By A. M. Navaratna Bandara –

Dr. A.M. Navaratna Bandara

Over the past 40 years, the world has experienced a fractious relationship between value systems associated with nationalism and globalisation, which social scientists have identified as two defining features of the modern era, producing complementary processes in the past. Two significant events in Sri Lanka’s recent political history—the Aragalaya (people’s uprising) of 2022 and the rise of the National People’s Power (NPP) as the holder of state power—occurred parallel to this global development. This article aims to analyse the political transformation represented by these events in the context of the changing global setting referred to above.

The era of ‘contemporary globalisation’ intersects with the political environment shaped by nationalism, which some scholars argue is now a diminishing force after influencing the political and social thinking of the modern period for over three hundred years.

Nationalism, an ideology expressing a person’s attachment to and pride in their nation, emerged during the French Revolution. Since then, it has significantly influenced political discourses. Nationalism introduced the nation-state model to the world, incorporating principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity introduced by the legal framework of the Westphalian Treaties. The globalisation during this period, which David Held refers to as ‘modern globalisation’, facilitated the nation-state’s globalisation as a model of statecraft.

During this period, theories such as liberalism and Marxism emerged alongside political movements centred on (territorial) nationalism and class. These theories and political movements facilitated the development of political elites who played a crucial role in political mobilisation, producing social and political conflicts and navigating the complexities of political compromise.

Since gaining independence, the political discourse in Sri Lanka has been significantly influenced by the actions of political elites, driven by class politics and ethnic nationalism, our version of nationalism. Following independence, Sinhala and Tamil right-wing leaders spearheaded political mobilisation, emphasising two state projects associated with the ethnic nationalism of their respective communities. Meanwhile, left-wing leaders focused on class struggle, which at times conflicted with the ethnocentric agendas of the right-wing leaders.

In the late 1960s, leaders from these two segments reached a political compromise to capture government power, focusing on national sovereignty, leading to the inauguration of the 1972 constitution. Right-wing leaders, supported by the left, legalised their state project through this constitutional framework and established an ‘ethnic constitutional order’ recognising the majority community as the core nation of the state. Executive power was centralised by establishing a Prime Ministerial government with the pretext of safeguarding the ethnic dominance system. In 1978, an executive presidency was introduced, replacing it and further intensifying the centralisation of power and the ethnic dominance system.

The defining characteristic of this constitutional order is the presence of two illiberal institutions: an ethnic dominance system and an authoritarian-style executive presidency, which serves as the protective armour of ethnic dominance. The ethnic dominance system prioritises one ethnic group within the state’s processes and structures. When social unrest threatens the state’s authority, the executive presidency has the legal authority to implement an authoritarian government, which can result in oppressive policies.

While this constitutional system allowed for the granting of participatory rights to members of other ethnic groups, the influence of the dominant ethnic group was often decisive in elections, especially during periods of intensified Sinhala ethnic nationalism. Minority ethnic groups became involved in these decisions primarily when the executive presidency’s authoritarian powers led to deficits in democracy.

Since 1994, a pattern of this oscillation has emerged in the dynamics of government changes. Governments wanted to strengthen the presidential executive branch on one end of this spectrum, which was established when Sinhala Buddhist nationalism intensified. Conversely, when the presidential executive undermined democracy, the beneficiaries and victims of ethnic dominance supported political parties that promised to uphold democratic ideals. This collective effort to strengthen democracy was evident in the 1994, 2015, and 2024 elections; the governments that bolstered the presidential executive emerged when ethnic nationalism in Sinhala society was vulnerable, as seen in the cases of 2005, 2009, 2019, and 2020.

Since the 1980s, a new movement has emerged, encouraging society to move beyond ethnic and class politics. This movement is anchored in civil society organisations that fostered discourses on human rights, feminism, environmentalism, humanism, and a culture of peace, reflecting the cosmopolitan values promoted by contemporary globalisation.

To advance these initiatives, it was essential to depoliticise society and de-ethnicize politics, necessitating embracing values that highlight our shared humanity. Initially, civil society organisations gained prominence as global entities that required a liberal environment to foster neoliberal policies within the government. Subsequently, they received further support from government leaders who engaged in negotiations for power-sharing and devolution arrangements to address the secessionist movements during the civil war. Consequently, Sri Lankan society has entered a transformative era where nationalism and globalisation converge.

During this period, the public became aware of the deceptive nature of the ruling elites, who wielded political power through ethnic nationalism. This realisation emerged against sustained tension and ongoing crises rooted in ethnic and class politics. A thirty-year civil war, which involved regional and international intervention, unfolded. Subsequently, the challenges faced by society were further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and a severe economic crisis characterised by food shortages.

In a context marked by significant societal pressure and enduring tension, the people recognised the futility of ethnocentric politics. They realised that elites were promoting ethnocentrism for their self-serving ambitions. This awareness peaked when the Gotabaya government, which had assumed power under the pretence of “system change” but resorted to familiar deceptive practices, was ultimately ousted by the popular uprising known as Aragalya.

The Aragalaya movement and the Gota-Go-Gama occupation epitomised society’s discontent with elite political culture. The Gota-Go-Gama space at Galle Face Green emerged as a representation of civil society rooted in universal humanism, actively rejecting ethnic and class-based politics. It gained social momentum by challenging the prevailing narratives of ethnic nationalism and embracing the universal values of globalisation.

The National People’s Power (NPP) wisely recognised the radicalism inherent in the prevailing mindset of the Aragalaya movement. Their “Punarudaya” (renaissance) campaign resonated with this social sentiment. As a result, they successfully ousted the old elites from government power through the ballot box.

The NPP has fostered a broader unity encompassing all social segments instead of class and ethnic politics. Although the North and East accounted for only twenty-nine per cent of the total vote share in these areas for the NPP, the movement transcended the political and geographical divides between the North-South and East-West.

At first glance, the NDP’s primary challenge seems to be navigating the country through its financial crisis and reinstating the rule of law. However, this is not its actual test. The real challenge lies in transforming the new discourse it has introduced to establish the hegemony of state power. Hegemony is not merely about legal authority; it encompasses the influence gained through the psychological acceptance of society. The Aragalaya uprising has irrevocably disrupted the previous domination. A crucial aspect of this emerging hegemony is the society’s unconditional approval of political elites, stemming from a political culture that moves away from ethnic and class-based divisions.

It is vital to implement proactive measures to eradicate ethnic and class-based political culture within our multi-party democracy. If it is done, the National People’s Power (NPP) will remain in power in the next decade. NPP leaders at every level must fully understand this imperative and embrace a new governance culture that effectively leverages their authority to achieve this goal. All political leaders should understand that in today’s landscape, especially among the younger generation, there is a growing alignment with global values, and they expect to engage with the opportunities offered by emerging digital citizenship fully.

*A. M. Navaratna Bandara, Former Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Peradeniya.