by Luxman Aravind
Amidst a nation walking on a knife-edge in terms of its economy, this tear-drop shaped island finds itself ensnared in a troubling paradox: a government wielding an overwhelming supermajority in Parliament, yet governing as though it is perpetually in opposition. Unemployment rates remain stubbornly high, and despite the boastful claims of ‘deflation’ and a supposed reduction in hunger, the reality on the ground tells a different story. The government’s failure to act decisively in the face of these stark challenges is not just incompetence; it’s an abdication of the very mandate it was entrusted with, leaving the nation to flounder while those in power revel in hollow rhetoric.
The government’s behaviour is not just a tactical political stance; it reflects a deeper psychological and philosophical undercurrent rooted in Kolamba Sanniya, a Sri Lankan cultural artefact that mirrors the current state of our political leadership. Through the lens of Kolamba Sanniya, psychoanalytic theory, and political philosophy, this article attempts to unearth the dangers posed by a government that, despite holding power, refuses to evolve beyond an oppositional mentality—an attitude that undermines governance and imperils the nation.
The concept of siege mentality refers to a state of mind in which a group perceives itself to be surrounded by enemies, often to the point of paranoia. It is characterised by the belief that one’s actions and thoughts are constantly under threat from external forces. For a government to persist in adopting such a mentality while holding an absolute majority is not only puzzling but dangerous.
Sri Lanka’s current administration, comprising primarily individuals from lower middle-class, rural backgrounds, who have little to no experience in governance, is trapped in this psychological state. These leaders were initially elected on the basis of their populist appeal, representing the “common man” in the face of a corrupt elite. However, despite consolidating power, they continue to frame themselves as the “outsiders” fighting an “establishment” that no longer exists. This behaviour reflects a deep-seated fear of the unknown and an unconscious reliance on opposition rhetoric for political survival.
As Sigmund Freud’s theory of repetition compulsion suggests, individuals may continue to replay their past struggles—even when those struggles no longer serve a practical purpose. Here, the political actors of Sri Lanka, having been nurtured in the opposition’s adversarial framework, cannot extricate themselves from that role. They continue to act as if they are under siege, failing to transition into the role of responsible governance.
Kolamba Sanniya (1976), a film that critiques the urban-rural divide in Sri Lanka, offers a striking parallel to the government’s current mindset. In the film, a villager moves to Colombo and tries to adapt to urban life but is constantly thwarted by his inability to leave behind his rural mindset. The comedy arises from the clash between the simplicity of rural values and the pretentiousness of the urban elite.
In the case of Sri Lanka’s leadership, a similar clash of values is evident. While the rural, lower-middle-class individuals who make up the government were once outsiders, they now occupy positions of great power. Yet, instead of embracing governance with pragmatism, they maintain an oppositional stance that hinders progress. Like the protagonist in Kolamba Sanniya, they continue to be fixated on fighting perceived elites—whether political, economic, or cultural—rather than understanding the intricacies of governance and statecraft.
The leaders’ perpetual stance as “outsiders” undermines their ability to govern effectively. By continuously positioning themselves as “anti-establishment,” they fail to see the complexity of governance, the need for nuanced policy, and the requirement for diplomacy and compromise. Their approach fosters populist slogans over policy development, ultimately stalling the nation’s advancement.
From a philosophical perspective, the situation in Sri Lanka can be viewed through the lens of Hegelian dialectics. Hegel posited that history advances through contradictions—thesis, antithesis, and synthesis—where a new reality emerges from the clash of opposing forces. In Sri Lanka’s case, the government’s opposition mentality is an antithesis to the reality of power. However, instead of progressing towards a synthesis (a new, more responsible, and competent government), the leadership remains fixated on an outdated opposition thesis.
This stagnation is problematic because it prevents the nation from moving forward. The government is caught in an ideological limbo, where the ability to govern competently is overshadowed by a desire to maintain the illusion of being the “underdog” or the “revolutionary force.” By continuing to act as though they are in opposition, they deprive themselves of the tools necessary for governance—compromise, diplomacy, long-term planning, and institutional respect.
Lacan’s theory of the mirror stage provides further insight into this phenomenon. Lacan suggests that individuals develop a sense of identity through an external mirror image, a reflection that both defines and distorts their self-perception. For Sri Lanka’s leaders, their image as outsiders and rebels has been solidified through decades of opposition, creating a sense of self that is inseparable from rebellion. This rebellious identity has been so ingrained that the very notion of adopting a position of governance feels foreign to them.
The mirror stage also suggests that identity formation is incomplete and often driven by external forces. In the case of these leaders, their desire to retain power is, in part, driven by a need to maintain their identity as revolutionaries. They do not want to be seen as part of the very establishment they once opposed. Unfortunately, this attachment to their past identity sabotages their ability to effectively govern, as they cannot reconcile their personal narrative with their political reality.
Sri Lanka’s political leaders are now in a dangerous position. Their supermajority, which could enable sweeping reforms, instead becomes a tool of stagnation because of their refusal to adopt a governing mindset. The consequences of this refusal are evident in several ways:
A government that perpetuates an “us vs. them” mentality undermines the very institutions it must rely on to function. The judiciary, media, and civil service all become targets for political attacks rather than collaborators in governance.
The refusal to govern pragmatically results in economic mismanagement. Policies that are popular but unsustainable (such as reckless subsidies or populist giveaways) are often favoured over sound economic strategies.
Like the protagonist in Kolamba Sanniya, the government’s inability to adapt is widening the divide between rural and urban areas, exacerbating societal rifts. A nation governed by a leadership obsessed with maintaining an “oppositional” identity becomes a destabilising force within itself.
For Sri Lanka to prosper, the government must recognise that the time for opposition has passed. The supermajority in Parliament should be seen not as a licence for populist rhetoric, but as a mandate for pragmatic governance, long-term vision, and national reconciliation. NPP/JVP’s leaders must shed their historical role as “opposition” and evolve into statesmen capable of responsible governance. A nation’s leadership requires governance, not rebellion.
Siege mentality is not merely a political or social issue—it is a profound psychological and philosophical affliction with far-reaching consequences. Until the government breaks free from its self-imposed siege mentality, Sri Lanka will remain ensnared in a cycle of political stagnation and social fragmentation. It is time for the current government to prove that it knows how to govern, not just oppose.
Author can be reached at luxmanaravind@gmail.com
