Lessons from current political agitations

by Merril Gunaratne

Roots of the current wave of protests can be traced to May 2022 when people took to the streets to express disaffection with the government of the time. Termed “Aragalaya”, the agitations had a unique flavour, compared with their predecessors. They touched all sectors of society, were spontaneous and, despite being unarmed, were sufficiently formidable to shake and overawe the security forces to desist from disrupting them. The protests were also successful in causing the abdication of the former president from office.

Agitations against the “System”

The political agitations enjoyed success because of intense popular support to dismantle a style or system associated with governance for the greater part of 75 years since independence. Such thoughts influenced people when they experienced the shock that state coffers were empty and that foreign exchange was not available for the import of basics and essentials for day to day living. Many began to believe that political parties which had held power since independence, were collectively responsible for the parlous state of the economy. All of them without exception received flak of public opinion.

Most blamed several pernicious features of the “system” as being responsible for the crisis. These had been going on for long but for the first time, people suffering an economic crisis of the current magnitude blamed all previous governments for the disaster now upon the country. Graft and corruption, short sighted policies, playing politics with national issues, amassing and transferring ill-gotten assets abroad, draining or wasting foreign exchange, breaking the law to favour the affluent and the influential, were identified as part of the ‘style’ prevailing in the existing system.

The handling of investigations with regard to the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage, the bond scam, and murders and disappearances before 2015, caused an erosion of confidence in the rule of law with the belief it was manipulated to favour those with power and influence. The comforts, perquisites and luxuries enjoyed by Members of Parliament at a time when the country was in tatters, also came under the microscope. Overstaffing, waste of public resources, excessive perquisites and salaries too came under the critical eye of the community with regard to the state sector and corporations. The demand for a clean sweep with the past became a formidable demand.

A school of thought that emerged in this backdrop was that all that is wrong in the “system” must be squarely addressed. All political heavyweights considered reforms necessary. Most of them saw justification in the unarmed protests which occurred before the abdication of President Gotabaya Rajapakse. In “Dilemma Of An Island” which I wrote in 2001, reference had been made to two aspects of the system (p:47): first, the genesis of today’s abuses and iniquities that were then visible could, if unchecked, advance from a trickle to a torrent; and second that if this happens, voters may at some point shift their allegiances from established parties which had alternately held the reins of government and seek undemocratic alternatives.

Repulse of protests by Security Forces

The efforts to overcome or disrupt agitations fall into two segments: those under President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, and under President Ranil Wickramasinghe. In the first, the defence apparatus, particularly the police, failed not only to exercise their lawful functions, but also disobeyed the orders of the president. They abetted crime by allowing politically orchestrated goons to attack protestors on Galle Face Green on May 9, 2022. Going a step further, they showed apathy when mobs committed murder and mayhem in many parts of the country that same night.

It is possible that police were influenced by a perception that the protests against the president were formidable, had exceptional popular support, and hence the government and the security forces stood isolated. They were thus overawed by a situation which mirrored the total alienation of the government from the people. Notwithstanding such considerations, the police, being the main bulwark against lawlessness, have to take the blame for their apathy and indifference.

President Ranil Wickramasinghe, upon assuming office, arrested unrest by acting swiftly. His strategy to disrupt protests is yet in motion. Unlike in the first instance, police have not hesitated to act. Perhaps their earlier indifference and inertia may have been the result of an impression that the alienation of the Rajapaksa regime from the people was directly related to their association with many issues connected with the pernicious system.

Twin strategy to deal with discontent

It is arguable that the ideal foil to stem unrest may be to address issues and grievances embodied in the “system.” If some of the grievances can be ameliorated, the degree of disenchantment may become less. It would be a way of mollifying people and discouraging them from participating in protests. This is widely described as the “carrot and stick” approach where grievances triggering unrest are addressed while acting firmly and tactfully against lawlessness. Done together, this can help subdue discontent.

There is a history of such an approach being used before to deal with irreconcilable issues or movements. During the searatist war against the LTTE, Presidents Jayewardene, Premadasa, and Kumaratunga, entered into negotiations wit the Tigers in order to break the impasse. Even President Ranil Wickramasinghe, when he was Prime Minister in 2001, sought an end to the war through a political solution. President Premadasa also endeavoured to explore a political solution during the JVP insurrection in the 1980s. These measures can be classified as attempts to find solutions to grievances which incite unrest and uprisings.

Opinions of Mao Tse Dong and Frank Kitson

Both Mao and Kitson expressed theories in relation to terrorism and subversion. Their dicta have considerable relevance to political scenarios as well. Mao Tse Dong equated ‘water’ in a river to ‘people’ and ‘fish’ to terrorists. He argued against poisoning the water to kill the fish and instead proposed that the net and the rod be used to trap the fish while safeguarding the water. The point he implied was that security forces should avoid excesses which could sow disaffection. Frank Kitson, an expert in counter revolutionary warfare, expressed the theory in his book Low Intensity Operations, that insurgents often prosper and advance rapidly when backed by causes or grievances capable of mustering popular support; this despite being unable to match the security forces in munitions and equipment. He had proceeded to imply that addressing such grievances would help reduce such support for unrest. Both theories have emphasised the crucial worth of “popular support” for agitations as well as for the security forces.

It is therefore possible that the current impasse may continue without abatement if some of the issues and grievances entrenched in the system are not addressed. A resurgent economy, as is the goal of the government, may help to calm ‘troubled waters’ substantially. Nonetheless, the clamour for the eradication of the ‘pernicious system’ is now firmly in the public consciousness. It is arguable that while treating symptoms, there is also a necessity to explore cures for the disease. Such a cry, though not with the same intensity, was a key election slogan which brought President Sirisena to power in 2015. People were disappointed that he had reneged on the assurances given. His failure to deliver may also have contributed to the growing loss of faith in the willingness of established parties to overhaul the “system”. The same clamour is now emerging as a far more formidable rallying point that could influence future elections.

(The writer is a former Senior DIG Police who spent many years in the intelligence apparatus)