on the television and social media to overthrow a government that had won the last election but was not delivering the results it had promised.

Constitutional Process 

Despite similarities, there are also major differences between Bangladesh and Sri Lankan uprisings. In Sri Lanka, the protest movement achieved its task with only a minimal loss of life. In Bangladesh, the people mobilized against the government which had become like a dictatorship and which used a high level of violence in trying to suppress the protests. In Sri Lanka, the transition process was the constitutionally mandated one and also took place non-violently. When President Gotabaya Rajapaksa resigned, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe succeeded him as the acting president pending a vote in parliament which he won. President Wickremesinghe selected his cabinet of ministers and governed until his presidential term ended. A new president Anura Kumara Dissanayake was elected at the presidential elections which were the most peaceful elections in the country’s history.

In Bangladesh, the fleeing abroad of Prime Minister Hasina was not followed by parliament electing a new prime minister. Instead, the President of Bangladesh Mohammed Shahabuddin appointed an interim government headed by NGO leader Muhammad Yunus. The question in Bangladesh is how long will this interim government continue to govern the country without elections. The mainstream political parties, including that of the deposed prime minister, are calling for early elections. However, the leaders of the protest movement that overthrew the government on the streets and who experienced a high level of violence do not wish elections to be held at this time. They call for a transitional justice process in which the truth of what happened is ascertained and those who used violence against the people are held accountable.

By way of contrast, in Sri Lanka, which went through a legal and constitutional process to achieve its change of government there is little or no demand for transitional justice processes against those who held office at the time of the Aragalaya protests. Even those against whom there are allegations of human rights violations and corruptions are permitted to freely contest the elections. But they were thoroughly defeated and the people elected a new NPP government with a 2/3 majority in parliament, any of whom are new to politics and have no association with those who governed the country in the past. This is both a strength and a weakness. It is a strength in that the members of the new government are idealistic and sincere in their efforts to improve the life of the people. But their present non-consultative and self-reliant approach can lead to erroneous decisions such as to centrally appoint a majority of council members who are of Sinhalese ethnicity to Eastern University which has a majority of Tamil faculty and students.

Unresolved Problems 

The problem for the new government is that they inherited a country with massive unresolved problems, including the unresolved ethnic conflict which requires both sensitivity and consultations to resolve. The most pressing problem by any measure is the economic problem in which 25 percent of the population have fallen below the poverty line which is double the percentage that existed three years ago. Despite the appearance of high end consumer spending, the gap between the rich and poor has increased significantly. The day to day life of most people is how to survive economically. The former government put the main burden of repaying the foreign debts and balancing the budget on the poorer sections of the population while sparing those at the upper end, who are expected to be engines of the economy. The new government has to change this inequity but it has little leeway to do so, because the government’s treasury has been emptied by the misdeeds of the past.

Despite having a 2/3 majority in parliament, the government is hamstrung by its lack of economic resources and the recalcitrance of the prevailing system that continues to be steeped in the ways of the past. President Dissanayake has been forthright about this when he addressed parliament during the budget debate. He said, “the country has been transformed into a shadow criminal state. While we see a functioning police force, military, political authority and judiciary on the surface, beneath this structure exists an armed underworld with ties to law enforcement, security forces and legal professionals. This shadow state must be dismantled. There are two approaches to dealing with this issue: either aligning with the criminal underworld or decisively eliminating it. Unlike previous administrations, which coexisted with organized crime, the NPP-led government is determined to eradicate it entirely.”

Sri Lanka’s new government has committed to holding local government elections within two months unlike Bangladesh’s protest leaders, who demand that transitional justice and accountability for past crimes take precedence over elections. This decision aligns with constitutional mandates and upholds a Supreme Court ruling that the previous government had ignored. However, holding elections so soon after a major political shift poses risks. The new government has yet to deliver on key promises—bringing economic relief to struggling families and prosecuting those responsible for corruption. It needs to also address burning ethnic and religious grievances such as the building of Buddhist religious sites where there are no members of that community living there. If voters lose patience, political instability could return. The people need to be farsighted when they make their decision to vote. As citizens they need to recognise that systemic change takes time.