Features
Legal implications of Aragalaya protests
By Dharshan Weerasekera
The ‘Aragalaya protests,’ by which I mean the protests that started in mid-March and culminated in the storming of the President’s House, and the Presidential Secretariat on 09 July, leading to the subsequent resignation of the President, have been praised by many commentators as a triumph of democracy, and a resounding affirmation of the rights of the people. However, there is another perspective that one must consider at least for the sake of argument, namely, that the events in question demonstrate the supplanting of the rule of law, in our country by the rule of the mob.
There is very little discussion of this second perspective in local academic journals and newspapers, and it is in the public interest to start one. I argue that the protests are illegal because they contravene the letter and spirit of the Constitution, embodied in Articles 3 and 4 thereof, which I will explain more fully. I argue further that some fans of the protests are using a version of the ‘social contract theory,’ associated chiefly with the seminal thinkers Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Rousseau, to defend them.
It is vital that both the above matters be brought to the attention of the public because there is a danger that if they go unchallenged, they might creep into formal academic discourse and perhaps even into judicial rulings in the future, with devastating consequences. In this article, I shall briefly explain: a) why the ‘Aragalaya’ protests are illegal and, b) why the application of social contract theory to the protests is fallacious.
The constitutional argument
Arguably, the most important clauses in the Sri Lankan Constitution are Articles 3 and 4. Article 3 states: “In the Republic of Sri Lanka sovereignty is in the People and inalienable.” So, it identifies the ultimate basis of the Constitution’s authority and by extension its validity. Meanwhile, Article 4 enumerates the specific ways in which the people are to exercise their sovereignty, for instance, legislative power through a Parliament comprising of elected representatives, executive power through a President elected by the people, the franchise directly by the people and so on.
The necessary implication of an enumeration such as the above is that if the people wish to exercise their sovereignty, including changing the government, they must do so through the specific means spelled out in Article 4. The Constitution does not recognize any other ways through which the people may exercise their sovereignty, for instance, through popular uprisings and other such means. Nor does it reserve to the people the right to invent such means. To suppose otherwise would be to hold that the Constitution, the ‘Supreme Law of the Land,’ is supreme only when it is convenient for people to consider it so.
The above argument is strengthened when one considers what might be the possible obligations of the citizens towards the state. It is well-known that “rights always go hand in hand with responsibilities.” Sri Lanka is by and large a welfare state and almost the entire gamut of essential services is heavily if not entirely subsidized by the state. We have free healthcare, free education, farm subsidies and so on. The state is also the largest employer. Without a doubt, the persons who participated in the protests, if they were citizens of Sri Lanka, would have benefited to some degree or other from these services in the course of their lives.
In these circumstances, the question is whether at a time as the state was in financial difficulties at least partly as a result of factors beyond its control such as the costs of facing a pandemic and also the Easter Sunday terrorist attacks that crippled tourism, one of the pillars of the economy, it would have been more reasonable for the protesters to exercise some patience, instead of taking to the streets immediately, and calling for the ouster of the government?
To digress a moment, there is an extraordinary passage in Plato’s ‘Crito’ that speaks to the above question and it is worthwhile quoting it at length. The background to the passage is as follows: The Athenian Assembly had sentenced Socrates to death for allegedly “corrupting the youth” with his philosophizing. He was in jail awaiting execution. A group of his friends, led by Crito, arrange an escape for him and Crito visits the prison to tell him about the plan.
But Socrates refuses the offer. The essence of his argument is that as an Athenian citizen he had benefitted from the state throughout his life. Now, when the state had punished him, it would be wrong for him to turn his back on the state, even though the punishment might be unjust. He says,
“Imagine that I am about to play truant, and the laws and the government come and interrogate me: “Tell us, Socrates:, they say, “what are you about?” Are you not going by an act of yours to overturn us—the laws, and the whole state, as far as in you lies? Do you imagine that a state can subsist and not be overthrown, in which the decisions of law have no power, but are set aside and trampled upon by individuals?” He goes on…
“Then, the laws will say, “Consider, Socrates, if we are speaking truly that in your present attempt you are going to do us an injury. For, having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good we had to give, we further proclaim to any Athenian by the liberty which we allow him, that if he does not like us when he has become of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him. None of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Anyone who does not like us and the city, and who wants to emigrate to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, retaining his property.” (‘Crito’, Complete Dialogues of Plato, (trans. Benjamin Jowett) London, 1952, p. 217)
At the time of the protests, all of the means provided by the Constitution for changing the government were available to the citizens of this country. Now, a critic might say that it would have taken too long to exercise those means, for instance, if people were to wait for two years, until the next elections, the country would have been ruined. But then, the means to change the times for elections were also available. To my knowledge, the government had made no attempt to suspend the Constitution or any part thereof.
Also, Socrates’ point, although made in a different context, is highly relevant here. If any citizen was dissatisfied with the prevailing situation, they had the option of leaving. In these circumstances, was it lawful for the protesters to storm the President’s House and Secretariat and forcibly evict the President, from those premises, and, shortly afterwards, the country, leading to his subsequent resignation? In my opinion, the conclusion is inescapable that the said act is illegal.
Social Contract Theory as a defence for the protests
A perusal of commentary on the protests shows that many writers rely on a version of the “social contract theory” to defend them. In my view, their stance is untenable because of the following reasons. “Social contract theory,” is chiefly associated with Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), John Locke (1632-1704) and Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). As far as I am aware, the idea behind the theory is that at the very inception of a state, the people enter into a contract with their rulers whereby the former surrender a portion of their sovereignty to the rulers in exchange for the rulers ensuring the security and welfare of the people.
If the rulers fail to fulfill their end of the deal, the people would be justified in ousting them. Locke famously says in “An Essay Concerning Civil Government”: “Whenever law ends, tyranny begins. If the law be transgressed to another’s harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command to compass that upon the subject which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate, and acting without authority may be opposed, as any other man who by force invades the rights of another.” (‘An Essay Concerning Civil Government’, p. 71)
As mentioned earlier, some commentators try to defend the protests by resort to a version of the above argument. According to them, the former President exceeded his authority or in some other way reneged on his obligations to the people and hence the people had a right to oust him. However, leaving aside the question whether such a dereliction of duty in fact happened, Locke’s argument can be distinguished from the Sri Lankan situation very clearly.
Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau were responding to the fundamental transformations that were taking in the political systems of their respective countries. In the case of Hobbes and Locke, it was to the transition from a monarchy to a constitutional monarchy that was taking place in England over the course of the 17th century and in the case of Rousseau it was to the transition from a monarchy to a Republic symbolized by the French Revolution.
Each thinker, in his own way, was trying to find a way to legitimize the emerging political order. In order to do this, they introduced the notion that the ultimate authority in the state comes from the people, as opposed to the monarch who at the time was understood as deriving his authority from God. In sum, social contract theory applies to situations where new political systems are being formed, not to convulsions in such systems once theyare formed. For instance, if people can topple the government at will, what is the point of having elections?
Democracy is understood as rule by the consent of the people. If one accepts that the way in which this consent is expressed is though elections, then changing governments, other than through constitutionally prescribed methods, createsthe potential for perpetual instability in the state and thereby negates the very purpose for which the social contract is purportedly formed, namely, ensuring the security and well-being of the people.
Conclusion
Sri Lankans must decide whether they want to live in a country where the rule of law prevails or, ultimately, the rule of the mob. If the former, they need to reflect deeply about what happened in the course of the protests and devise constitutional means to prevent such things from repeating.
(The writer is an Attorney-at-Law)
Features
Disaster-proofing paradise: Sri Lanka’s new path to global resilience
iyadasa Advisor to the Ministry of Science & Technology and a Board of Directors of Sri Lanka Atomic Energy Regulatory Council A value chain management consultant to www.vivonta.lk
As climate shocks multiply worldwide from unseasonal droughts and flash floods to cyclones that now carry unpredictable fury Sri Lanka, long known for its lush biodiversity and heritage, stands at a crossroads. We can either remain locked in a reactive cycle of warnings and recovery, or boldly transform into the world’s first disaster-proof tropical nation — a secure haven for citizens and a trusted destination for global travelers.
The Presidential declaration to transition within one year from a limited, rainfall-and-cyclone-dependent warning system to a full-spectrum, science-enabled resilience model is not only historic — it’s urgent. This policy shift marks the beginning of a new era: one where nature, technology, ancient wisdom, and community preparedness work in harmony to protect every Sri Lankan village and every visiting tourist.
The Current System’s Fatal Gaps
Today, Sri Lanka’s disaster management system is dangerously underpowered for the accelerating climate era. Our primary reliance is on monsoon rainfall tracking and cyclone alerts — helpful, but inadequate in the face of multi-hazard threats such as flash floods, landslides, droughts, lightning storms, and urban inundation.
Institutions are fragmented; responsibilities crisscross between agencies, often with unclear mandates and slow decision cycles. Community-level preparedness is minimal — nearly half of households lack basic knowledge on what to do when a disaster strikes. Infrastructure in key regions is outdated, with urban drains, tank sluices, and bunds built for rainfall patterns of the 1960s, not today’s intense cloudbursts or sea-level rise.
Critically, Sri Lanka is not yet integrated with global planetary systems — solar winds, El Niño cycles, Indian Ocean Dipole shifts — despite clear evidence that these invisible climate forces shape our rainfall, storm intensity, and drought rhythms. Worse, we have lost touch with our ancestral systems of environmental management — from tank cascades to forest sanctuaries — that sustained this island for over two millennia.
This system, in short, is outdated, siloed, and reactive. And it must change.
A New Vision for Disaster-Proof Sri Lanka
Under the new policy shift, Sri Lanka will adopt a complete resilience architecture that transforms climate disaster prevention into a national development strategy. This system rests on five interlinked pillars:
Science and Predictive Intelligence
We will move beyond surface-level forecasting. A new national climate intelligence platform will integrate:
AI-driven pattern recognition of rainfall and flood events
Global data from solar activity, ocean oscillations (ENSO, MJO, IOD)
High-resolution digital twins of floodplains and cities
Real-time satellite feeds on cyclone trajectory and ocean heat
The adverse impacts of global warming—such as sea-level rise, the proliferation of pests and diseases affecting human health and food production, and the change of functionality of chlorophyll—must be systematically captured, rigorously analysed, and addressed through proactive, advance decision-making.
This fusion of local and global data will allow days to weeks of anticipatory action, rather than hours of late alerts.
Advanced Technology and Early Warning Infrastructure
Cell-broadcast alerts in all three national languages, expanded weather radar, flood-sensing drones, and tsunami-resilient siren networks will be deployed. Community-level sensors in key river basins and tanks will monitor and report in real-time. Infrastructure projects will now embed climate-risk metrics — from cyclone-proof buildings to sea-level-ready roads.
Governance Overhaul
A new centralised authority — Sri Lanka Climate & Earth Systems Resilience Authority — will consolidate environmental, meteorological, Geological, hydrological, and disaster functions. It will report directly to the Cabinet with a real-time national dashboard. District Disaster Units will be upgraded with GN-level digital coordination. Climate literacy will be declared a national priority.
People Power and Community Preparedness
We will train 25,000 village-level disaster wardens and first responders. Schools will run annual drills for floods, cyclones, tsunamis and landslides. Every community will map its local hazard zones and co-create its own resilience plan. A national climate citizenship programme will reward youth and civil organisations contributing to early warning systems, reforestation (riverbank, slopy land and catchment areas) , or tech solutions.
Reviving Ancient Ecological Wisdom
Sri Lanka’s ancestors engineered tank cascades that regulated floods, stored water, and cooled microclimates. Forest belts protected valleys; sacred groves were biodiversity reservoirs. This policy revives those systems:
Restoring 10,000 hectares of tank ecosystems
Conserving coastal mangroves and reintroducing stone spillways
Integrating traditional seasonal calendars with AI forecasts
Recognising Vedda knowledge of climate shifts as part of national risk strategy
Our past and future must align, or both will be lost.
A Global Destination for Resilient Tourism
Climate-conscious travelers increasingly seek safe, secure, and sustainable destinations. Under this policy, Sri Lanka will position itself as the world’s first “climate-safe sanctuary island” — a place where:
Resorts are cyclone- and tsunami-resilient
Tourists receive live hazard updates via mobile apps
World Heritage Sites are protected by environmental buffers
Visitors can witness tank restoration, ancient climate engineering, and modern AI in action
Sri Lanka will invite scientists, startups, and resilience investors to join our innovation ecosystem — building eco-tourism that’s disaster-proof by design.
Resilience as a National Identity
This shift is not just about floods or cyclones. It is about redefining our identity. To be Sri Lankan must mean to live in harmony with nature and to be ready for its changes. Our ancestors did it. The science now supports it. The time has come.
Let us turn Sri Lanka into the world’s first climate-resilient heritage island — where ancient wisdom meets cutting-edge science, and every citizen stands protected under one shield: a disaster-proof nation.
Features
The minstrel monk and Rafiki the old mandrill in The Lion King – I
Why is national identity so important for a people? AI provides us with an answer worth understanding critically (Caveat: Even AI wisdom should be subjected to the Buddha’s advice to the young Kalamas):
‘A strong sense of identity is crucial for a people as it fosters belonging, builds self-worth, guides behaviour, and provides resilience, allowing individuals to feel connected, make meaningful choices aligned with their values, and maintain mental well-being even amidst societal changes or challenges, acting as a foundation for individual and collective strength. It defines “who we are” culturally and personally, driving shared narratives, pride, political action, and healthier relationships by grounding people in common values, traditions, and a sense of purpose.’
Ethnic Sinhalese who form about 75% of the Sri Lankan population have such a unique identity secured by the binding medium of their Buddhist faith. It is significant that 93% of them still remain Buddhist (according to 2024 statistics/wikipedia), professing Theravada Buddhism, after four and a half centuries of coercive Christianising European occupation that ended in 1948. The Sinhalese are a unique ancient island people with a 2500 year long recorded history, their own language and country, and their deeply evolved Buddhist cultural identity.
Buddhism can be defined, rather paradoxically, as a non-religious religion, an eminently practical ethical-philosophy based on mind cultivation, wisdom and universal compassion. It is an ethico-spiritual value system that prioritises human reason and unaided (i.e., unassisted by any divine or supernatural intervention) escape from suffering through self-realisation. Sri Lanka’s benignly dominant Buddhist socio-cultural background naturally allows unrestricted freedom of religion, belief or non-belief for all its citizens, and makes the country a safe spiritual haven for them. The island’s Buddha Sasana (Dispensation of the Buddha) is the inalienable civilisational treasure that our ancestors of two and a half millennia have bequeathed to us. It is this enduring basis of our identity as a nation which bestows on us the personal and societal benefits of inestimable value mentioned in the AI summary given at the beginning of this essay.
It was this inherent national identity that the Sri Lankan contestant at the 72nd Miss World 2025 pageant held in Hyderabad, India, in May last year, Anudi Gunasekera, proudly showcased before the world, during her initial self-introduction. She started off with a verse from the Dhammapada (a Pali Buddhist text), which she explained as meaning “Refrain from all evil and cultivate good”. She declared, “And I believe that’s my purpose in life”. Anudi also mentioned that Sri Lanka had gone through a lot “from conflicts to natural disasters, pandemics, economic crises….”, adding, “and yet, my people remain hopeful, strong, and resilient….”.
“Ayubowan! I am Anudi Gunasekera from Sri Lanka. It is with immense pride that I represent my Motherland, a nation of resilience, timeless beauty, and a proud history, Sri Lanka.
“I come from Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka’s first capital, and UNESCO World Heritage site, with its history and its legacy of sacred monuments and stupas…….”.
The “inspiring words” that Anudi quoted are from the Dhammapada (Verse 183), which runs, in English translation: “To avoid all evil/To cultivate good/and to cleanse one’s mind -/this is the teaching of the Buddhas”. That verse is so significant because it defines the basic ‘teaching of the Buddhas’ (i.e., Buddha Sasana; this is how Walpole Rahula Thera defines Buddha Sasana in his celebrated introduction to Buddhism ‘What the Buddha Taught’ first published in1959).
Twenty-five year old Anudi Gunasekera is an alumna of the University of Kelaniya, where she earned a bachelor’s degree in International Studies. She is planning to do a Master’s in the same field. Her ambition is to join the foreign service in Sri Lanka. Gen Z’er Anudi is already actively engaged in social service. The Saheli Foundation is her own initiative launched to address period poverty (i.e., lack of access to proper sanitation facilities, hygiene and health education, etc.) especially among women and post-puberty girls of low-income classes in rural and urban Sri Lanka.
Young Anudi is primarily inspired by her patriotic devotion to ‘my Motherland, a nation of resilience, timeless beauty, and a proud history, Sri Lanka’. In post-independence Sri Lanka, thousands of young men and women of her age have constantly dedicated themselves, oftentimes making the supreme sacrifice, motivated by a sense of national identity, by the thought ‘This is our beloved Motherland, these are our beloved people’.
The rescue and recovery of Sri Lanka from the evil aftermath of a decade of subversive ‘Aragalaya’ mayhem is waiting to be achieved, in every sphere of national engagement, including, for example, economics, communications, culture and politics, by the enlightened Anudi Gunasekeras and their male counterparts of the Gen Z, but not by the demented old stragglers lingering in the political arena listening to the unnerving rattle of “Time’s winged chariot hurrying near”, nor by the baila blaring monks at propaganda rallies.
Politically active monks (Buddhist bhikkhus) are only a handful out of the Maha Sangha (the general body of Buddhist bhikkhus) in Sri Lanka, who numbered just over 42,000 in 2024. The vast majority of monks spend their time quietly attending to their monastic duties. Buddhism upholds social and emotional virtues such as universal compassion, empathy, tolerance and forgiveness that protect a society from the evils of tribalism, religious bigotry and death-dealing religious piety.
Not all monks who express or promote political opinions should be censured. I choose to condemn only those few monks who abuse the yellow robe as a shield in their narrow partisan politics. I cannot bring myself to disapprove of the many socially active monks, who are articulating the genuine problems that the Buddha Sasana is facing today. The two bhikkhus who are the most despised monks in the commercial media these days are Galaboda-aththe Gnanasara and Ampitiye Sumanaratana Theras. They have a problem with their mood swings. They have long been whistleblowers trying to raise awareness respectively, about spreading religious fundamentalism, especially, violent Islamic Jihadism, in the country and about the vandalising of the Buddhist archaeological heritage sites of the north and east provinces. The two middle-aged monks (Gnanasara and Sumanaratana) belong to this respectable category. Though they are relentlessly attacked in the social media or hardly given any positive coverage of the service they are doing, they do nothing more than try to persuade the rulers to take appropriate action to resolve those problems while not trespassing on the rights of people of other faiths.
These monks have to rely on lay political leaders to do the needful, without themselves taking part in sectarian politics in the manner of ordinary members of the secular society. Their generally demonised social image is due, in my opinion, to three main reasons among others: 1) spreading misinformation and disinformation about them by those who do not like what they are saying and doing, 2) their own lack of verbal restraint, and 3) their being virtually abandoned to the wolves by the temporal and spiritual authorities.
(To be continued)
By Rohana R. Wasala ✍️
Features
US’ drastic aid cut to UN poses moral challenge to world
‘Adapt, shrink or die’ – thus runs the warning issued by the Trump administration to UN humanitarian agencies with brute insensitivity in the wake of its recent decision to drastically reduce to $2bn its humanitarian aid to the UN system. This is a substantial climb down from the $17bn the US usually provided to the UN for its humanitarian operations.
Considering that the US has hitherto been the UN’s biggest aid provider, it need hardly be said that the US decision would pose a daunting challenge to the UN’s humanitarian operations around the world. This would indeed mean that, among other things, people living in poverty and stifling material hardships, in particularly the Southern hemisphere, could dramatically increase. Coming on top of the US decision to bring to an end USAID operations, the poor of the world could be said to have been left to their devices as a consequence of these morally insensitive policy rethinks of the Trump administration.
Earlier, the UN had warned that it would be compelled to reduce its aid programs in the face of ‘the deepest funding cuts ever.’ In fact the UN is on record as requesting the world for $23bn for its 2026 aid operations.
If this UN appeal happens to go unheeded, the possibilities are that the UN would not be in a position to uphold the status it has hitherto held as the world’s foremost humanitarian aid provider. It would not be incorrect to state that a substantial part of the rationale for the UN’s existence could come in for questioning if its humanitarian identity is thus eroded.
Inherent in these developments is a challenge for those sections of the international community that wish to stand up and be counted as humanists and the ‘Conscience of the World.’ A responsibility is cast on them to not only keep the UN system going but to also ensure its increased efficiency as a humanitarian aid provider to particularly the poorest of the poor.
It is unfortunate that the US is increasingly opting for a position of international isolation. Such a policy position was adopted by it in the decades leading to World War Two and the consequences for the world as a result of this policy posture were most disquieting. For instance, it opened the door to the flourishing of dictatorial regimes in the West, such as that led by Adolph Hitler in Germany, which nearly paved the way for the subjugation of a good part of Europe by the Nazis.
If the US had not intervened militarily in the war on the side of the Allies, the West would have faced the distressing prospect of coming under the sway of the Nazis and as a result earned indefinite political and military repression. By entering World War Two the US helped to ward off these bleak outcomes and indeed helped the major democracies of Western Europe to hold their own and thrive against fascism and dictatorial rule.
Republican administrations in the US in particular have not proved the greatest defenders of democratic rule the world over, but by helping to keep the international power balance in favour of democracy and fundamental human rights they could keep under a tight leash fascism and linked anti-democratic forces even in contemporary times. Russia’s invasion and continued occupation of parts of Ukraine reminds us starkly that the democracy versus fascism battle is far from over.
Right now, the US needs to remain on the side of the rest of the West very firmly, lest fascism enjoys another unfettered lease of life through the absence of countervailing and substantial military and political power.
However, by reducing its financial support for the UN and backing away from sustaining its humanitarian programs the world over the US could be laying the ground work for an aggravation of poverty in the South in particular and its accompaniments, such as, political repression, runaway social discontent and anarchy.
What should not go unnoticed by the US is the fact that peace and social stability in the South and the flourishing of the same conditions in the global North are symbiotically linked, although not so apparent at first blush. For instance, if illegal migration from the South to the US is a major problem for the US today, it is because poor countries are not receiving development assistance from the UN system to the required degree. Such deprivation on the part of the South leads to aggravating social discontent in the latter and consequences such as illegal migratory movements from South to North.
Accordingly, it will be in the North’s best interests to ensure that the South is not deprived of sustained development assistance since the latter is an essential condition for social contentment and stable governance, which factors in turn would guard against the emergence of phenomena such as illegal migration.
Meanwhile, democratic sections of the rest of the world in particular need to consider it a matter of conscience to ensure the sustenance and flourishing of the UN system. To be sure, the UN system is considerably flawed but at present it could be called the most equitable and fair among international development organizations and the most far-flung one. Without it world poverty would have proved unmanageable along with the ills that come along with it.
Dehumanizing poverty is an indictment on humanity. It stands to reason that the world community should rally round the UN and ensure its survival lest the abomination which is poverty flourishes. In this undertaking the world needs to stand united. Ambiguities on this score could be self-defeating for the world community.
For example, all groupings of countries that could demonstrate economic muscle need to figure prominently in this initiative. One such grouping is BRICS. Inasmuch as the US and the West should shrug aside Realpolitik considerations in this enterprise, the same goes for organizations such as BRICS.
The arrival at the above international consensus would be greatly facilitated by stepped up dialogue among states on the continued importance of the UN system. Fresh efforts to speed-up UN reform would prove major catalysts in bringing about these positive changes as well. Also requiring to be shunned is the blind pursuit of narrow national interests.
-
Sports5 days agoGurusinha’s Boxing Day hundred celebrated in Melbourne
-
News3 days agoLeading the Nation’s Connectivity Recovery Amid Unprecedented Challenges
-
Sports6 days agoTime to close the Dickwella chapter
-
Features4 days agoIt’s all over for Maxi Rozairo
-
News6 days agoEnvironmentalists warn Sri Lanka’s ecological safeguards are failing
-
News4 days agoDr. Bellana: “I was removed as NHSL Deputy Director for exposing Rs. 900 mn fraud”
-
News3 days agoDons on warpath over alleged undue interference in university governance
-
Features6 days agoDigambaram draws a broad brush canvas of SL’s existing political situation
