Features
How democracies die
by Vijaya Chandrasoma
I was inspired to write this essay while reading an excellent book of the same title, written by political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt in 2018, which I have adapted for my purposes.
When we look at history of the 20th century and examine the reasons behind the death of democracies, we see two major strategies.
During the cold war, democracies died by military coups d’etats, achieved by men with guns. Democracies in Argentina, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Thailand, Turkey and Uganda all died this way.
Since the end of the Cold War, however, most democratic breakdowns have been caused not by generals and soldiers but by political leaders elected by the people. Like Chavez in Venezuela, elected leaders with authoritarian ambitions, have used, often subverted, democratic institutions, to gain power. These countries include Georgia, Hungary, Nicaragua, Peru, the Philippines, Russia, Sri Lanka, Turkey and Ukraine.
“Democratic backsliding today begins at the ballot box”.
Political scientist Juan Linz, born in Weimar Germany and raised during Spain’s civil war, was well aware of the dangers of losing a democracy. In his book, The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes, published in 1978, Linz summarizes a set of four warnings we should look for in the recognition of authoritarianism.
First, the aspiring authoritarian rejects, in word or action, the democratic rules of the game (flaunting rejection of, or violating, the constitution; undermining elections and refusing to accept credible election results); second, denies the legitimacy of opponents (baselessly accusing opponents of criminal acts and working with an adversarial foreign government to foster these charges); third, tolerates or incites violence (with access to armed gangs and paramilitary forces, tacitly endorsing acts of violence); finally, attempts to curtail the civil rights of opponents (threatening to take punitive action against dissidents, critics and the media).
In his satire, The Plot Against America, novelist Philip Roth describes an alternative history of America turned upside down in the 1930s. After his solo flight across the Atlantic, Charles Lindbergh had become a national hero. He presented the human face of a new frontier, the beginnings of air travel, which has become the standard means of international movement of people and freight today. Just as, centuries ago, man conquered the oceans, and was able to transport men and cargo across countries, changing our lives. Just as the movement towards space travel, inspired by Kennedy when he encouraged man, paraphrasing Star Trek, “to go where no man has gone before”, is fast becoming a reality. And of course, the Internet, which is continuing to progress at warp speeds, opening up means of communications beyond the ken of my generation, but as easy to operate and taken for granted by the new, who use it with the facility of the slate once used as a learning tool.
Lindbergh was, however, a known Nazi sympathizer and anti-Semite, who was awarded the German Medal of Honour by Hitler’s close associate, Hermann Goering, in 1938. He was also an isolationist, who protested American involvement in World War II.
Roth describes an imaginary America where Lindbergh wins the presidency in 1936, beating the incumbent President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Just as Juan Linz’s warnings described above have all the hallmarks of Trump’s 2016 campaign, Roth’s fictional account has compelling similarities with Trump’s electoral win of 2016.
Trump also is a known sympathizer of America’s premier adversary, Putin of Russia. In a land of immigrants, he identifies his enemies as the new immigrants, legal and illegal, from Mexico and Central America. He showed his anti-Semitic tendencies by condoning the behaviour of White Supremacists who marched the streets of Charlottesville in 2017, shouting, “The Jews will not replace us”. Very fine people, according to Trump. And his racism against African Americans is as legendary as it is genetic. His father was arrested in Queens, New York, as a Ku Klux Klan activist in 1926, and he himself was indicted in 1972 for flouting the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to African Americans.
It would be interesting to second-guess what would have happened if, as Roth muses satirically, Hitler and the Nazis won World War II, which would have been a given with America’s non-participation, considering Lindbergh’s continuing dalliance with Hitler. A wave of anti-Semitism and violence would have been unleashed in America.
The world would have been ruled by the Master Race as dreamed by Hitler (and, later, Trump) – Aryan, white, blonde and blue eyed. The dissidents of those countries with people of impure blood, Trump’s shithole countries, would have been marginalized with an extensive use of ovens and gas chambers; others reduced to slavery whose only duty would be to serve the white Masters.
This is not some preposterous, paranoid nightmare. It is a part of history which we have already endured, more or less, with centuries of colonialism and slavery in many parts of the world.
So why has this seemingly inexorable process towards authoritarianism not continued in America? In 2016, Trump, a known sexual predator and crook with no experience of public service, defeated for the presidency the most qualified person with a decades-long, successful experience of public service. Why didn’t this happen again in 2020?
The answer is criminal incompetence. He ushered in an era of corruption, nepotism, racism, anti-Semitism and a complete indifference to the millions of impoverished, often homeless, millions in the richest country in the world. The “shining city on the Hill” was accessible only to the wealthy and the corporations. His criminal incompetence in mishandling the pandemic, which was responsible for hundreds of thousands preventable deaths, was hopefully the final nail in the coffin of his dictatorial dream.
But Trump’s dream may not be quite dead as yet, perhaps only delayed for a few years, thanks to the enablers of the Republican Party, whose sycophantic loyalty remains unshaken. Even with dozens of court cases hanging over him, for fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, sexual abuse and treason, Trump is still the undisputed leader of the Republican Party. Seventy percent of all Republicans believe the Big Lie that the election was stolen from Trump. Republican members of Congress, bar a couple, also pretend to believe in the Big Lie, against all evidence to the contrary. They are making utterly sycophantic idiots of themselves, because they feel they cannot win re-election in 2022 and 2024 without the support of the Trump cult. Self and Party before Country, that’s the current Republican slogan.
With 30% of the country behind him, with Republican governors of Red States already enacting Draconian laws of voter suppression, with the violent help of his armed white supremacist thugs, Trump’s dreams of autocracy may still come true, in 2024. Of course, he will be 78 years of age, with advancing dementia combined with ignorance and narcissism. These same defects did not stop him in 2016.
None of these matter, as long as the vital credential, the one dream that he shares with his cult, the dream of the perpetuation of White Supremacy and privilege, lives. The dream of a Trump Dynasty, with members of his family at the head of important governmental organizations, with the rich and wealthy becoming richer and wealthier. And most important, the shredding of the 22nd Amendment, even dispensing with or rigging elections, which will keep him in power for life, to be succeeded by the issue of his choice. The current favourite being Ivanka.
“The tragic paradox of the electoral route to authoritarianism is that democracy’s assassins use the very institutions of democracy – gradually, subtly, even legally – to kill it”.
Trump’s favourite (and only) book is Hitler’s Mein Kampf, which he occasionally gets Melania to read to him. Those tactics succeeded for a time in the 1930s. More sophisticated strategies have evolved in the quest for authoritarian power.
Trump would have been well-advised to take a page from the playbook of Sri Lankan leaders, who have already achieved all the dreams that authoritarians, including Trump, hold dear, legally and painlessly.
Since we received independence in 1948, Sri Lanka was a vibrant democracy, perhaps till 1977. Elections were held on schedule (except for one two-year extention of parliament in 1975), and the electoral process was never questioned. Successive governments were overturned by landslides, and the transfer of power was usually peaceful, though sometimes disturbed by random pockets of post-election violence.
The seeds of authoritarianism in Sri Lanka, the removal of the guardrails protecting democracy, were planted by the UNP constitution of 1977. The President of Sri Lanka, hitherto a ceremonial figurehead, became the elected Head of State with full executive powers, far in excess of those enjoyed by Heads of State since independence. President Jayewardene availed himself of these dictatorial powers by immediately stripping Mrs. Bandaranaike, the previous Prime Minister, of her civic rights and expelling her from parliament from October 1980.
This dictatorial action was taken to prevent Mrs. Bandaranaike from holding public office again, voting and campaigning in elections, although she remained the leader of the SLFP and one of the most visible and popular politicians in Sri Lanka.
Page 1, section 1 of the Dictator’ Handbook – eliminate, preferably permanently, political rivals, a lesson well learned and implemented by subsequent leaders with authoritarian ambitions, irrespective of party affiliation.
Apart from ruling his party and the country with an iron fist, Jayewardene’s economic policies introduced an unprecedented level of public and private corruption, facilitated by the increase of the money supply because of huge infrastructure projects and the liberalization of imports. Corruption has only increased exponentially with each successive government.
President Premadasa continued with these policies in the backdrop of a fierce civil war and a southern insurrection. The ruling government also spawned extra-judicial, party sponsored militia (a polite term for armed goons) who “discouraged” or assassinated dissidents and muzzled the media, both print and TV.
The ending of the 30-year civil war in 2009, and the return to peace and even illusory racial harmony, has given the Rajapaksa family an almost divine image, especially in the rural areas. A country, hitherto polarized by extremists, corrupt politicians and gunrunners, for whom the ethnic war was a source of profit, was at last freed from fear, hatred and constant violence.
General Sarath Fonseka attempted to ride on his popularity as the head of the Sinhala forces who ushered in peace, success claimed by the then President and Minister of Defence MR along with Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Fonseka also had the temerity of run against Mahinda Rajapaksa for the presidency in 2010.
Fonseka’s subsequent incarceration after his defeat, with a sentence of three years in prison on charges of “corruption” was straight out of the authoritarian playbook. He was released after serving two years of his sentence through international pressure.
The Rajapaksa administration’s popularity was waning in 2014, amid widespread rumours of massive corruption, when one of the members of his cabinet, Maithripala Sirisena, defected to the impotent, rudderless UNP-backed coalition of other parties. Sirisena won the presidency and led an uneasy administration for three years. Amidst constant in-fighting, the shaky Yahapalana coalition came to its inevitable end, when Gotabaya Rajapaksa defeated UNP candidate, Sajith Premadasa handily in the 2019 presidential election.
The Rajapaksas have now resumed their accustomed position as the Ruling Family of Sri Lanka from 2019. The president retained the Defence ministry, elder brother and past president, Mahinda, Prime Minister and Finance, eldest brother Chamal at Irrigation, and Mahinda’s son, Namal, 35 years old, as Sports Minister. Most recently Basil Rajapaksa took over Finance.
The drift towards authoritarianism now seems to be a fait accompli in Sri Lanka, achieved entirely through the electoral process. Complete power resides in the hands of one family. The next generation is already being groomed for leadership. And the Commander-in-Chief is in total command of the military, as he should be.
Trump, are you listening? All it took for you to achieve your dream of claiming a dictatorial dynasty was to have shown a semblance of competence in maintaining the booming economy you inherited, and heeding scientific advice in handling the pandemic. White Supremacy alone could not save you from your own criminal incompetence.
Ironically and most tragically, it took a pandemic which has already taken over 700,000 American lives to save the oldest democracy in the world. For the moment.
Features
Pakistan-Sri Lanka ‘eye diplomacy’
Reminiscences:
I was appointed Managing Director of the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) and Chairman of the Trincomalee Petroleum Terminals Ltd (TPTL – Indian Oil Company/ Petroleum Corporation of Sri Lanka joint venture), in February 2023, by President Ranil Wickremesinghe. I served as TPTL Chairman voluntarily. TPTL controls the world-renowned oil tank farm in Trincomalee, abandoned after World War II. Several programmes were launched to repair tanks and buildings there. I enjoyed travelling to Trincomalee, staying at Navy House and monitoring the progress of the projects. Trincomalee is a beautiful place where I spent most of my time during my naval career.
My main task as MD, CPC, was to ensure an uninterrupted supply of petroleum products to the public.
With the great initiative of the then CPC Chairman, young and energetic Uvis Mohammed, and equally capable CPC staff, we were able to do our job diligently, and all problems related to petroleum products were overcome. My team and I were able to ensure that enough stocks were always available for any contingency.
The CPC made huge profits when we imported crude oil and processed it at our only refinery in Sapugaskanda, which could produce more than 50,000 barrels of refined fuel in one stream working day! (One barrel is equal to 210 litres). This huge facility encompassing about 65 acres has more than 1,200 employees and 65 storage tanks.
A huge loss the CPC was incurring due to wrong calculation of “out turn loss” when importing crude oil by ships and pumping it through Single Point Mooring Buoy (SPMB) at sea and transferring it through underwater fuel transfer lines to service tanks was detected and corrected immediately. That helped increase the CPC’s profits.
By August 2023, the CPC made a net profit of 74,000 million rupees (74 billion rupees)! The President was happy, the government was happy, the CPC Management was happy and the hard-working CPC staff were happy. I became a Managing Director of a very happy and successful State-Owned Enterprise (SOE). That was my first experience in working outside military/Foreign service.
I will be failing in my duty if I do not mention Sagala Rathnayake, then Chief of Staff to the President, for recommending me for the post of MD, CPC.
The only grievance they had was that we were not able to pay their 2023 Sinhala/Tamil New Year bonus due to a government circular. After working at CPC for six months and steering it out of trouble, I was ready to move out of CPC.
I was offered a new job as the Sri Lanka High Commissioner to Pakistan. I was delighted and my wife and son were happy. Our association with Pakistan, especially with the Pakistan Military, is very long. My son started schooling in Karachi in 1995, when I was doing the Naval War Course there. My wife Yamuna has many good friends in Pakistan. I am the first Military officer to graduate from the Karachi University in 1996 (BSc Honours in War Studies) and have a long association with the Pakistan Navy and their Special Forces. I was awarded the Nishan-e-Imtiaz (Military) medal—the highest National award by the Pakistan Presidentm in 2019m when I was Chief of Defence Staff. I am the only Sri Lankan to have been awarded this prestigious medal so far. I knew my son and myself would be able to play a quiet game of golf every morning at the picturesque Margalla Golf Club, owned by the Pakistan Navy, at the foot of Margalla hills, at Islamabad. The golf club is just a walking distance from the High Commissioner’s residence.
When I took over as Sri Lanka High Commissioner at Islamabad on 06 December 2023, I realised that a number of former Service Commanders had held that position earlier. The first Ceylonese High Commissioner to Pakistan, with a military background, was the first Army Commander General Anton Muthukumaru. He was concurrently Ambassador to Iran. Then distinguished Service Commanders, like General H W G Wijayakoon, General Gerry Silva, General Srilal Weerasooriya, Air Chief Marshal Jayalath Weerakkody, served as High Commissioners to Islamabad. I took over from Vice Admiral Mohan Wijewickrama (former Chief of Staff of Navy and Governor Eastern Province).

A photograph of Dr. Silva (second from right) in Brigadier
(Dr) Waquar Muzaffar’s album
One of the first visitors I received was Kawaja Hamza, a prominent Defence Correspondent in Islamabad. His request had nothing to do with Defence matters. He wanted to bring his 84-year-old father to see me; his father had his eyesight restored with corneas donated by a Sri Lankan in 1972! His eyesight is still good, but he did not know the Sri Lankan donor who gave him this most precious gift. He wanted to pay gratitude to the new Sri Lankan High Commissioner and to tell him that as a devoted Muslim, he prayed for the unknown donor every day! That reminded me of what my guru in Foreign Service, the late Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar told me when I was First Secretary/ Defence Advisor, Sri Lanka High Commission in New Delhi. That is “best diplomacy is people-to-people contacts.” This incident prompted me to research more into “Pakistan-Sri Lanka Eye Diplomacy” and what I learnt was fascinating!
Do you know the Sri Lanka Eye Donation Society has donated more than 26,000 corneas to Pakistan, since 1964 to date! That means more than 26,000 Pakistani people see the world with SRI LANKAN EYES! The Sri Lankan Eye Donation Society has provided 100,000 eye corneas to foreign countries FREE! To be exact 101,483 eye corneas during the last 65 years! More than one fourth of these donations was to one single country- Pakistan. Recent donations (in November 2024) were made to the Pakistan Military at Armed Forces Institute of Ophthalmology (AFIO), Rawalpindi, to restore the sight of Pakistan Army personnel who suffered eye injuries due to Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) blasts. This donation was done on the 75th Anniversary of the Sri Lanka Army.
Deshabandu Dr. F. G. Hudson Silva, a distinguished old boy of Nalanda College, Colombo, started collecting eye corneas as a medical student in 1958. His first set of corneas were collected from a deceased person and were stored at his home refrigerator at Wijerama Mawatha, Colombo 7. With his wife Iranganie De Silva (nee Kularatne), he started the Sri Lanka Eye Donation Society in 1961. They persuaded Buddhists to donate their eyes upon death. This drive was hugely successful.
Their son (now in the US) was a contemporary of mine at Royal College. I pledged to donate (of course with my parents’ permission) my eyes upon my death when I was a student at Royal college in 1972 on a Poson Full Moon Poya Day. Thousands have done so.
On Vesak Full Moon Poya Day in 1964, the first eye corneas were carried in a thermos flask filled with Ice, to Singapore, by Dr Hudson Silva and his wife and a successful eye transplant surgery was performed. From that day, our eye corneas were sent to 62 different countries.
Pakistan Lions Clubs, which supported this noble gesture, built a beautiful Eye Hospital for humble people at Gulberg, Lahore, where eye surgeries are performed, and named it Dr Hudson Silva Lions Eye Hospital.
The good work has continued even after the demise of Dr Hudson Silva in 1999.
So many people have donated their eyes upon their death, including President J. R. Jayewardene, whose eye corneas were used to restore the eyesight of one Japanese and one Sri Lankan. Dr Hudson Silva became a great hero in Pakistan and he was treated with dignity and respect whenever he visited Pakistan. My friend, Brigadier (Dr) Waquar Muzaffar, the Commandant of AFIO, was able to dig into his old photographs and send me a precious photo taken in 1980, 46 years ago (when he was a medical student), with Dr Hudson Silva.
We will remember Dr and Mrs Hudson Silva with gratitude.
Bravo Zulu to Sri Lanka Eye Donation Society!
by Admiral Ravindra C Wijegunaratne
WV, RWP and Bar, RSP, VSV, USP, NI (M) (Pakistan), ndc, psn, Bsc
(Hons) (War Studies) (Karachi) MPhil (Madras)
Former Navy Commander and Former Chief of Defense Staff
Former Chairman, Trincomalee Petroleum Terminals Ltd
Former Managing Director Ceylon Petroleum Corporation
Former High Commissioner to Pakistan
Features
Lasting solutions require consensus
Problems and solutions in plural societies like Sri Lanka’s which have deep rooted ethnic, religious and linguistic cleavages require a consciously inclusive approach. A major challenge for any government in Sri Lanka is to correctly identify the problems faced by different groups with strong identities and find solutions to them. The durability of democratic systems in divided societies depends less on electoral victories than on institutionalised inclusion, consultation, and negotiated compromise. When problems are defined only through the lens of a single political formation, even one that enjoys a large electoral mandate, such as obtained by the NPP government, the policy prescriptions derived from that diagnosis will likely overlook the experiences of communities that may remain outside the ruling party. The result could end up being resistance to those policies, uneven implementation and eventual political backlash.
A recent survey done by the National Peace Council (NPC), in Jaffna, in the North, at a focus group discussion for young people on citizen perception in the electoral process, revealed interesting developments. The results of the NPC micro survey support the findings of the national survey by Verite Research that found that government approval rating stood at 65 percent in early February 2026. A majority of the respondents in Jaffna affirm that they feel safer and more fairly treated than in the past. There is a clear improving trend to be seen in some areas, but not in all. This survey of predominantly young and educated respondents shows 78 percent saying livelihood has improved and an equal percentage feeling safe in daily life. 75 percent express satisfaction with the new government and 64 percent believe the state treats their language and culture fairly. These are not insignificant gains in a region that bore the brunt of three decades of war.
Yet the same survey reveals deep reservations that temper this optimism. Only 25 percent are satisfied with the handling of past issues. An equal percentage see no change in land and military related concerns. Most strikingly, almost 90 percent are worried about land being taken without consent for religious purposes. A significant number are uncertain whether the future will be better. These negative sentiments cannot be brushed aside as marginal. They point to unresolved structural questions relating to land rights, demilitarisation, accountability and the locus of political power. If these issues are not addressed sooner rather than later, the current stability may prove fragile. This suggests the need to build consensus with other parties to ensure long-term stability and legitimacy, and the need for partnership to address national issues.
NPP Absence
National or local level problems solving is unlikely to be successful in the longer term if it only proceeds from the thinking of one group of people even if they are the most enlightened. Problem solving requires the engagement of those from different ethno-religious, caste and political backgrounds to get a diversity of ideas and possible solutions. It does not mean getting corrupted or having to give up the good for the worse. It means testing ideas in the public sphere. Legitimacy flows not merely from winning elections but from the quality of public reasoning that precedes decision-making. The experience of successful post-conflict societies shows that long term peace and development are built through dialogue platforms where civil society organisations, political actors, business communities, and local representatives jointly define problems before negotiating policy responses.
As a civil society organisation, the National Peace Council engages in a variety of public activities that focus on awareness and relationship building across communities. Participants in those activities include community leaders, religious clergy, local level government officials and grassroots political party representatives. However, along with other civil society organisations, NPC has been finding it difficult to get the participation of members of the NPP at those events. The excuse given for the absence of ruling party members is that they are too busy as they are involved in a plenitude of activities. The question is whether the ruling party members have too much on their plate or whether it is due to a reluctance to work with others.
The general belief is that those from the ruling party need to get special permission from the party hierarchy for activities organised by groups not under their control. The reluctance of the ruling party to permit its members to join the activities of other organisations may be the concern that they will get ideas that are different from those held by the party leadership. The concern may be that these different ideas will either corrupt the ruling party members or cause dissent within the ranks of the ruling party. But lasting reform in a plural society requires precisely this exposure. If 90 percent of surveyed youth in Jaffna are worried about land issues, then engaging them, rather than shielding party representatives from uncomfortable conversations, is essential for accurate problem identification.
North Star
The Leader of the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP), Prof Tissa Vitarana, who passed away last week, gave the example for national level problem solving. As a government minister he took on the challenge the protracted ethnic conflict that led to three decades of war. He set his mind on the solution and engaged with all but never veered from his conviction about what the solution would be. This was the North Star to him, said his son to me at his funeral, the direction to which the Compass (Malimawa) pointed at all times. Prof Vitarana held the view that in a diverse and plural society there was a need to devolve power and share power in a structured way between the majority community and minority communities. His example illustrates that engagement does not require ideological capitulation. It requires clarity of purpose combined with openness to dialogue.
The ethnic and religious peace that prevails today owes much to the efforts of people like Prof Vitarana and other like-minded persons and groups which, for many years, engaged as underdogs with those who were more powerful. The commitment to equality of citizenship, non-racism, non-extremism and non-discrimination, upheld by the present government, comes from this foundation. But the NPC survey suggests that symbolic recognition and improved daily safety are not enough. Respondents prioritise personal safety, truth regarding missing persons, return of land, language use and reduction of military involvement. They are also asking for jobs after graduation, local economic opportunity, protection of property rights, and tangible improvements that allow them to remain in Jaffna rather than migrate.
If solutions are to be lasting they cannot be unilaterally imposed by one party on the others. Lasting solutions cannot be unilateral solutions. They must emerge from a shared diagnosis of the country’s deepest problems and from a willingness to address the negative sentiments that persist beneath the surface of cautious optimism. Only then can progress be secured against reversal and anchored in the consent of the wider polity. Engaging with the opposition can help mitigate the hyper-confrontational and divisive political culture of the past. This means that the ruling party needs to consider not only how to protect its existing members by cloistering them from those who think differently but also expand its vision and membership by convincing others to join them in problem solving at multiple levels. This requires engagement and not avoidance or withdrawal.
by Jehan Perera
Features
Unpacking public responses to educational reforms
As the debate on educational reforms rages, I find it useful to pay as much attention to the reactions they have excited as we do to the content of the reforms. Such reactions are a reflection of how education is understood in our society, and this understanding – along with the priorities it gives rise to – must necessarily be taken into account in education policy, including and especially reform. My aim in this piece, however, is to couple this public engagement with critical reflection on the historical-structural realities that structure our possibilities in the global market, and briefly discuss the role of academics in this endeavour.
Two broad reactions
The reactions to the proposed reforms can be broadly categorised into ‘pro’ and ‘anti’. I will discuss the latter first. Most of the backlash against the reforms seems to be directed at the issue of a gay dating site, accidentally being linked to the Grade 6 English module. While the importance of rigour cannot be overstated in such a process, the sheer volume of the energies concentrated on this is also indicative of how hopelessly homophobic our society is, especially its educators, including those in trade unions. These dispositions are a crucial part of the reason why educational reforms are needed in the first place. If only there was a fraction of the interest in ‘keeping up with the rest of the world’ in terms of IT, skills, and so on, in this area as well!
Then there is the opposition mounted by teachers’ trade unions and others about the process of the reforms not being very democratic, which I (and many others in higher education, as evidenced by a recent statement, available at https://island.lk/general-educational-reforms-to-what-purpose-a-statement-by-state-university-teachers/ ) fully agree with. But I earnestly hope the conversation is not usurped by those wanting to promote heteronormativity, further entrenching bigotry only education itself can save us from. With this important qualification, I, too, believe the government should open up the reform process to the public, rather than just ‘informing’ them of it.
It is unclear both as to why the process had to be behind closed doors, as well as why the government seems to be in a hurry to push the reforms through. Considering other recent developments, like the continued extension of emergency rule, tabling of the Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA), and proposing a new Authority for the protection of the Central Highlands (as is famously known, Authorities directly come under the Executive, and, therefore, further strengthen the Presidency; a reasonable question would be as to why the existing apparatus cannot be strengthened for this purpose), this appears especially suspect.
Further, according to the Secretary to the MOE Nalaka Kaluwewa: “The full framework for the [education] reforms was already in place [when the Dissanayake government took office]” (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/08/12/wxua-a12.html, citing The Morning, July 29). Given the ideological inclinations of the former Wickremesinghe government and the IMF negotiations taking place at the time, the continuation of education reforms, initiated in such a context with very little modification, leaves little doubt as to their intent: to facilitate the churning out of cheap labour for the global market (with very little cushioning from external shocks and reproducing global inequalities), while raising enough revenue in the process to service debt.
This process privileges STEM subjects, which are “considered to contribute to higher levels of ‘employability’ among their graduates … With their emphasis on transferable skills and demonstrable competency levels, STEM subjects provide tools that are well suited for the abstraction of labour required by capitalism, particularly at the global level where comparability across a wide array of labour markets matters more than ever before” (my own previous piece in this column on 29 October 2024). Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) subjects are deprioritised as a result. However, the wisdom of an education policy that is solely focused on responding to the global market has been questioned in this column and elsewhere, both because the global market has no reason to prioritise our needs as well as because such an orientation comes at the cost of a strategy for improving the conditions within Sri Lanka, in all sectors. This is why we need a more emancipatory vision for education geared towards building a fairer society domestically where the fruits of prosperity are enjoyed by all.
The second broad reaction to the reforms is to earnestly embrace them. The reasons behind this need to be taken seriously, although it echoes the mantra of the global market. According to one parent participating in a protest against the halting of the reform process: “The world is moving forward with new inventions and technology, but here in Sri Lanka, our children are still burdened with outdated methods. Opposition politicians send their children to international schools or abroad, while ours depend on free education. Stopping these reforms is the lowest act I’ve seen as a mother” (https://www.newsfirst.lk/2026/01/17/pro-educational-reforms-protests-spread-across-sri-lanka). While it is worth mentioning that it is not only the opposition, nor in fact only politicians, who send their children to international schools and abroad, the point holds. Updating the curriculum to reflect the changing needs of a society will invariably strengthen the case for free education. However, as mentioned before, if not combined with a vision for harnessing education’s emancipatory potential for the country, such a move would simply translate into one of integrating Sri Lanka to the world market to produce cheap labour for the colonial and neocolonial masters.
According to another parent in a similar protest: “Our children were excited about lighter schoolbags and a better future. Now they are left in despair” (https://www.newsfirst.lk/2026/01/17/pro-educational-reforms-protests-spread-across-sri-lanka). Again, a valid concern, but one that seems to be completely buying into the rhetoric of the government. As many pieces in this column have already shown, even though the structure of assessments will shift from exam-heavy to more interim forms of assessment (which is very welcome), the number of modules/subjects will actually increase, pushing a greater, not lesser, workload on students.

A file photo of a satyagraha against education reforms
What kind of education?
The ‘pro’ reactions outlined above stem from valid concerns, and, therefore, need to be taken seriously. Relatedly, we have to keep in mind that opening the process up to public engagement will not necessarily result in some of the outcomes, those particularly in the HSS academic community, would like to see, such as increasing the HSS component in the syllabus, changing weightages assigned to such subjects, reintroducing them to the basket of mandatory subjects, etc., because of the increasing traction of STEM subjects as a surer way to lock in a good future income.
Academics do have a role to play here, though: 1) actively engage with various groups of people to understand their rationales behind supporting or opposing the reforms; 2) reflect on how such preferences are constituted, and what they in turn contribute towards constituting (including the global and local patterns of accumulation and structures of oppression they perpetuate); 3) bring these reflections back into further conversations, enabling a mutually conditioning exchange; 4) collectively work out a plan for reforming education based on the above, preferably in an arrangement that directly informs policy. A reform process informed by such a dialectical exchange, and a system of education based on the results of these reflections, will have greater substantive value while also responding to the changing times.
Two important prerequisites for this kind of endeavour to succeed are that first, academics participate, irrespective of whether they publicly endorsed this government or not, and second, that the government responds with humility and accountability, without denial and shifting the blame on to individuals. While we cannot help the second, we can start with the first.
Conclusion
For a government that came into power riding the wave of ‘system change’, it is perhaps more important than for any other government that these reforms are done for the right reasons, not to mention following the right methods (of consultation and deliberation). For instance, developing soft skills or incorporating vocational education to the curriculum could be done either in a way that reproduces Sri Lanka’s marginality in the global economic order (which is ‘system preservation’), or lays the groundwork to develop a workforce first and foremost for the country, limited as this approach may be. An inextricable concern is what is denoted by ‘the country’ here: a few affluent groups, a majority ethno-religious category, or everyone living here? How we define ‘the country’ will centrally influence how education policy (among others) will be formulated, just as much as the quality of education influences how we – students, teachers, parents, policymakers, bureaucrats, ‘experts’ – think about such categories. That is precisely why more thought should go to education policymaking than perhaps any other sector.
(Hasini Lecamwasam is attached to the Department of Political Science, University of Peradeniya).
Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.
-
Life style3 days agoMarriot new GM Suranga
-
Business2 days agoMinistry of Brands to launch Sri Lanka’s first off-price retail destination
-
Features3 days agoMonks’ march, in America and Sri Lanka
-
Opinion6 days agoWill computers ever be intelligent?
-
Features3 days agoThe Rise of Takaichi
-
Features3 days agoWetlands of Sri Lanka:
-
News3 days agoThailand to recruit 10,000 Lankans under new labour pact
-
News3 days agoMassive Sangha confab to address alleged injustices against monks
