Midweek Review

Credible Leadership And Governance Shakespeare’s Relevance To The Present

Published

4 years ago

2022/08/10

Sahan Weerasooriya

by Dr. Siri Galhenage

Preamble

Once upon a time, in the isle of Serendib, a soldier-turned politician was offered the reins of governance by popular choice. The chosen ruler commenced his journey with a pledge to reshape the nation against the backdrop of an ancient monument, reminiscent of past glory. He embarked on his mission with a vision for prosperity, riding his favourite stallion named ‘patriotism’, and was accompanied by his kith and kin, a sprinkling of war lords, a few learned courtiers and a large coterie of foot-soldiers, with varying degrees of intellect. The plebeians rejoiced: giving lyrical expression to their joy and painting colourful murals on ramparts. Renowned men of letters portrayed the new leader as an incarnation of a legendary monarch of yore who helped to vanquish the foe.

The vision turned out to be an illusion. The mission failed as a result of poor governance: bad decisions, alleged corrupt practices, and the refusal of the leader to wear the cloak of humility. The lilies that sprung up along the wayside, withered in their bud. The nation was thrown into an abyss of despair, debt and depravity, of unprecedented depth. A proud nation – endowed with an ancient cultural and spiritual heritage, a wealth of human potential, and a land like no other – was brought to its knees, having to swap the sword for a begging bowl.

The plebeians felt deceived; they poured out into the streets in large numbers, and the corridors of power were inundated. ‘Bernham wood did come to Dunsinane’. The protesters were mostly peaceful but some errant individuals displaced their anger onto property causing wanton destruction; their identity remaining illusive, covered in a veil of smoke.

The ruler, after a period of procrastination, fled the country, handing over ‘the baton’ to a tried and tested leader, resulting in the perpetuation of agitation amongst the plebeians.

The hapless plebeians remain in a state of perplexity, scraping the bottom of the barrel for credible leadership and good governance. Vultures from the east and the west, and from the north, hover over our resplendent isle, and the nation remains curled up and vulnerable with only the dumb sea to the south to escape to.

A Shakespearean Tragedy

I am no ‘upstart crow in borrowed feathers’ but the above synopsis is not dissimilar to a tragedy in a Shakespearean sense. The theme is consistent with most of Shakespeare’s tragedies – the passions of men and women, and the transgressions they lead to, weaving the web of their own fate, and of their state. In Shakespeare, there were no unflawed or ideal leaders; their inadequacies are instructive in imagining the leadership we look for.

At a time when a nation struggles as hard as now to find solutions, regarding political leadership and good governance, one could draw lessons from Shakespeare’s insights by reflecting on some of his characters that dominated the stage. It is the central concern of this brief essay, at a time when stable, effective, ethical, and, most of all, sensible, leadership is in short supply. It is a measure of Shakespeare’s stature, not only as the world’s greatest playwright, but also as an equally great analyst of human behaviour and motivation, that he provides a window to matters of the state, so perceptively. He remains meaningful and relevant to many of the political challenges we face today, and has a way of throwing light on the darker places we fear to tread.

Despite the scarcity of records, regarding his early education, Shakespeare appears to have drawn heavily from Greek and Roman classical literature, and from the historical records of medieval Britain. He wrote scripts that projected the social and political realities of his time and engaged with the deepest desires and fears of his audiences. Sensitive contemporary issues were addressed in alien or historical settings in order to avoid political censure. He succeeded in linking past history to events of the day. And his timeless work with universal appeal is of relevance to us in the 21st century as never before.

Shakespeare is not didactic and does not offer solutions to the challenges we face. But he is educational in the way of parable, inference, and demonstration. At a time when he thought was dangerous to speak out, he found it safer to communicate through dramatic expression by locating his plays in medieval Europe. He presented controversial issues wearing a mask of innocence! ‘Play’s the thing’, for him.

Political Power – Its Use and Misuse

Political power is of the essence in the delivery of governance; its energies meant to be utilised for common good. Such honourable intensions, with a community focus, are not foremost in the minds of many who pursue a career in politics today: personal aggrandisement and pecuniary interest being their primary motive, bringing politics and politicians into disrepute. Many distort the truth and tap into people’s ignorance and prejudices to gain power, and some may even be prepared to sacrifice the lives of fellow human beings in the pursuit and maintenance of power. No wonder politics and politicians are treated pejoratively at the present time.

Pursuit of Power in Politics

Shakespeare went back to medieval Scotland to discover a story that depicted such ruthless ambition for power, in MACBETH, a story that spoke to his own times.

A ‘war hero’, whose innate desire for power, ignited by the cryptic prophesies of three witches, is driven on a path of destruction to achieve his goal and maintain it, bringing about a collapse in moral order. He is made to suffer and eventually destroyed. Enemy forces encircled and invaded his castle resulting in him losing his head, both metaphorically and in reality. Power misused does not bring in peace, but inner and outer turmoil: “In the affliction of these terrible dreams/ That shake us nightly: better be with the dead/ Whom we, to gain our peace/ Than on the torture of the mind to lie/ Is restless ecstasy”.

Political Machinations in Vying for Power – Hypocrisy and Deceit

The propensity to manipulate the truth, through political machinations, is a common strategy in vying for power in affairs of the state, given dramatic expression by Shakespeare in ‘The Tragedy of Julius Caesar’, bringing forth the moral depravity in politics. “Men may construe things after their fashion/ Clean from the purpose of things themselves” [Cicero: Act1 -1.3.34-5].

The plot depicts the assassination of Caesar as the pivotal event of the play. Caesar emerges as a formidable leader but with a paradoxical mixture of characteristics of arrogance and vulnerable physique. Cassius, malcontent and conniving, instigates a plan to remove Caesar from power and hatches a plot to draw Brutus and others to conspiracy, claiming that Caesar would ‘soar above the view of men’ and would establish a new monarchy. Brutus says to Cassius: “Let not our looks put on our purposes/ But bear it as our Roman actors do/ With untir’d spirits and formal constancy”.

Opportunistic alliances

Following the fall of Caesar, Antony, a Caesar loyalist with his own leadership ambitions, outshines Brutus in a rhetorical contest. In the aftermath of Caesar’s death, the newly formed alliances [Brutus and Cassius on the one hand and Antony, Lepidus and Octavius on the other] take up arms against each other. Antony emerges as victor.

Drawing from Roman history, Shakespeare brings to life the so-called heroes, traitors, conspirators, betrayers, hypocrites and opportunists, who often cluster on the political stage, not to mention the gullible masses who constantly get carried away with the tide of rhetoric. Shakespeare makes himself our contemporary by bringing forth issues such as patriotism; authoritarianism; militarism; fact and fiction in political rhetoric; personal interest versus common good; violence and war as a continuation of politics [as Clausewitz aphorized]; and lack of permanent friends or foes, in the affairs of the state.

Moral Virtues and Failings in Politics

Drawing from a collection of biographies [‘Parallel Lives’] by Plutarch, the Greek essayist who took up Roman citizenship, Shakespeare illustrates the moral virtues and failings of a legendary Roman military leader turned politician, Gnaeus Marcius Coriolanus, in one of his most political of tragedies.

Coriolanus was a ‘war hero’ in the true sense of the title: a valiant soldier credited for the sacrifice he made in the defence of Rome [“Every gash of mine was an enemy’s grave”] and for his military achievement in Corioles against the invading Volscians, and entering into a lone battle with the enemy leader, Aufidius. Coriolanus emerges victorious.

Coriolanus was nurtured to be a fighter by his mother who lived vicariously through his triumph, and, to the rulers, he was a symbol of strength in averting any future threat to the security of their land. After his military success, Coriolanus was urged to take up politics by the rulers and by his mother. He was expected to relocate his ‘inner strength’ from military prowess to political acumen – a misrepresentation of the notion of strength for political expedience. And, therein was the rub.

Pressure was put on the reluctant soldier ‘to don the gown of humility and present his wounds to the people’, and woo them for votes. But Coriolanus was reluctant. “It is a part/ That I shall blush in acting [2.2.144-5]. “’Why did you wish me milder? Would you have me/False to my nature? Rather say I play/The man I am” [3.2.14-16] “You have put me to such a part which never/I shall discharge to th’ life” [3.2.105-106]. His mother, Volumina suggested, “Seem/ The same you are not” – in other words, to put on an act!

Although Coriolanus preferred to keep his honour and his principle together as a soldier and defend his homeland, he succumbed to the pressure from his family and the rulers. He reluctantly took up politics and alienated the public due to his obstinacy. They rescinded their vote, and is banished from Rome. He became vengeful and unpatriotic and was ultimately destroyed.

Despite its simple narrative, the play Coriolanus is about politics, politicians and ‘policy’. It is about the pressure placed upon a politician to project himself as what he is not.

Coriolanus was expected to present his ‘policy’ [principles of governance] in which political expediency was to be placed above morality, with the use of craft and deceit to gain power, in a Machiavellian sense. He defied all such pressures and wished to be true to himself. His personal choice of truth was put to death and was carried away in a coffin.

Power and Privileges in Politics

An ageing ruler wishing to cling on to power and privileges despite his failing health is not an uncommon scenario in political circles, greed being at the heart of such motivation. Such a scenario was given dramatic expression by Shakespeare in his play the tragedy of KING LEAR. Lear, a legendary ruler of Britain, thought to be a man of ‘knowledge and reason’, transferred his sovereignty to his progeny contingent upon the expressiveness of their love towards him, with no intension of relinquishing his authority and privileges. He commands that Britain be divided equally between his two elder daughters [and their respective husbands] but with the condition that they accommodate him in turn along with his entourage of hundred knights. Having taken over the reign, the two daughters treat their father with disdain, refusing to fulfil their commitments.

Stripped off his sovereignty, the old monarch is reduced to madness and beggary, failing to negotiate between the polarities of ‘integrity’ in the face of diminishment and despair. He ends up in a ‘desolate field’ in a ‘raging storm’ accompanied by his court jester, ‘the fool’, with a corrective satire. The fool quips, “Thou shoudst not have been old before you hadst been wise”!

Regime Change

Regime change is a favourite theme in the Shakespeare canon. Abdication, abandonment, usurpation, military overthrow, political upheaval and even assassination are some of the common circumstances that are given dramatic expression by the bard. One of the most popular narrative poems by Shakespeare which culminates in a significant regime change, which I hope to present in an allegorical sense, is the ‘RAPE of LUCRECE’.

Drawn from a story by the Roman Historian Livy, the poem wrings pathos from the hapless exposure of Lucrece, a woman of exceptional beauty and virtue [which I equate to my motherland] to rape by a member of the ruling class. She laments: “My honey lost, and I, a drone like bee/ Have no perfection of my summer left/ But robb’d and ransack’d by injurious theft/ In thy weak hive a wand’ring wasp hath crept/ And suck’d the honey which thy chaste bee kept”.

Enraged by the assault on this ‘incomparable woman of worth’, the masses pour out into the streets of Rome, carrying her body, demanding to avenge her death and to overthrow the regime. By public acclaim the ruling monarchs were rooted out and political power handed over to people of their choice.

Moral Enhancement Away from the Precincts of Power

Often referred to as the pastoral drama, Shakespeare’s ‘AS YOU LIKE IT’ unfolds in a rural setting close to nature – the Forest of Arden – the domain of simple folk, the shepherds, far removed from the brutal precincts of power where politicians prowl. Duke Senior, banished from court by his brother, Duke Frederick, takes refuge in the forest with several of his faithful followers, to be purified and returned to where they came from, or to be retained in the wilderness! To be interpreted allegorically, the Forest of Arden acts as a milieu for purification and regeneration, and for redemption and restoration of order. It is a great leveller where the corrupt and ambitious rulers are brought together with the simple but honest folk with basic needs, living close to nature, to instil a sense of moral wisdom. ‘Then there is mirth in heaven/ when earthly things made even’. [Hymen]

Five years before his death, Shakespeare bid farewell to the stage having written his last solo-authored play, The TEMPEST, thought to be his parting song, with a complex allegory, open to a variety of interpretations. To me, it conveys a lesson in moral enhancement to those who occupy positions of power.

Shakespeare transforms the stage to a ‘desolate island’ somewhere in the Mediterranean, and places his leading character Prospero to use his ‘magical art’ to combat his inner turmoil.

Prospero [‘the one who prospers’] has once been the Duke of Milan, a learned man constantly in pursuit of further study of ‘liberal arts/ without a parallel’ dedicated to ‘closeness and bettering the mind’. For him the ‘library was dukedom large enough’ and was so immersed in his books that his brother, Antonio, found it easy to depose him and grab power. Prospero with his three-year-old daughter, Miranda, was set adrift on the open sea in a boat with neither sail nor mast. Carrying a few provisions and some of his prized books, thrown in by Gonzalo, a kindly courtier, they drifted at the mercy of wave and tide, finally to be deposited on the shores of an island.

Living with his daughter in a cave in the island, part of which converted to his study, Prospero was in pursuit of bettering his mind through the study of ‘liberal arts’ – the art of inculcating wisdom, virtue and ethical practice, and the art of respectful dialogue – many a bibliophile is unable to achieve!

To cut a long story short, Prospero mobilises the services of Ariel, the winged spirit, to conjure up a storm that wrecks a passing ship and disperse its distraught passengers around the island, while ensuring their safety. The passengers happened to include his usurper and his fellow conspirators, giving Prospero the opportunity to exercise his compassion and forgiveness over vengeance, to bring about reconciliation, and to let go of power and possession.

‘King Becoming Graces’

Following the damnation of Macbeth, in the play by the same name, Macduff requests Malcolm, the new monarch, to outline what he believes to be ‘king becoming graces’. Malcolm enumerates them as, ‘justice, verity, stableness/ Bounty, perseverance, mercy, lowliness/ Devotion, patience, courage, fortitude’, admitting that he has ‘no relish of them’, but adds, ‘Nay, had I power, I should/ Pour the sweet milk of concord into hell/ Uproar the universal peace, confound/ All unity on earth’. A tall order!

Conclusion

The ancient Greeks, the lettered race, pioneered the notion of tragedy. Despite the hardship and agony caused by a tragic experience, they recognised its potential in bringing about a moral order – evil is beaten back, and truth emerges with the restoration of peace and harmony. The religious faith of Shakespeare is subject to conjecture, but the central moral principle – justice, redemption and grace – embedded in many of his tragedies, may guide us move from darkness to light, whichever faith we belong to.

Source Material

The Complete Works of William Shakespeare [The Alexander Text] Introduced by Peter Ackroyd [2010] Collins

New Statesman April 22-28, 2016. “Shakespeare 400 Years Later”

Bell, John 2022: Boyer Lecture: “Order versus Chaos”. Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio

Galhenage, Siri: 2020: “Shakespeare and the Human Condition”. S. Godage & Brothers [Pvt] Ltd.

Galhenage, Siri: “A Window to a Literary Landscape” [in manuscript]

[sirigalhenage@gmail.com]

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

Israeli-US aggression won’t go unanswered -Iranian Ambassador

Published

3 days ago

2026/05/27

Sahan Weerasooriya

Dr. Alireza Delkhosh responds to The Island queries

Iranian Ambassador in Colombo Dr. Alireza Delkhosh says the Islamic Republic of Iran remains fully prepared to face US-Israeli aggression.

In an interview with The Island at the Iranian Embassy, in Colombo, Dr. Delkhosh emphasised that in case of a fresh outbreak of hostilities, the aggressors, as well as those who provided bases for unprovoked military campaign ,should be prepared to face the consequences.

Excerpts of the interview:

The Island: Did Iran anticipate Israel-US launching unprovoked attacks in the midst of indirect nuclear talks between Iran and US in Geneva, mediated by Oman?

Ambassador: Iran’s wall of mistrust towards the US is rooted in decades of hostile policies and, specifically, Washington’s dark record of broken promises. We always welcomed diplomacy in good faith and serious intent, entering diplomatic channels accordingly; yet, we have repeatedly witnessed the US chose the path of betraying diplomacy in the midst of negotiations.

We do not build our foreign policy on optimism toward the US, as we fundamentally do not view the current US administration as a trustworthy party. The recurrence of provocative patterns and coordination with the Zionist regime’s actions during sensitive negotiations indicate a systematic approach to discredit diplomacy.

From our perspective;

“Any coercive or military action taken alongside mediation efforts serves as further evidence of Washington’s lack of sincere will for diplomacy and its attempt to exert pressure under the guise of dialogue—an approach that will not go unanswered.”

The Island: Do you think the latest war and regional developments, such as the UAE pulling out of OPEC, should be examined, taking into consideration the Oct0ber 7, 2023, Hamas attack on southern Israel.

Ambassador: Allow me to rephrase your question: Is there a link between the attacks carried out by the US and Israel against Iran and the Zionist regime’s warmongering policies? My answer is a definitive “yes”.

Any serious analysis of the current regional dynamics must be placed within the broader historical and structural context of the Palestinian question and the continuation of occupation and blockade. Iran has consistently maintained that the developments of October 7, 2023, did not emerge in a vacuum, but are rooted in decades of unresolved injustice, the denial of legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, and the absence of a credible political horizon.

From this perspective, the subsequent escalation in the region reflects a chain of reactions shaped by long-standing structural tensions, rather than isolated incidents. Iran has repeatedly emphasised that sustainable stability can only be achieved through ending occupation, addressing the root causes of the crisis, and upholding the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.

Thus, it is important not to reduce complex geopolitical developments to a single starting point. Energy market decisions, alliance shifts, and military escalations are influenced by a broader set of strategic, economic, and political factors.

The Island: What is the status of talks mediated by Pakistan?

Ambassador: A high-ranking Iranian delegation attended an intense day of negotiations, with American negotiators, in Pakistan, on 12th of April, to permanently end a US-Israeli aggression against the country. Iran agreed to participate in the negotiations after US authorities indicated they had accepted Iran’s general conditions as a baseline for peace deal discussions. However, during 20 hours’ intense talks, the US changed its position.

The main sticking point in the talks was the US reluctance to agree to Iran’s legitimate rights to have a peaceful nuclear programme, which Iran has insisted on for years and just before entering the talks, based on the UNSC resolution and the relevant laws.

Iran’s foreign policy is firmly grounded in the principles of dignity, mutual respect, and rejection of coercion or imposed negotiations. Within this framework, Iran has consistently stated that it remains open to indirect diplomatic engagement through mediators, including regional partners, such as Pakistan, provided that diplomacy is conducted in a balanced and credible environment. At the same time, Iran has repeatedly emphasised that the effectiveness of any negotiating track is directly undermined by the US coercive measures, unilateral sanctions, and pressure-based policies.

Sustainable diplomacy necessitates a complete decoupling from pressure tactics; it must be grounded in genuine reciprocity and respect for national rights and interests. Guided by this principled approach, Iran continues to engage in mediation efforts, in good faith, while resolutely safeguarding its sovereign rights and rejecting any framework that resembles ‘dictation under pressure’.”

The Island: The UN has pathetically failed to intervene in the current West Asia conflict. Both Israel and the US simply ignored the UN and the world body seems irrelevant. As a seasoned diplomat what is your opinion on the UN? What is wrong with the global body”

Ambassador: Iran views the UN as an important multilateral institution established to safeguard international peace and security; however, its effectiveness has increasingly been constrained by the selective application of its Charter and the politicisation of decision-making, particularly within the Security Council.

Currently, the international community is witnessing highly dangerous interpretations of ‘peace,’ ‘rights,’ and ‘aggression’ by the US and the Israeli regime. In their lexicon, if they attack a country, it is labelled a ‘peace operation’ or ‘legitimate defence’; yet, if a nation defends itself, it is branded as ‘warmongering.’

“When the innocent people of Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iran, and Iraq are stripped of their fundamental human and humanitarian rights and endure profound suffering due to attacks, genocides, and inhumane sanctions, it is as if—in the prevailing international discourse—’human rights’ are not being violated at all.”

The world witnessed, on many occasions, that when certain permanent members are directly involved, or aligned with one side of a conflict, the UN’s ability to act impartially is significantly weakened.

From this perspective, the current situation does not reflect irrelevance of the United Nations itself, but rather highlights the structural imbalance in the international order, where enforcement mechanisms are often subject to geopolitical considerations. Iran has, therefore, consistently called for fundamental reform of global governance structures, including democratisation of the Security Council and strengthening of multilateralism, based on justice, equality, and respect for sovereignty.

The Islamic Republic of Iran supports a United Nations that truly represents the rights of nations and establishes justice. The current state of global affairs reflects the failure of certain powers to adhere to the fundamental principles of the UN Charter.

While emphasising the necessity of effective multilateralism to guarantee international peace and security, the Islamic Republic of Iran has consistently reaffirmed its commitment to an international order, based on international law and the principles of the UN Charter.

In conclusion, I must state that: “Unilateralism negates the essential and fundamental principles of the United Nations. Unilateralism is an invitation to injustice, confrontation, and war.”

The Island: In spite of sustained US pressure, its NATO allies declined to join military action against Iran or commit forces to Hormuz Strait. The British and French positions caused an unprecedented rift between them and the US. Do you think NATO countries’ split position on Iran war caused irreparable damage to the largest military organisation in the world?

Ambassador: Differences among NATO members on the use of force in external theatres are not unprecedented. Divergent approaches to specific regional conflicts can place strain on political unity and strategic messaging within this alliance. Whether such differences translate into long-term structural damage depends on how effectively members manage internal consultation and reaffirm shared principles.

Let’s not forget that NATO is fundamentally a military alliance shaped by the strategic priorities of the United States, and differences among its members often reflect not a principled divergence, but rather varying degrees of alignment with Washington’s regional policies.

What is presented as “internal consultation” within NATO is frequently constrained by asymmetric influence, where key decisions on the use of force are effectively driven by the US agenda.

In this context, disagreements among NATO members on external military actions are seen in Tehran less as an institutional safeguard and more as evidence of the alliance’s limited strategic autonomy, particularly in relation to West Asia. Therefore, these divergences do not merely represent tactical differences, but highlight a deeper structural issue: the growing questioning of interventionist policies and the sustainability of military blocs in addressing complex regional crises.

The Island: When did you first hear about the unprovoked US attack on Iran frigate off Galle? (The date and time, please). Who told you about the unfortunate incident? What was your first reaction?

Ambassador: What was particularly concerning was that the IRIS Dena was understood to be undertaking a routine passage in the region, returning from an official visit to India, and was not engaged in any combat or hostile activity. Any incident involving a naval vessel, under such circumstances, is naturally a matter of serious concern and a war crime, especially when it raises questions about maritime safety and the protection of unarmed or non-combat assets.

My immediate priority, upon receiving credible confirmation about this attack, would have been the safety of personnel and the prevention of any escalation. From the first moments of receiving this information, I have been in direct talks and consultations with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka and other relevant government authorities, while ensuring that no conclusions are drawn until all facts are verified.

The Island: Did you visit the Iranian vessel and sailors now at Trincomalee?

Ambassador: At this stage, I would like to state that the primary responsibility of the mission has been to maintain continuous contact with the relevant Sri Lankan authorities and ensure the safety, welfare, and proper handling of Iranian personnel and assets involved. In this regard, we have been in close and ongoing coordination with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka and other competent government institutions to follow up on all necessary arrangements.

Our focus has been on ensuring that all matters are addressed through official diplomatic channels in accordance with international maritime and humanitarian procedures. The well-being of our personnel and the proper management of the situation remain our highest priority.

The Island: Ambassador, you presented your credentials to the then President Ranil Wickremesinghe in late October, 2023. What were the previous diplomatic stations you served before taking over the Colombo mission?

Ambassador: Prior to my mission in Sri Lanka and the Maldives, I served in various diplomatic capacities in Turkey, Sweden, and Uzbekistan.”

The Island:Would you mind stating Iranian red lines about issues that Iran would never give up such as the right to use nuclear power for civilian purposes and control over Hormuz Strait?

Ambassador: Iran’s foreign policy is based on the principles of sovereignty, deterrence, and the rejection of coercion and unilateral pressure, while simultaneously affirming its commitments under international law. In this framework, we have consistently emphasised that the Islamic Republic will never relinquish its inalienable right to peaceful nuclear energy, including enrichment for civilian purposes, such as energy production, medical applications, and scientific development. As we continually maintained, this right is fully consistent with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

At the same time, Iran regards the security and management of the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic national responsibility, given that it lies within Iran’s sovereign waters and is one of the world’s most sensitive maritime corridors. Our officials have repeatedly stated that the security of the Persian Gulf and Hormuz must be maintained by regional states themselves, without external militarisation or domination.

However, Iran has consistently expressed concern over certain regional developments in which neighbouring territories have been utilised for the projection of external military power, including by the United States, which, in Tehran’s view, contributes to heightened tensions and undermines regional stability. From Iran’s perspective, such dynamics are among the key factors affecting and jeopardising the security environment of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

Within this framework, Iran has emphasised that any threat to its sovereignty, territorial integrity, or strategic security interests would be met with firm and proportionate resistance, while at the same time reaffirming its commitment to freedom of navigation in accordance with international law.

Taken together, from a broader perspective: “The overarching framework of Iran’s foreign policy is built upon three primary pillars: countering diplomatic pressures, maintaining autonomy in strategic decision-making while safeguarding national interests and sovereignty, and emphasising the principle of reciprocity. This approach—rooted in the three guiding principles of ‘Dignity, Wisdom, and Expediency’—reflects Tehran’s explicit opposition to unilateralism and bullying in the global arena.”

The Island: Iran proved that it had the strength and the will power to face daunting military challenges and, in spite of civilian protests, influenced by economic hardships, the public stood by the leadership during the hour of crisis. What is Iran’s message to the world?

Ambassador: Iran is the heir to a great civilisation, spanning several millennia. Iran’s message to the world is that national resilience is ultimately rooted in the bond between the state and its nation, particularly, during times of external pressure and security challenges. Despite economic hardships, the Iranian people have demonstrated that in moments of national crisis, priorities converge around the defence of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national security.

From this perspective, the experience of recent years is a clear testimony that external pressure, military threats, or coercive policies do not weaken national cohesion; rather, they reinforce a shared sense of resistance and the bond between the leadership and segments of society around core national principles. It highlights that such domestic economic issues are addressed within the framework of national stability, not through external intervention.

There exists an inviolable principle: “Sustainable national cohesion is achieved only in the light of full sovereignty over internal affairs and the rejection of any intervention or the politicisation of domestic developments by foreign powers.”

The Island:Wishful Israel-US assessment for regime change, following the Supreme Leader’s assassination failed. Against the backdrop of US success in Venezuela, they seemed to have wrongly asserted the situation and Iranian military response. How do you see the next few weeks as the US and Israel maintain a fragile ceasefire, regardless of some isolated incidents?

Ambassador: The assumptions that external pressure, military action, or targeted scenarios, such as the assassination of its leadership, would lead to structural political change in Iran, have repeatedly proven to be a strategic miscalculation. “Iran’s security architecture is not modelled after classic Western patterns that could be brought down, through sanctions or threats; rather, it possesses its own unique design.

Iran’s strategic decision-making is rooted in institutional continuity, national sovereignty, and a well-established defence and command structure—one that cannot be disrupted by external pressures or short-term military developments.”

Regarding the current situation, the existing ceasefire environment looks to be fragile and highly sensitive. As repeatedly stressed by our officials and leadership, stability cannot be sustained through coercive measures, continued military pressure, or selective escalation. Therefore, any lasting calm depends on adherence to commitments, respect for sovereignty, and cessation of hostile actions.

In the coming weeks, the situation will remain volatile, yet manageable, and Iran will continue to maintain its readiness to respond to any potential adventurism.

Iran continues to emphasise that sustainable regional security cannot be built on failed assumptions of regime change or military superiority, but only through recognition of political realities and mutual respect under international law.

The Island: Finally, the senseless killing of over 150 schoolgirls and teachers at an Iranian school, at the onset of the latest conflict, horrified the world. However, the response of Western governments, and various human rights bodies, seemed inadequate. Some refrained from commenting on the incident. The situation in Lebanon, too, is deteriorating. Why do they act differently when the perpetrators happened to be the US or Israel?

Ambassador: I believe that the disparity in reactions reflects a long-standing flaw in the international system: the selective application of international law and humanitarian principles, based on political considerations rather than universal standards.

As you noted, when incidents involve the US or Israel, many international actors—including certain Western governments and institutions—tend to interpret events through the narratives of ‘security,’ ‘self-defence,’ or ‘strategic necessity.’ The brutal attack on the Minab girls’ school, which resulted in the slaughter of over 168 students and teachers, has pulled back the curtain on the double standards of those who claim to champion human rights. While the smallest incidents in other countries trigger immediate global outcries. We witness a response characterised by silence, projection, and brazen falsehoods regarding this blatant crime—as well as the horrific atrocities in Gaza and Lebanon. These tactics aim at nothing but distorting reality and whitewashing the perpetrators of these tragedies. This pattern has undermined the credibility of international law and the global human rights framework, as it ignores the principle of ‘sovereign equality’ and suggests that accountability is not applied equally to all members of the international community.

This is not merely a legal issue but an expression of a structural imbalance in the international order, where political alliances and strategic interests dictate the interpretation and enforcement of norms. Therefore, I maintain that: “The only way to restore trust in the international system is through the consistent and non-selective enforcement of international law, without exceptions or double standards, regardless of the identity of the parties involved.”

As a final word: “Ibn Khaldun 1332-1406, a famous philosopher and historian, believes that ‘politics is the product of geography.’ The essence of this hypothesis is that the temporary presence of extra-regional powers in West Asia and the Persian Gulf must not lead certain small coastal states of the Persian Gulf into a strategic miscalculation.

The time will come when outsiders are expelled from this region, leaving only the neighbours who are destined to coexist. Instead of focusing on Outsourced Security and legitimacy from distant powers, they must return to geographical realities. They ought to study history to recognise which nation has been the source of security and stability in the Persian Gulf for millennia.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Midweek Review

JVP/NPP government and social media

Published

3 days ago

2026/05/27

Sahan Weerasooriya

‘Aragalaya’ betrayed? ‘The treason of the intellectuals’ in the age of populism – Part III

The JVP/NPP government, which relied heavily on social media to come to power, seems to be deeply afraid that it will be overthrown by a second aragalaya fuelled by social media. The government has been accused of organising and directing forces—including pro-government social media activists—from behind the scenes to prevent criticism of the government’s actions from shaping public opinion against the government through social media. Critics say that the aim is to discourage, silence, and drive away critics of the government through ridicule, insults, obscene statements, and intimidation.

Leaving aside these behind-the-scenes manoeuvers, the news that a group of YouTubers, who are identified as “dhobies” or “washers,” recently attended a private press conference at the JVP party headquarters at the invitation of the President and the Minister of Mass Media and Cabinet Media Spokesperson, is a powerful example of the weight the current government places on social media.

“Dhobies”/”washers”

The intelligentsia and intellectuals in democracies play a key role in shaping public opinion, which is traditionally vital in determining the outcome of elections or in building public protests. In the era of social media ubiquity, the primary location of the intelligentsia engaged in politics has shifted to social media. Influencing social media users is now seen as the key to political victory—hence the significance of the phenomenon identified by the term “dhobies”/”washers” (literally laundrymen).

Manifested as a voluntary social media activity—dominated by Facebook and primarily occurring in the Sinhala medium (this article does not cover Tamil social media)—the phenomenon of “washers” is an unprecedented and unique addition to the political process in Sri Lanka. This is an activity of political significance with a certain level of intellectual content that goes beyond the level of mere social media activism, and is carried out by the intelligentsia and intellectuals. These “washers”, alongside the academics who lead them, emphatically state that it is their responsibility to work vigorously to protect this government—one that they brought to power and which aligns with the ideology they believe in.

This group also includes social media journalists who identify themselves as left-wing political activists and as ‘analytical’ discussion presenters via content creation—podcasts and video interviews—as opposed to being mere social media activists.

To achieve their goal, the “washers” understand their role as “cleaning” or “whitewashing” the government in the face of criticism or controversy. They seek to prove the government right by targeting, attacking, and silencing critics through quibbling and intimidation, thereby “protecting” the government.

Although these attacks primarily come in the form of “intellectual” attacks, the range of attacks unleashed under that “intellectual leadership” includes ridicule, insults, and harassment, which are encouraged to be directed at opponents at various levels. Posts are published subtly or directly inviting the “people” who habituate social media as “friends” to post their emojis—likes, dislikes, laughter, ridicule—which may take the form of reaction images, or verbal “comments” against political opponents who publish their views on social media.

In addition to organised “washers,” there are highly credentialed academics who contribute to the “washing” process on their own Facebook pages, either directly or in tacit, subtle ways. Those who do not actively join indicate their support tacitly as “friends” of the organized “washers”—either via emojis or by participating through seemingly innocuous comments that nevertheless get the job done.

They claim this activity of ‘washing’ is the real ground on which politics is determined today. Their stated argument is that in the current era of social media, ridicule, insults, and harassment are inevitable in politics; therefore, those who cannot face them should not be involved in politics. In other words, in this view, politics dominated by social media seems to reenact Hobbes’”state of nature,” which is “nasty, poor, solitary, brutish, and short,” indicating an unprecedented level to which Sri Lanka’s intellectual culture has descended.

Isn’t it an indictment of academia that the practice of “washing” led by academics comes under serious scrutiny from their academic “friends” on social media, especially in relation to the vocation of intellectuals and their role in politics? Notably, the self-identified intellectual leaders of left populism—some of whom are themselves drawn from academia—circulate within these same social media circles.

What they are trying to protect the government from by silencing their rivals and banishing them from the public arena is a second aragalaya that they and the government seem to firmly believe will build on social media operations if criticism of the government is allowed to spread unabated. Hence, there is the need to somehow suppress criticism while giving the act a veneer of intellectual activity. They are participating in this effort, rallying as both organisations and individuals at different levels.

It needs to be added that while these “washing” activities take place mainly in the medium of Sinhala, related “higher” intellectual content is aired in the English medium as well, mainly in the form of interviews with academics.

Criticising the government from a left political perspective

What has come to be expressed as the essence of this “washing” process is the idea, presented in the form of a theoretical formulation, that when criticising the current government from a leftist political perspective, one should first consider who benefits from it. What it means is that if the current government is criticised from a leftist perspective, it could result in a second aragalaya, leading to the return of those who are currently out of power.

A related question that critics are often asked is this; whom do they see as the leaders of a government that could replace the current government? It is as if citizens should only criticise a government that affects their lives if they have a clear alternative to replace it. It is as if criticism is not something that can be done with the intention of correcting something, or a way to develop an alternative.

This argument rejects the traditional liberal political science argument about bourgeois democracy, which considers holding elections at regular intervals to bring governments to power and changing governments when necessary as positive—which requires accepting as positive the development of a critique of the government in power. Accordingly, it implies that the current government must be kept in power at all costs to prevent the power groups that the people rejected from coming back to power, and that is why the Left should stop criticizing the current government. This is a very strange idea of democracy. It is clearly not the bourgeois liberal democracy we have known so far. So, what kind of democracy is it? As some are wont to do, we can keep on tweaking the term to suit the changing conditions instead of developing a critique in the name of the ideal of democracy. So, what is the new term for what is done with democracy under the new regime? Or, do they think that we have reached an era of post-democracy?

Traditionally, the role of intellectuals and the intelligentsia has been to provide the critical thinking that society needs. But the intellectuals who are engaged in “washing” say that the Left should silence its criticism in order to save the government, and then everything will be fine. Some who support “washing” argue that what the Left should do is not criticize the current government, but push it further to the left. While this argument presumes the government to be Left notwithstanding the Left criticism of it, what it fails to take into account is that one of the reasons the government needs repressive social media forces and “washers” may be that the government is intolerant of criticism that pushes it to the left.

The NPP government came to power by rallying around the NPP organisations and individuals who called themselves liberal, progressive, leftist, radical, etc., outside of the JVP membership. The group that can be called intellectuals among them identified themselves with the NPP through a series of actions—starting from contributing to the work of building the National People’s Power and the formulation of its policies, to taking the leadership of relevant committees at various levels and appearing publicly at various public events of the NPP, even on the election platform. Some of them won the elections on the basis of their identity-based vote blocks or became members of parliament from the national list and even became ministers. Many others, as is customary after an election victory, got themselves appointed to various positions in the government bureaucracy as chairpersons, board/council members, directors, etc., either immediately or later.

Some, whether or not they were appointed, abandoned the critical role they were previously playing in society and have remained silent. Some of them have abandoned the theoretical interventions they were making in the public arena with a view to a “system transformation” until they brought the current government to power, in favour of safe literary or other topics as if the transformation that all those criticisms targeted had been achieved with the coming to power of the current government. Others entered the “washing” business while holding official positions in the current ruling regime. Although not all those involved in the “washing” process are in positions of power, there have been allegations that some of those who are involved without holding positions do so in exchange for payment. Among these groups are those who, traditionally known as independent journalists, are now mostly known as content and/or digital creators, questioning the validity of their claims to represent independent journalism.

Some leftists assume that this will be the last time a left-wing government has come to power in Sri Lanka, and therefore have joined the government believing that they should achieve the maximum good for the people, as if they think that history has ended.

Conclusion: Populism and the treason of intellectuals

In conclusion, returning to the ideology of populism that provided the backdrop for this article, it is relevant to note how some of the key characteristics of populism identified in the literature align with critics’ accounts of the policies followed by the current JVP/NPP government.

At its core, populist ideology presents a dichotomy between a “pure,” idealised conception of the people and a “corrupt” elite. It frames politics as a moral struggle against corruption, seeking to displace the traditional class basis of politics. Being deeply anti-institutional, populism dismisses expert and academic knowledge as elitist.

Driven by a Schmittian logic of friend-versus-enemy politics, populist leaders and the intelligentsia seek to displace the traditional elite, aiming to purge them from politics, academia, and culture with a view to appointing themselves as the new elite.

Populism rejects the democratic state in the name of the people. Political theorist Wendy Brown points out that populism focuses instead on aggressive law and order, statism, and a non-democratic view of liberty—where authority rules, yet individuals claim libertarian freedom.

Globally, populism tends to breed authoritarian leaders who centralise power in the executive branch, stripping judges of their independence and turning elected parliaments into mere rubber stamps. To stay in power, populist movements systematically target checks and balances, the free press, and universities, labeling them as roadblocks against the people’s mandate. Once in control, these regimes use legal gray areas to oppress opposition parties and subvert democracy to ensure they remain in power.

The Treason of the Intellectuals

For the title of my article, I have borrowed the title of a seminal work by the French philosopher and essayist Julien Benda, The Treason of the Intellectuals (1927). Almost a hundred years ago, Benda critiqued the intelligentsia’s betrayal of their vocation as intellectuals, focusing on their abandonment of the Enlightenment ideal of universal humanity. In our case, I would argue that intellectuals have abandoned their vocation in the very name of the “renaissance” and “enlightenment” ideals—or the punarudaya—they claim to stand for, allowing political partisanship to dictate their understanding of the intellectual vocation itself.

In her 2023 book, Nihilistic Times, political theorist Wendy Brown argues that we are living in deeply nihilistic times. Placing this rise in nihilism at the very center of our current political crisis, she warns that it is actively undoing democracy while degrading and confounding both political and academic life. In Brown’s view, nihilism leads to the devaluation of both knowledge and political responsibility—a crisis that is especially clear in academia. She argues that intellectuals have abandoned democracy, the common good, and the pursuit of objective truth, choosing instead to align themselves with whoever holds political or cultural power to serve partisan or authoritarian goals. Ultimately, Brown argues that public intellectuals must act as honest, thoughtful analysts who hold politicians accountable rather than seeking to win their favor. Finally, she issues a direct challenge to left-wing intellectuals to make good on their foundational commitment to true critical thinking.