Social Movement, Continued

Featured image courtesy Sri Lanka Guardian

VICTOR IVAN on 11/17/2016

A particular segment of the country was

decisively committed to defeat the Rajapaksa regime and replace
it with the present regime of Good Governance. This segment was
motivated not by party politics or personal gain, but by genuine
concern for the common good of the country, and threw their full
weight into it. Nevertheless, the members of this social segment
are now rather puzzled to witness the present course of the Good
Governance regime. They are in a state of confusion and

disappointment and wonder whether they have been cheated by

the two leaders of the Good Governance regime. In terms of
political consciousness, this segment of people can be described
as the most advanced, informed section of Sri Lankas social
hierarchy. If this segment is discouraged and become apathetic,
invariably, it might have an adverse impact not only on the
present, but also on the future of the country.
Social Consciousness
The growth of social consciousness is closely associated with the
socio-political experiences of the people. It assumes a special
pattern. The way that people thought when they were ruled by
despotic feudal lords and monarchs is not the same way that
modern people living under a capitalist system think. Their
knowledge and level of artistic appreciation is not the same.
Under feudalistic and monarchical regimes, people tolerated the
tyranny of the ruler. They endured the tradition of slavery and put
up with poverty and ignorance. But when the social organism
gradually changed to a capitalist system, hereditary despotic rule
was no longer tolerated and was replaced with a ruler selected by
the peoples vote. Under the previous system, people were tied to
the land. The caste system determined the occupation of people.
Even the dress code was decided by caste. Yet, under the
capitalist system, people were free to select a profession of their
choice and all were treated equally before the law, irrespective of
social division. Under the feudal system, education was restricted
only to a privileged few. The capitalist system opened it for
everyone. Thus, in comparison with feudalism the capitalist
system proved to be more progressive and advanced. Even social
consciousness assumed a greater height under capitalism than
under the feudal system.
Nation States and the emergence of the Nation
The emergence of nation states and the term the nation is a
fairly recent occurrence. It happened only after the transition of
society into a capitalist system. There were states even under the
feudal system, but they did not have clear cut and permanent

boundaries demarcating them. They cannot be treated as states

which were centrally controlled. The rulers of states frequently
had little control over the territory ruled by them. Instead, local
feudal lords had a great deal of power, By the time the
Portuguese arrived in Sri Lanka, there were three separate
centres of political power in the country . They were the kingdoms
of Kotte, Kandy and Jaffna.
Except for irregular and intermittent boundaries, there were no
permanent geographical frontiers demarcating them. Apart from
ethnic groups, there were no nations. It was only during the
British period that Sri Lanka was able to set up a nation state,
having permanent geographical boundaries and a coordinated
central administration.
For the healthy survival of a nation state, first of all there needs
to be a nation. Building a nation is possible only for a society
which can claim to have an advanced social consciousness.
Neighbouring India can be described as a country which has been
remarkably successful in building social consciousness to a level
required to support the process of building the Indian nation. Yet,
Sri Lanka has desperately failed to achieve this level so far. It was
through the struggle for independence from colonial rule that
India was able to develop the social consciousness to a level
required for building the nation and a common national identity
for all citizens. Yet, unlike the leaders of India, those of our
country did not possess a good social conscience. This resulted in
their failure to contribute towards promoting social consciousness
among Sri Lankan people to the level required to support the
nation building process. This can be cited as the point at which
the failure of our national leaders begins.
By the time Sri Lanka gained independence, society was relatively
ignorant compared to present day. Even though, the political
leaders of Sri Lanka were better educated than average, the level
of their social consciousness remained far below the level
achieved by their Indian counterparts. It is not an exaggeration
that they did not have any sense or knowledge of the serious

need for building the nation. It was primarily because of this

failure on the part of national leaders that the country was
plunged into an incessant bloodbath after 30 years of
independence which persisted for another 30 years.
Violent struggles
The violent struggles and resultant fear of violent death that
gripped society over a longer period caused an overwhelming
stagnation and regression in the growth of social consciousness.
In this backdrop, the nature and quality of politicians too,
deteriorated drastically. Most of the politicians were uneducated,
violent and corrupt people who did not care for rule of law. They
were shamelessly bent on exploiting public property. This
situation aggravated the process of degradation and the
stagnation of social consciousness.
During the times in which society was intensely gripped with fear
of violent death the people tended to distance themselves from
rational thinking to a great extent, placing an undue weight on
religion and superstitious belief. So much so, that when a child or
husband disappeared, people tended to rush to astrologers,
soothsayers and exorcists for relief. The media too, encouraged
these beliefs. Incidents of terrorism were the main concern of
people during this period. It held societys complete attention.
The media too, gave prominence to these narratives ignoring the
importance of all other vital issues. These scenarios diverted the
attention of people from being focussed on rampant corruption in
the country and the rapid degradation of the political system.
However, the situation soon began to change in the aftermath of
Prabhakarans defeat. The ending of violence and the removal of
the immediate fear of death paved the way for people to see the
corruption in the country and the criminal practices of politicians.
When they realised that such incidents and practices were not
rare but in fact frequent occurrences, a serious disappointment
and mistrust was created in the minds of the people who had a
heroic image of the President Rajapaksa. This led them to
conclude that it was time to put an end to the violent regime of

the Rajapaksa family. It was this protest of the enlightened

segment of the civil society which ultimately found its expression
in the Movement for a Just Society initiated by Venerable
Sobhitha Thero.
The Progression of Social Consciousness
By the time the Movement for a Just Society was initiated by
Venerable Sobhitha Thero, the country had witnessed a distinct
progress in social consciousness compared to what it was during
the period prior to the 2010 Presidential elections. The educated,
now knew about the magnitude of corruption and malpractices of
the ruling class to a considerable extent. The social consciousness
which remained stagnant during troubled times began to move
in a more progressive direction, slowly but steadily.
The level of social consciousness achieved was more than
adequate for them to realise the urgent need for changing the
government in power. Yet, it did not reach the desired level for a
holistic understanding of the crisis the country was faced it.
Grasping its true nature, therefore, remained rather limited and
nominal. However, in spite of this limitation, for the first time in
history since the country entered the modern era, the social
consciousness of the educated reached a level which could be
treated on par with the level of consciousness shared by political
leaders.
As far as the level of social consciousness was concerned, there
remained a big gap between these two groups at the time of
independence which continued throughout the Seventies, the
Eighties and the Nineties. Even at the beginning of the year 2000
the gap remained relatively wide. However after 2010 this gap
began to disappear and the level of consciousness between
political leaders and civil society (particularly the educated)
reached an equal level.
In view of this development, political leaders realised that it was
no longer possible for them to manipulate society at their whim
and fancy in their trial for political power. They were compelled to

abandon the old policy of thrusting their power on society and

instead adopted a policy of listening to the views of educated
society.
Limits of consciousness
This new development ultimately resulted in opposition political
movements being compelled to borrow the formula invented by
the civil society lobby group led by Venerable Sobhitha Thero for
defeating Mahinda Rajapaksa. The social consciousness of the
enlightened segment of civil society and the fact that it had
reached a level which is par with that of political leaders
was amply reflected in the Movement for A Just Society.
However, it is important to note that it still has serious limitations.
The Movement for A Just Society certainly had a clear idea
about the need for defeating the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime and
the strategy to be adopted in achieving it. But it did not have a
clear idea of the strategy to be adopted in restoring and
rehabilitating the political system and pursuing the process of
nation building. It was content with a simple program of
constitutional reforms believing that it would be suffice to affect
the far-reaching social transformation that they envisaged.
Contrary to the expectation of the Movement for a Just Society,
the objective of the political leaders had been limited to defeating
the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime and setting up of a regime of their
own. They had neither the vision nor the intention to make farreaching changes in the system of governance.
The enlightened social segment which constituted a strong lobby
group had very high expectations that the program of action
proposed by the common candidate will result in unprecedented
social transformation. But except for the immediate object of
defeating the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime, the proposed program
lacked the capacity to find a sustainable solution for the crisis of
Sri Lanka. The abolition of the System of Executive Presidency
was a major pledge in the proposed program of action which had
a wide appeal for voters. The good governance regime has failed
to fulfil even that promise.

The President assuming the leadership of the SLFP, failure to hold

a General Election soon after the Presidential Election and instead
favouring the entry of a group of SLFP MPs to the government,
promising them various payoffs, laxity on the part of the
government in taking legal action against those accused of
serious crimes and wrongdoings committed during the Rajapaksa
regime, imposing heavy burdens on the people while the
Parliamentarians were accorded with maximum benefits has
created serious disappointment and displeasure among those who
resolutely and disinterestedly committed to bringing the regime of
good governance into power with the genuine intention of
ensuring the common good of the country.
On the other hand, in spite of the fact that Rajapaksa regime had
been defeated, the good governance regime had not been able to
defeat the strictures of its administration, thereby leaving room
for the defeated political forces to raise their head again.
Initiation of a Social Movement
Evidently, the good governance regime has no capacity to effect
the critical transformation Sri Lanka needs at this crucial historical
moment. It has no true capacity to make amends and set right its
own direction. Under the circumstances, it may only be possible
to persuade the government, through appeals and
demonstrations to make certain changes which are of course
simple and relatively insignificant.Thus, in the absence of
adequate institutional and political capacity to assist in and
accelerate a dynamic transformation, the prospect of effecting indepth and far-reaching changes in the larger picture remains
rather remote. Paradoxically, there is no alternate third force
either, for the voters to choose from. The possible damage may
be enormous if the ousted regime is restored to power again.
Such an eventuality will inevitably discourage the enlightened
social segment that accomplished a crucial role in defeating the
Rajapaksa regime and make them an inactive force. It might even
cause the social consciousness that had been gaining rapid

momentum in the recent past to suffer a relapse and gradual

disappearance.
Therefore, the most important thing to do at this crucial hour of
historical importance is to defend this social segment which
represents a relatively high level of social consciousness and
heighten its spirit, and ensure its active involvement as a strong
lobby group. A stagnating government is of no use. Yet, in the
absence of an ideal third force to move the country forward, the
intelligent people may have to be content even with a stagnating
government which at least respects democratic values rather
than allowing the ousted government which was retrogressive to
come to power again. It is only the people who can prevent the
defeated force from coming back to power again. Is there a way
to keep alive the spirit and the vibrancy of this enlightened social
stratum?
As I see, the only way to prevent this social stratum falling into a
state of passivity and ensure its active involvement in the political
process of the country, while at the same time enhancing the
level of its social consciousness would be to initiate a social
movement aimed at enhancing the morale of this special social
segment. Perhaps, this can be considered the ideal methodology
that could be adopted to prevent this influential social segment
from falling into a state of passivity and withdrawing from the
political stream. This could also be considered an ideal method to
solve the crisis of Sri Lanka. It is important that the following facts
be taken into account in formulating the philosophical framework
and activity plan of the proposed social movement,.
Understanding the situation from the correct perspective
Despite the drawbacks outlined above, the good governance
regime has provided an unprecedented space for freedom for
people, but it lacks the true capacity to work as a intermediary to
find a solution to the crisis of Sri Lanka. The leaders of the good
governance regime do not seem to have made a proper study or
realised the nature of the crisis. They were not prepared to face

this situation prior to being elected to power. Even after being

elected to power, they have not studied the issue adequately.
Apparently, their main concern had been to come to power. They
have not reflected signs of genuine sympathy or serious shock
over the unfortunate incidents that happened in the past. We
have not seen tears in their eyes when they talk and refer to the
incidents of violence. Though the two top leaders of the good
governance regime can be deemed free of corruption, they tend
to turn a blind eye to the corruption of their colleagues. By that
reason there cant be a genuine or strong commitment in them to
overcome corruption and fraud.
Another important fact to be reckoned with is that traditional
political parties and their leaders are now reaching the stage of
being rejected historically. All these political parties and their
leaders should be held responsible to some degree for the
acceleration of the crisis the country is faced with. All these
parties have contributed to darkening the countrys prospects
rather than bringing it a ray of hope. They have contributed more
towards nourishing malice and hatred than promoting sympathy
and compassion. What they have done was not to promote
harmony among the people, but to divide them. We must not
forget that none of these parties have exhibited the level of
wisdom expected from a responsible political party. None of them
have even published a good concept paper on any important
political issue. The bankrupt situation the country is plagued with
can be considered as a reflection of the bankruptcy of these
political parties themselves.
The inability on the part of our political leaders in building the
nation after the transition of the country into a capitalist system,
which is an essential prerequisite of the healthy survival of a
nation state, can be considered the main factor that shoved Sri
Lanka into the present crisis. This has deprived the country of the
ability to prevent conflict arising due to caste, racial and religious
differences. Our leaders who spearheaded the independence
movement were only concerned with capturing political power.

Building the nation is a must for the healthy survival of a nation,

the importance of which they failed to realise. They equally failed
to realise the importance of building a society with an enlightened
social consciousness, an essential precondition for healthy
survival of the democratic system of governance. The leaders of
Sri Lankas independence struggle whom we worship as national
heroes can be considered as unwise leaders when they are
compared with those who led the independence struggle of India
Independence
When the struggle for independence was on, there were two
major social factions that were either not in agreement or were
against the granting of independence to Sri Lanka. One faction
consisted of the minority groups while the other was from the
people of oppressed castes in the Sinhalese and Tamil
communities. The leaders of these two factions made submissions
firstly, before the Donoughmore Commission and later the
Soulbury Commission stating that Sri Lanka was not yet ripe for
the granting of independence.
The leaders of minority groups stated that independence might
create a situation of Sinhalese domination in which they would be
compelled to suffer. The leaders of the oppressed castes stated
that it might create a domination of Govigama and Vellala Castes,
the two leading castes in Sinhala and Tamil society respectively,
thereby subjecting all other minority communities to the
pressures of these two leading castes.
This issue should have been resolved by building the nation within
a system that guarantees equal rights and ensures human dignity
for all citizens living in Sri Lanka irrespective of parochial
differences. The conditions for building the nation were not in
place when Sri Lanka gained independence. Even after
independence no one bothered to initiate action to build the
nation. In addition, the policies adopted by successive
governments that ruled the country since independence added
more to the suppression of the oppressed community groups,

creating a deep sense of mistrust and dissatisfaction among

them.
The Uncivilised Era
Sri Lanka gained independence without shedding a single drop of
blood. Ironically, the country after 30 years of independence,
witnessed an incessant bloodbath which persisted for 30 more
years on an unprecedented scale. It began in the Sinhalese South
and ended in the Tamil North. Over one hundred thousand people
were killed by the armed forces and the terrorists. A number
much more than that has been subjected to torture. While an
unprecedented number of people have been tortured and killed,
those remained alive became spiritually dead. During this long
spell of uncivilised violence in which the fear of death became the
order of the day, not only the people, but even the state and the
state institutional system became corrupt and putrid. After the
cessation of violence, the state and society should have been
rehabilitated and reorganised. Similarly, those that suffered a
spiritual death should have been restored to normalcy. The state
and the institutional system which had become corrupt ought to
have been reorganized and recreated. Sadly President Mahinda
Rajapaksa had neither knowledge of the situation nor the
intention to do any thing about it.
Though, the President Mahinda Rajapaksa was able to win the war
he miserably failed in finding a solution to Sri Lankas crisis and
also to lift the country from the swamp of degeneration. Both
Mahinda Rajapaksas defeat and the victory of the good
governance regime was an outcome of this scenario. But, even
the good governance regime has not been able to manifest a
practical vision or adopt a course of action to overcome the crisis
except for dealing with it only superficially. In this backdrop, it
would not be possible to prevent the good governance regime
too, being pushed into a bigger crisis. Thus the country has
reached a stage in which the traditional political parties and the
leaders are completely losing the confidence and recognition of
the people which points, historically, to their career being

ended. This process is in operation in the absence of an

alternative movement burgeoning to fill the resultant vacuum
being created.The ultimate truth of this development would be
that the country will inevitably be plunged into a state of anarchy.
What ought to be done
The possible damage of such an eventuality could be minimised
only through the grasping of the reality of the situation and
launching a vibrant social movement that is capable of
marshalling and empowering citizen power of the enlightened
social segment. The above mentioned enlightened social segment
possessing a high degree of social consciousness is presently in a
state of serious disappointment and displeasure. It is important
that this social segment is utilised to form the mainstay of this
movement.Itsmain objective should be to orientate the
government to act according to the needs of citizens. At the time
of independence, there was a wide gap between the politicians
who governed the country and the subject citizens as far as the
level of social consciousness was concerned. Now, this gap is no
more and has disappeared or reached an equal level. When the
level of social consciousness and the organising ability of the
people are fused into a strong social force that far exceeds the
ability of politicians, a situation may soon emerge in which the
citizens will gain the controlling power over the government
instead of becoming a pawn in the hands of the government. This
should constitute an important object of the Citizens movement.
The citizens can rally their neighbours and form them into small
community groups in their localities. The prevailing social
movements such as the Saadharana Samaajayak Sandahaavana
Vyaapaaraya (Movement for a Just Society), the Puravasi
Balaya (Citizens Power) and many other similar movements that
operate in different names too, could become the stakeholders of
this proposed initiative aimed at establishing an active Citizens
Movement without sacrificing their identity and original aims and
objectives. Professor Sarath Wijesooriya who succeeded
Venerable Sobitha Thero is fulfilling his responsibility honourably

and impartially. However, it is important for the social movements

like Saadharana Samaajayak Sandahaavana Vyaapaaraya and
the other similar movements such as the Puravasi Balaya to make
a fresh assessment of their activities seriously and see whether
the changes that they envisage can be made more qualitative
than quantitative. It is also important that a central organisation
or an apex body is established with an upward hierarchy to coordinate both the existing organisations and the ones being
formed newly. This organisation should be formed using a
democratic structure and operated on democratic principles. It is
important that it is developed as a model that can be cited as a
best model of a democratic organisation.
The main object of the proposed new social movement should be
to revitalise the spirit of Sri Lanka. This implies making a new
start to rejuvenate the frail and corrupt social psyche and assist
the inner strengths of people to blossom. It also should seek to
unite the nation which remains disintegrated and divided. It is
important that the recognition placed on caste differences is
completely removed and the ethnic and religious disparities
mitigated, and complete harmony fostered among them. Also
cultivating a society of decent, cultured people of rational thinking
and a considerable level of artistic appreciation should be a
significant and important object of this movement. The proposed
new movement should be based on a broad vision aimed at
building a new Sri Lanka. It should necessarily be a secular and
pluralistic vision and provide space for diversity and multiplicity.
If we are successful in initiating such a social movement capable
of making a significant impact, it might positively help build an
alternate social milieu that upholds new values and restore the
frail spirit of the people thereby contributing to create a vibrant
society. If this movement could be made a strong pressure group
with an advancing tide that mobilises people not in thousands but
in several lakhs, it would certainly turned out to be a potent social
force capable of effecting extensive changes that the country
badly needs even without resorting to capture political power. In

the final analysis, it is only a movement of this nature and calibre

that could dispel the darkness that overwhelms the country at
present and bring a ray of hope to it.
If you enjoyed this article, you might find A reflection on conflicts
in Sri Lanka and Achieving durable reform in Sri Lanka
illuminating reads.
Posted by Thavam