Columns

The primary cause of the protest movement or the aragalayaas it is popularly known was the widespread impact of the economic mismanagement of the recent past.

How and why it had greater success than other protest movements of the past like the hartal of 1953 is a matter for political researchers to analyse. The leadership for the hartal was given primarily by the organised working class led by the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP)—which was the leading Opposition political party of the time—against actions of the United National Party (UNP) government of the day.

The end result was the resignation of then Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake although the UNP government continued in office until they were defeated at the General elections of 1956. Sri Lanka’s left parties claimed the hartal of 1953 was a great achievement and it paved the way for the ouster of the all-powerful UNP government in 1956.

It may be argued that the hartal of 1953 was spearheaded by political parties that benefitted from the outcome of the struggle.

Contrast this with this year’s aragalaya which originated in informal sections of the society and economy and was by and large spontaneous. The initial protests originated in rural areas after the Government’s decision to switch practically overnight from chemical fertiliser to organic fertiliser.

The poor farmers could only stand outside their fields and demonstrate and complain to no avail. Their woes fell on deaf ears and the Government continued with their ill-considered policies.

In the meantime other issues began to emerge such as the shortage of milk powder, medical drugs, cooking gas and other essentials which directly impacted peoples’lives, and spontaneous protests began to emerge in all parts of the country. But the Government hardly took notice.

The straw that broke the camel’s back was the fuel shortage and the electricity cuts which brought the urban middle class on to the streets. The “Gota Go Home” focal point emerged at the Galle Face Green with people beginning to gather at Galle Face Green from all parts of the country since April 9.

While there was Government paralysis shown by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s inability to address the immediate issues which had caused anger among the people, there was another factor characteristic of Sri Lanka’s political culture which contributed to the crisis and the eventual exit of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa from office.

This was the reluctance of politicians in Government to speak up and alert their leaders on the thinking of the people. The office of the Executive presidency by its very nature isolated the holder of that office from the rest of the polity. It was therefore all the more important that Government Parliamentarians and other well-wishers of the Government kept the President abreast of public opinion.

Not that anyone who switched on television channels from February to July could have missed the growing anger among the people. Yet it seemed the message had not reached the President. According to unconfirmed reports, those who had interacted with the President during that period revealedhe did not believe that the protests were directed at him.

This reading of the Presidential mind is further confirmed by his actions in requesting Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, his political mentor, to step down from office in the days leading up to May 9.

The President’s confusion may have been further compounded by the actions of some Ministers who were seen encouraging the President despite the clear warning signals that were emerging.

The failure of several Government politicians to speak up and point out the measures to be taken also greatly contributed to the situation that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa found himself in.

As a result of not taking the simple step of stepping down at the correct time, he was stampeded into taking a number of decisions that he would probably have regretted in hindsight.

A timely resignation would have not required him to flee from the country as there was no threat expressed or implied on his life by any protestors. In fact that this was a wrong decision was also the view of President Mahinda Rajapaksa who later said he had not been informed by his brother of his intention to flee and would have advised him not to do so.

Unfortunately there seemed to have been none of his advisors available to give him proper counsel which would have spared him the personal indignity and the country the humiliation of its President hopping from country to country in the mistaken belief that he was hounded by his people.

All that the protestors and members of the aragalaya wanted was for him to step down and the country be spared of misgovernment and wrong policies that had characterised his tenure of the Presidency.

One lesson of the past few turbulent months has been the importance of people speaking up whenever necessary. For this one has to encourage the expression of dissent and diversity and free peoples’minds of what President Maithripala Sirisena often describes as the “wahalmanasikathwaya.”

Political Leaders have a big role to play in fostering such attitudes by encouraging their flock to speak out in their internal party forums and the people to speak out their mind on common issues.

The Yahapalana Government of Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe freed up the democratic space for such free expressionafter 2015 but only a sustained effort to continue and strengthen such an environment that can ensure a healthy democracy.

(javidyusuf@gmail.com)