Theatrics in Sri Lankan politics has reached a crescendo with the arrest, remanding, and bail of Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe, former President, Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, and Member of Parliament since 1977.
Opposition strong men and women who had shunned Mr Wickremesinghe and strongly objected to him becoming President, both from within their own ranks and from outside, and who had called him various derogatory names in Parliament and beyond, rallied around him after his arrest. Some quipped that birds of a feather always flock together, although when he was President, many of them questioned his legitimacy, claiming he did not have a mandate as he had entered Parliament as a nominated member, while the party he led suffered the most humiliating defeat in its history at the general election in 2020. His party, the United National Party, polled only 249,435 votes. The 2024 general election was even worse for his party, which managed to secure only 66,234 votes nationally.
He was praised by some for steadying the economy of a bankrupt country once he took over the Presidency. Many, however, argued that without the compulsory fiscal discipline required for IMF support and their bailout package, Mr Wickremesinghe would not have been able to achieve any stability, judging by his record as Prime Minister and Minister of Economic Development from 2015 to 2019. They pointed to the drop in GDP growth from around 6% in 2015 to 2.3% in 2019, and the increase in overall debt to nearly 90% of GDP in 2019 from around 70% in 2015, largely due to a record USD 12 billion International Sovereign Bond borrowing. These, they argued, contributed to the country’s bankruptcy in 2022, and his economic credentials were far from satisfactory. Despite this, it must be acknowledged that as President, he deserves some credit for the commencement of economic recovery, along with IMF support.
In this backdrop, many seem amused at what some have termed the theatrics displayed by a collection of disparate Opposition politicians. What really brings these people together, what motives they may have, as well as the objectives of the government, are topics of much conversation and speculation, especially on social media platforms.
As a case has been filed against Mr Wickremesinghe for alleged abuse of State resources, this article does not wish to discuss any aspect of the case, its merits or demerits, or the politics associated with it. Suffice to say that it is now left to the Judiciary to make a legal determination based on the evidence presented by the prosecutors and the arguments advanced by his legal team in his defence.
Irrespective of the politics associated with the case filed against Mr Wickremesinghe, what matters to the general public, irrespective of party affiliation, is the principle that some should not be more equal than others or enjoy rights and privileges denied to ordinary citizens, and that no one should be above the law of the land. In the past, many political leaders became overloaded with ego, surrounding themselves with people who pandered to them and were rewarded for doing so. Such leaders were protected by other politicians, sections of the law enforcement agencies, the armed forces, and even some members of the judiciary. Some were elevated to the status of unofficial kings through orchestrated campaigns. Families of such leaders also basked in this superiority and were regarded as more equal than other families of ordinary citizens. It cannot be denied that Sri Lanka’s ruling class collectively enjoyed a privileged status, shielding them from the law in circumstances where ordinary citizens would have faced punishment.
Neither should one deny that such leaders and their families, if they are still among the living, should be brought down from their self-created pedestals and returned to the same status as ordinary citizens subject to the law of the land.
These “more equal than others” leaders and their families had, and still have, protection not only from some in law enforcement and the judiciary but also, to varying degrees, from sections of the bureaucracy. These shields, often maintained for monetary reward, helped sustain and even elevate the superior status of such leaders and their families.
This translates into a culture of exclusivity for such leaders and families, one in which sections of the citizenry were complicit—wittingly or unwittingly—by electing and re-electing them, seeing them as different, deserving of special attention, and worthy of respect.
For the first time in post-independence history, however, people began to view this self-made exclusivity as unjust and unfair. They voted overwhelmingly to reject it, electing a different type of leadership at the last Presidential and Parliamentary elections. This transformation, hopefully, will lead to the evolution of a Sri Lankan society where no one is regarded as more equal than others in the eyes of the law.
A word of caution is necessary here. As George Orwell’s Animal Farm illustrates, one set of leaders who work hard to replace a corrupt and tainted group, promising to end the culture of some being more equal than others, should not end up becoming similar—or even worse—than those they ousted, creating a new exclusivity that is maintained through undemocratic, dictatorial, and even violent means. The end cannot justify the means; it is vital that the means employed are lawful, democratic, and non-violent.
There should be no doubt, except perhaps in the minds of those who considered themselves members of the “some are more equal than others” collective, that cultural change is essential to ensure every citizen adheres to the law of the land irrespective of their perceived status. History shows that for centuries, kings, queens, nobles, and officials lived in a feudalistic society driven by status, and perhaps this mentality lingers today. In some respects, the historical status quo began to change when all of Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) was ceded to the United Kingdom in 1815. Yet the evolution that followed did not necessarily produce a more equal society. Beginning in the late 1920s, a ruling elite took shape, culminating in a system where a few dictated the destiny of the majority. Many have argued that the so-called independence struggle was not a true people’s struggle but more a negotiation between the elite and the British authorities, resulting in a carefully managed transfer of power that preserved British interests. With independence, a new set of elites emerged to replace the departing ones—elites who were, again, more equal than others.
To ensure an equal and equitable society where everyone is subject to the law and no privileges are granted based on so-called “status”, Sri Lanka needs both a cultural shift in mindset and a systemic change. Status must be assigned on the basis of values and ethics, not political power, connections, or wealth. Values grounded in religious teachings, guidance from religious leaders, and examples of selfless service without expectation of reward, can help foster a values-based society to replace the present order, where such noble qualities are often ignored.
An article titled System Change and Ushering a Value-Based Society explores what systemic change should mean and how it could restore values eroded over time. It also examines how political, religious, and civil society leaders could act as role models in governing within a value system. In a values-based society, truth and falsehood cannot conveniently be framed as matters of democratic choice. Democracy itself must fall within the ambit of a broader value system. After all, what is democracy without moral values, ethics, fairness, equality, honesty, and integrity? In such a society, there would be no room for some to be more equal than others.
Excellent, commonsense based, logical article. Congratulations, Raj.