Better thinking on legitimacy of Aragalaya protests

This is in response toDharshan Weerasekera’s (DW) article appearing in The Island of 02 September, 2022, which suggests that Aragalaya is illegal, and people have to wait for elections if the present government is not doing its job properly.

Seeking solutions to our perennial problems through elections has been a futile exercise, if our dismal history is any indication. We have trusted elections to improve our stuff, but all these elections have proved colossal events of disillusionment. The country’s gradual sliding towards the present crisis, which turned to a cascade of catastrophe under the present government during the past two and a half years, says it all. DW’s worries about our society coming under “the rule of the mob”, seems to be an unfounded overreaction to the legitimate protests of the people, who have begun to see the causes of their problems for what they are, and kept their protests peaceful even under provocation.

The question is the way DW seems to define the word “mob”. On what grounds can Aragalaya protesters be compared to a mob? Don’t we have to make a distinction between people protesting against injustice and corruption, and a gang of thugs unleashing unprovoked violence? Say for example, if a band of thugs sent by politicians to attack peaceful protesters with clubs and iron bars and whatnot, don’t such acts of wanton violence better fit the description of the “rule of the mob”? One can only admire how the protesters had the patience and discipline to resist the natural temptation to hit back for self-defence. As TV footage has shown, all they did in response to a plea not to attack, was use their hands to cover themselves and run for safety. How reasonable is it to label such restrained behaviour on the part of the protesters at GGG on the 9th of May, as mob behaviour? It is only when we tend to see anything done by those wielding power as natural and legitimate, that we may refuse to see the mob behaviour for what it is.

Laws and constitutions have always been made by those who had power, in whatever sense we define power – not by those who are without it and living on the periphery of society. Power, however sophisticated or elegant it may appear, is the result of an organised minority imposing their will on the unorganised majority. It is created by structures set by those who are determined to cling to power as long as they can, and it is unrealistic to expect such ambitious groups to be fair at all times. If we admit that we all are individually self-seeking and that it is natural, there is no reason why a group of people enjoying power should be selfless. Those who push their way to power feel entitled to enjoy what the hoi polloi don’t; it is natural that they feel justifiably superior to the rest.

As the Indian sage J. Krishnamurthy once said, power-hierarchy in society doesn’t follow natural systems. For example, in a tree, the lowermost part consists of the strongest and the hardiest while the higher parts are tender – leaves, buds and flowers. How about society? It’s the opposite- the toughest are at the top and the weakest are at the bottom; society is like a topsy-turvy tree. The weakest and the humblest bear the burden of the top-heavy structure. They are the ones who have to be accommodating, patient and continuously “tightening their belts” for the ‘common good’ – which is thrust as an incontestable ‘moral’ argument against that ‘shameful selfishness of the masses’.

University ragging may explain the power of an organised minority. Those who rag, who are small in number but highly organised, oppress the new entrants who easily outnumber the former that make the ‘laws’. The ‘strength’ of the raggers comes from their one-year seniority, and their ability to arrange an oppressive mechanism to subjugate the ‘riff-raff’. A power-wielding minority in any established system maintains its power, appearing to be justified in the eyes of many of the victims. It’s a sheer adaptation to a culture. Few dare challenge the established order in fear of condemnation, humiliation, ostracisation and torture. As far as the ‘commoners’ behave themselves, no matter what the system is, there is ‘peace and normalcy’. With regard to campus rag, the freshers have to be submissive (“patient”, if you want a euphemism) for their ‘own wellbeing’- to be accepted by seniors as normal and supposedly ‘law-abiding’. All politicians, when they are in power, want the masses to be patient, selfless and gracefully accommodating “for their own sake”; anybody complaining of suffering, injustice and fraud can be branded as a rabble-rouser.

It is true that parliamentary democracy is the most widespread brand of democracy in the world. However, it has to be admitted that it has worked both ways, depending on where it is practised and who is holding the reins. In many western and European countries, parliamentary elections have worked, but rulers in countries like ours, have over the years understood that the prevailing system can profitably be used to demonise the justifiable resistance from the masses, by mouthing platitudes about “joining hands, teamwork, patriotism, future prosperity” and all that. It is a proven way of coaxing the public to piously sacrifice the present to help “usher that brilliant future for their children”.

Of course, people have to follow the rules and respect the laws to avoid chaos. However, it doesn’t mean that the existing rules are perfect and need no improvement. If the constitution can be amended for the betterment of the people, why it should not be changed further defies comprehension. As any reasonable person may agree, ritualistic protests conducted on May Day are not going to do the job. Just think of the mockery of May Day rallies, organised and led by none other than the crafty rulers themselves, to take the masses for an annual ride! How long are we to repeat the same ceremony and expect different results with regard to system changes?

Of course, protests have to be non-violent. When you use violence, even for supposedly justifiable reasons, it will only invite counter violence and the entire system will move along a spiral of violence. However, the maintenance of such lilywhite nonviolence is easier said than done. If the use of a constitutionally guaranteed right to raise people’s voice against injustice, corruption, suppression and intimidation is deemed “illegal” by any constitution, as DW would have us believe, that’s all the more reason to incorporate more people-friendly amendments to improve it. The method of showing disapproval through five-yearly elections has proved impotent and, further, it has emboldened the rulers to continue with the carnival. Attaching perfection to whatever constitution can only amount to indulgence in futile self-admiration.

SUSANTHA HEWA