Features

ARTI or Peradeniya University? – career dilemmas of a young man

Published

2 years ago

2024/07/21

by Jayantha Perera

In 1971, after the failed Marxist uprising against the state, the government introduced the rule that anyone applying for a government job should get a report (a ‘chit’) from the local political agent of the government. This rule especially applied to young men and women, as the government distrusted the youth because of their involvement in the insurrection.

Soon after graduating from the University of Peradeniya in 1972, I applied for a vacancy at the Agrarian Research and Training Institute (ARTI) for a research and training officer (rural sociology). I visited the political agent, who lived in Hendala, to get a chit. The agent was an Ayurvedic doctor who was also a justice of the peace and a member of the Town Council (He was known as ‘Member Mahatmaya.’). He cordially received me in the verandah of his small house. He was in a sarong without a shirt or a vest. A heavy leather belt with a large buckle was around his belly over the sarong. A small towel covered his shoulders.

He complained that my late father had never even said hello to him. I just kept quiet. He then added, “Never mind. People say he was an outstanding teacher. That matters. You know, different people have different personalities.” Then he enquired about what had brought me to him. I told him I had applied for a staff position at the ARTI and needed a good recommendation from him. He smiled and said, “Yes, every day, I get one or two inquiries about job applicants from government ministries. I will send a good recommendation if the Ministry requests me to send a report on you. Please do not forget to say hello when we meet again.”

Mahinda Silva, the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands Secretary, chaired the interview panel. He welcomed me and asked, “Do you want us to interview you in English or Sinhala?” I replied, “In both.” Mahinda chuckled and said, “Alright, we’ll start with a few questions in English and then switch to Sinhala.” The interview focused on collaborating with economists, agronomists, and communication specialists in sociological studies. I used the term “social structure” several times. Mahinda encouraged me to elaborate my thoughts without using abstract concepts, inspiring me to express myself more clearly.

Two weeks later, the ARTI Registrar told me to meet Mahinda. I found Mahinda in the ARTI Chairman’s office, an air-conditioned room with comfortable chairs and a large desk. A peon with a colourful sash and an apron served tea with biscuits, butter cake, and devilled cashew nuts. I sat on the edge of a chair, scared to sit back in such an august environment. Mahinda asked me about my school, family background, and teachers he knew at the university while going through some files.

He asked me whether I wanted to join the ARTI. I said, “Yes, Sir.” Mahinda smiled and got up with some papers in his hand. He was a tall man, dark in complexion. He was in his fifties. He wore a long-sleeved white shirt with a pair of baggy white trousers. I noted that he wore sandals, not socks and shoes. He had a disarming smile, which made me comfortable. He told me that the ARTI was a new institute. I should get ready to do postgraduate studies in England.

I told Mahinda what the political agent had told me. He laughed and said the Honourable Minister was a progressive man who did not rely on political chits to appoint deserving candidates to staff positions. He then asked me if I had any connections with the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) party, which led the 1971 insurrection. I explained that I was the Vice President of the University’s Communist Party (Peking Wing) and was involved in student politics but had no ties with the JVP. Mahinda said, “Your involvement in student politics is a sign of your leadership.” This acknowledgement of my leadership skills made me feel trusted and empowered.

Mahinda came to the ARTI with the Minister to meet the new recruits. He outlined critical research issues in the agrarian sector, including rural landlessness, poverty among agricultural wage workers, and undeveloped rural markets. The Minister told us, “We all should try to find solutions to such issues, and I know the ARTI can play a vital role. We provide vehicles, international advisers, and facilities to do research.”

In early May 1974, six months after joining the ARTI, I received a letter from Peradeniya University. The letter said, “The Dean of the Faculty of Arts wishes to see you on Saturday to discuss the timetable. You can start classes soon as a visiting lecturer.”

The ARTI Director was unhappy about the offer of a visiting lectureship and worried that I might leave ARTI to join the university. A few days later, the Registrar informed me that the Chairman had granted me permission to take up the visiting lectureship for three months, and such work must not interfere with my ARTI work.

Two months later, the university advertised two assistant lectureships in sociology. I applied for one without informing the ARTI. Although I was happy at the ARTI, I wanted to join the university because I thought teaching and researching was my vocation. Soon after the interview, the Dean of the Arts Faculty, whom I knew well, asked me to meet him in his office. He offered me a cup of tea and said, “Jayantha, you already have an excellent job at a premier research institute in Colombo. It offers much better prospects than an assistant lectureship in pursuing postgraduate studies abroad.” Then, he requested that I withdraw my application for the assistant lectureship before the second interview.

I told him my dream was to become a university professor one day, and I did not want to abandon that opportunity. He told me, “One of the candidates is from a remote village, and it would be difficult for him to find a job as you did. A university position is a good job for him. We can appoint him to one of the assistant lectureships if you withdraw your application. You are one of the chosen candidates.”

I was shocked and dispirited. I was unhappy, hurt, and confused. I did not know what to do. My ambition to become a lecturer and, finally, a professor at Peradeniya University seemed dashed against a rock. For a week, I was thinking about the second interview. I decided to get Mahinda’s advice. I visited him at the Ministry. He listened carefully and advised me to tell the ARTI Director about the offer and the issue raised by the Dean. He did not ask why I had applied without informing the ARTI.

The following morning, in the Chairman’s room, the ARTI Director asked me in front of Mahinda, “What do you think about the offer?” I told him about the Dean’s request. He asked me, “Are you interested in the university position. I said, “Yes.” Mahinda intervened and told me, “Jayantha, I respect your judgment. You should decide, not me or the Director. But I want to tell you one thing. Many people think getting a professorship at the university is like attaining nirvana. But that is a myth. I know many professors who are unhappy and trapped in the system. Please stay with us and get your postgraduate degrees as early as possible. As a young man, you have many opportunities ahead of you in life. You can decide to join a university in Sri Lanka or abroad later. Your postgraduate qualifications, research experience, and publications will place you in good stead to become a professor. But the decision is yours. You take time to decide. Please tell the Director your decision by the end of this week.”

I considered my options: to pursue an academic path at the university or to stay at the ARTI and become a development practitioner. The first would take me to Kandy, and the other would allow me to stay in Colombo. At the university, scholarships for higher studies were not guaranteed. After two years at the ARTI, I would become eligible for postgraduate studies abroad.

Going against the Dean’s advice and joining the university could harm me in the long run. Especially in the allocation of scholarships, the Dean had significant power. He might not recommend me for a scholarship because I had not listened to him. I was scared he might convince the second interview panel to select the candidate he supported and not offer me the lectureship. On the other hand, the ARTI had chosen me for a research and training officer post, and Mahinda had allowed me to teach at Peradeniya University as a visiting lecturer. His treatment of a ‘chit’ from the local political agent showed his liberal views and compassion towards young graduates who worried about political manipulations that could harm them.

I discussed my predicament with my mother and granduncle. Both said I should stay at the ARTI. My mother said I could travel to work from home and she could give me a tasty lunch parcel every day. My granduncle said I should remain in Colombo as I should soon start looking for a bride. He thought finding a suitable marriage partner in Colombo was much easier than in Kandy.

I told the Director I had decided to stay at the ARTI and did not attend the second interview. Later, I heard that the interview panel was prepared to postpone the second interview so that I could attend it on another day. I informed the Dean that I had decided to stay at the ARTI and asked him to approve my visiting lectureship. He agreed.

I wondered why the Dean discouraged me from coming for the second interview. He probably believed that ARTI was a better place for my career than the university, and he was genuinely worried about his candidate’s future. Many years later, a university colleague told me that the Dean supported the other candidate because both belonged to the same caste and from the same region. Anyway, I correctly decided not to join the university.

Mahinda frequently visited the ARTI to discuss their research programmes and field findings with the staff. He was a great storyteller. He cracked a joke or two before narrating a story. He mesmerized listeners with his stories. After a training programme in Tambuttegama, we had lunch at a farmer’s house. Mahinda noticed several young women who were busy serving visitors. Mahinda wanted to know whether I had selected the village for my fieldwork because of the girls. I told him, “Not necessarily.” He laughed and told me his guess was, at least, partially correct!

He told me about his humble beginnings. The Durham scholarship he had won enabled him to study in Colombo and enter the University of Ceylon. He completed his BA Honors degree in English under Professor Ludowyk. Mahinda planned to earn a living as an English teacher in Galle. But his friends and relatives encouraged him to sit the Ceylon Civil Service examination. He was among the 12 candidates chosen to become civil servants in 1950.

In the mid-1950s, Mahinda was an assistant postmaster general. During SWRD Bandaranaike’s government, there was a series of labour union strikes. Interdiction of a minor servant by Mahinda for assaulting an officer triggered a strike at the Postal Department. Mahinda received a call from the Prime Minister’s Office to be present at the Cabinet Secretariat. He thought the Prime Minister might ask him to resign as a part of the political solution to the strike. He got ready to go home and start English classes for local children.

peon led him to the Cabinet room. Bandaranaike asked Mahinda why he had interdicted the minor employee. Mahinda explained that the minor employee had an argument with an officer, lost his temper, and squeezed the officer’s testicles. Bandaranaike laughed aloud and asked Mahinda, “Is it a crime if a man squeezes another man’s balls?” Bandaranaike advised Mahinda to use administrative regulations sparingly. Mahinda left the Cabinet Office and waited until the Post Mater General came out of the Cabinet Office. He came out with the Minister. They started laughing when they saw Mahinda. The Minister told Mahinda to reinstate the minor servant if the trade unions were willing to call off the strike. Mahinda successfully ended the strike.

The day I left for the UK for postgraduate studies at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), University of Sussex, the Director invited me to his residence for dinner, and Mahinda joined us. Mahinda told me it would be freezing cold in the UK, and I should have long johns (thermal men’s underwear). He gifted me two new pairs of long johns. While sipping a glass of arrack with soda, he told me I had done well as a researcher at the ARTI. He was happy that I had stayed with the ARTI. He said, laughing, that he would look for a suitable bride when I returned from England.

I met Mahinda at the IDS. He was on an official visit. He told me that my supervisor had suggested I be allowed to do a PhD and that he could find funds for me. Mahinda agreed to extend my leave of absence so that I could complete the PhD.

After retirement, Mahinda converted his garage at home in Ratmalana into a bedsitter with a narrow bed, a writing table, and a cupboard. Its roof was asbestos sheets, and the room had no ceiling fan. He had all the volumes of Prof Joseph Needham’s ‘Science and Civilisation in China’ on the shelf. Once, I saw him underlining passages in a volume and writing notes in an exercise book. When I asked him why he was reading Needham, he said we could learn much from China.

1984, I asked him to be my referee as I applied for a USA fellowship. He wrote a long reference letter in which he clearly stated his views on the role of social researchers in Sri Lanka: “I do not believe that a social scientist working in a developing country like Sri Lanka can afford to view problems solely through the mirror of his books. His conceptual and methodological training must always be matched by a thorough familiarity with the grinding realities in the field. Jayantha has learned this lesson only too well during his long tenure with the ARTI.”

(Last Sunday’s article on “Weere, the blind scholar at Peradeniya” was written by the writer of this article, Jayantha Perera. We apologise for his byline being inadvertently omitted. Editor)

All News Advertisement

Features

Indian Ocean Security: Strategies for Sri Lanka

Published

2 days ago

2026/02/20

Thilina Walpola

During a recent panel discussion titled “Security Environment in the Indo-Pacific and Sri Lankan Diplomacy”, organised by the Embassy of Japan in collaboration with Dr. George I. H. Cooke, Senior Lecturer and initiator of the Awarelogue Initiative, the keynote address was delivered by Prof Ken Jimbo of Kelo University, Japan (Ceylon Today, February 15, 2026).

The report on the above states: “Prof. Jimbo discussed the evolving role of the Indo-Pacific and the emergence of its latest strategic outlook among shifting dynamics. He highlighted how changing geopolitical realities are reshaping the region’s security architecture and influencing diplomatic priorities”.

“He also addressed Sri Lanka’s position within this evolving framework, emphasising that non-alignment today does not mean isolation, but rather, diversified engagement. Such an approach, he noted, requires the careful and strategic management of dependencies to preserve national autonomy while maintaining strategic international partnerships” (Ibid).

Despite the fact that Non-Alignment and Neutrality, which incidentally is Sri Lanka’s current Foreign Policy, are often used interchangeably, both do not mean isolation. Instead, as the report states, it means multi-engagement. Therefore, as Prof. Jimbo states, it is imperative that Sri Lanka manages its relationships strategically if it is to retain its strategic autonomy and preserve its security. In this regard the Policy of Neutrality offers Rule Based obligations for Sri Lanka to observe, and protection from the Community of Nations to respect the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka, unlike Non-Alignment. The Policy of Neutrality served Sri Lanka well, when it declared to stay Neutral on the recent security breakdown between India and Pakistan.

Also participating in the panel discussion was Prof. Terney Pradeep Kumara – Director General of Coast Conservation and Coastal Resources Management, Ministry of Environment and Professor of Oceanography in the University of Ruhuna.

He stated: “In Sri Lanka’s case before speaking of superpower dynamics in the Indo-Pacific, the country must first establish its own identity within the Indian Ocean region given its strategically significant location”.

“He underlined the importance of developing the ‘Sea of Lanka concept’ which extends from the country’s coastline to its 200nauticalmile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Without firmly establishing this concept, it would be difficult to meaningfully engage with the broader Indian Ocean region”.

“He further stated that the Indian Ocean should be regarded as a zone of peace. From a defence perspective, Sri Lanka must remain neutral. However, from a scientific and resource perspective, the country must remain active given its location and the resources available in its maritime domain” (Ibid).

Perhaps influenced by his academic background, he goes on to state:” In that context Sri Lanka can work with countries in the Indian Ocean region and globally, including India, China, Australia and South Africa. The country must remain open to such cooperation” (Ibid).

Such a recommendation reflects a poor assessment of reality relating to current major power rivalry. This rivalry was addressed by me in an article titled “US – CHINA Rivalry: Maintaining Sri Lanka’s autonomy” ( 12.19. 2025) which stated: “However, there is a strong possibility for the US–China Rivalry to manifest itself engulfing India as well regarding resources in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone. While China has already made attempts to conduct research activities in and around Sri Lanka, objections raised by India have caused Sri Lanka to adopt measures to curtail Chinese activities presumably for the present. The report that the US and India are interested in conducting hydrographic surveys is bound to revive Chinese interests. In the light of such developments it is best that Sri Lanka conveys well in advance that its Policy of Neutrality requires Sri Lanka to prevent Exploration or Exploitation within its Exclusive Economic Zone under the principle of the Inviolability of territory by any country” ( https://island.lk/us- china-rivalry-maintaining-sri-lankas-autonomy/). Unless such measures are adopted, Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone would end up becoming the theater for major power rivalry, with negative consequences outweighing possible economic gains.

The most startling feature in the recommendation is the exclusion of the USA from the list of countries with which to cooperate, notwithstanding the Independence Day message by the US Secretary of State which stated: “… our countries have developed a strong and mutually beneficial partnership built on the cornerstone of our people-to-people ties and shared democratic values. In the year ahead, we look forward to increasing trade and investment between our countries and strengthening our security cooperation to advance stability and prosperity throughout the Indo-Pacific region (NEWS, U.S. & Sri Lanka)

Such exclusions would inevitably result in the US imposing drastic tariffs to cripple Sri Lanka’s economy. Furthermore, the inclusion of India and China in the list of countries with whom Sri Lanka is to cooperate, ignores the objections raised by India about the presence of Chinese research vessels in Sri Lankan waters to the point that Sri Lanka was compelled to impose a moratorium on all such vessels.

CONCLUSION

During a panel discussion titled “Security Environment in the Indo-Pacific and Sri Lankan Diplomacy” supported by the Embassy of Japan, Prof. Ken Jimbo of Keio University, Japan emphasized that “… non-alignment today does not mean isolation”. Such an approach, he noted, requires the careful and strategic management of dependencies to preserve national autonomy while maintaining strategic international partnerships”. Perhaps Prof. Jimbo was not aware or made aware that Sri Lanka’s Foreign Policy is Neutral; a fact declared by successive Governments since 2019 and practiced by the current Government in the position taken in respect of the recent hostilities between India and Pakistan.

Although both Non-Alignment and Neutrality are often mistakenly used interchangeably, they both do NOT mean isolation. The difference is that Non-Alignment is NOT a Policy but only a Strategy, similar to Balancing, adopted by decolonized countries in the context of a by-polar world, while Neutrality is an Internationally recognised Rule Based Policy, with obligations to be observed by Neutral States and by the Community of Nations. However, Neutrality in today’s context of geopolitical rivalries resulting from the fluidity of changing dynamics offers greater protection in respect of security because it is Rule Based and strengthened by “the UN adoption of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of peace”, with the freedom to exercise its autonomy and engage with States in pursuit of its National Interests.

Apart from the positive comments “that the Indian Ocean should be regarded as a Zone of Peace” and that “from a defence perspective, Sri Lanka must remain neutral”, the second panelist, Professor of Oceanography at the University of Ruhuna, Terney Pradeep Kumara, also advocated that “from a Scientific and resource perspective (in the Exclusive Economic Zone) the country must remain active, given its location and the resources available in its maritime domain”. He went further and identified that Sri Lanka can work with countries such as India, China, Australia and South Africa.

For Sri Lanka to work together with India and China who already are geopolitical rivals made evident by the fact that India has already objected to the presence of China in the “Sea of Lanka”, questions the practicality of the suggestion. Furthermore, the fact that Prof. Kumara has excluded the US, notwithstanding the US Secretary of State’s expectations cited above, reflects unawareness of the geopolitical landscape in which the US, India and China are all actively known to search for minerals. In such a context, Sri Lanka should accept its limitations in respect of its lack of Diplomatic sophistication to “work with” such superpower rivals who are known to adopt unprecedented measures such as tariffs, if Sri Lanka is to avoid the fate of Milos during the Peloponnesian Wars.

Under the circumstances, it is in Sri Lanka’s best interest to lay aside its economic gains for security, and live by its proclaimed principles and policies of Neutrality and the concept of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace by not permitting its EEC to be Explored and/or Exploited by anyone in its “maritime domain”. Since Sri Lanka is already blessed with minerals on land that is awaiting exploitation, participating in the extraction of minerals at the expense of security is not only imprudent but also an environmental contribution given the fact that the Sea and its resources is the Planet’s Last Frontier.

by Neville Ladduwahetty

Features

Protecting the ocean before it’s too late: What Sri Lankans think about deep seabed mining

Published

2 days ago

2026/02/20

Thilina Walpola

Far beneath the waters surrounding Sri Lanka lies a largely unseen frontier, a deep seabed that may contain cobalt, nickel and rare earth elements essential to modern technologies, from smartphones to electric vehicles. Around the world, governments and corporations are accelerating efforts to tap these minerals, presenting deep-sea mining as the next chapter of the global “blue economy.”

For an island nation whose ocean territory far exceeds its landmass, the question is no longer abstract. Sri Lanka has already demonstrated its commitment to ocean governance by ratifying the United Nations High Seas Treaty (BBNJ Agreement) in September 2025, becoming one of the early countries to help trigger its entry into force. The treaty strengthens biodiversity conservation beyond national jurisdiction and promotes fair access to marine genetic resources.

Yet as interest grows in seabed minerals, a critical debate is emerging: Can Sri Lanka pursue deep-sea mining ambitions without compromising marine ecosystems, fisheries and long-term sustainability?

Speaking to The Island, Prof. Lahiru Udayanga, Dr. Menuka Udugama and Ms. Nethini Ganepola of the Department of Agribusiness Management, Faculty of Agriculture & Plantation Management, together with Sudarsha De Silva, Co-founder of EarthLanka Youth Network and Sri Lanka Hub Leader for the Sustainable Ocean Alliance, shared findings from their newly published research examining how Sri Lankans perceive deep-sea mineral extraction.

The study, published in the journal Sustainability and presented at the International Symposium on Disaster Resilience and Sustainable Development in Thailand, offers rare empirical insight into public attitudes toward deep-sea mining in Sri Lanka.

Limited Public Inclusion

“Our study shows that public inclusion in decision-making around deep-sea mining remains quite limited,” Ms. Nethini Ganepola told The Island. “Nearly three-quarters of respondents said the issue is rarely covered in the media or discussed in public forums. Many feel that decisions about marine resources are made mainly at higher political or institutional levels without adequate consultation.”

The nationwide survey, conducted across ten districts, used structured questionnaires combined with a Discrete Choice Experiment — a method widely applied in environmental economics to measure how people value trade-offs between development and conservation.

Ganepola noted that awareness of seabed mining remains low. However, once respondents were informed about potential impacts — including habitat destruction, sediment plumes, declining fish stocks and biodiversity loss — concern rose sharply.

“This suggests the problem is not a lack of public interest,” she told The Island. “It is a lack of accessible information and meaningful opportunities for participation.”

Ecology Before Extraction

Dr. Menuka Udugama said the research was inspired by Sri Lanka’s growing attention to seabed resources within the wider blue economy discourse — and by concern that extraction could carry long-lasting ecological and livelihood risks if safeguards are weak.

“Deep-sea mining is often presented as an economic opportunity because of global demand for critical minerals,” Dr. Udugama told The Island. “But scientific evidence on cumulative impacts and ecosystem recovery remains limited, especially for deep habitats that regenerate very slowly. For an island nation, this uncertainty matters.”

She stressed that marine ecosystems underpin fisheries, tourism and coastal well-being, meaning decisions taken about the seabed can have far-reaching consequences beyond the mining site itself.

Prof. Lahiru Udayanga echoed this concern.

“People tended to view deep-sea mining primarily through an environmental-risk lens rather than as a neutral industrial activity,” Prof. Udayanga told The Island. “Biodiversity loss was the most frequently identified concern, followed by physical damage to the seabed and long-term resource depletion.”

About two-thirds of respondents identified biodiversity loss as their greatest fear — a striking finding for an issue that many had only recently learned about.

A Measurable Value for Conservation

Perhaps the most significant finding was the public’s willingness to pay for protection.

“On average, households indicated a willingness to pay around LKR 3,532 per year to protect seabed ecosystems,” Prof. Udayanga told The Island. “From an economic perspective, that represents the social value people attach to marine conservation.”

The study’s advanced statistical analysis — using Conditional Logit and Random Parameter Logit models — confirmed strong and consistent support for policy options that reduce mineral extraction, limit environmental damage and strengthen monitoring and regulation.

The research also revealed demographic variations. Younger and more educated respondents expressed stronger pro-conservation preferences, while higher-income households were willing to contribute more financially.

At the same time, many respondents expressed concern that government agencies and the media have not done enough to raise awareness or enforce safeguards — indicating a trust gap that policymakers must address.

“Regulations and monitoring systems require social acceptance to be workable over time,” Dr. Udugama told The Island. “Understanding public perception strengthens accountability and clarifies the conditions under which deep-sea mining proposals would be evaluated.”

Youth and Community Engagement

Ganepola emphasised that engagement must begin with transparency and early consultation.

“Decisions about deep-sea mining should not remain limited to technical experts,” she told The Island. “Coastal communities — especially fishers — must be consulted from the beginning, as they are directly affected. Youth engagement is equally important because young people will inherit the long-term consequences of today’s decisions.”

She called for stronger media communication, public hearings, stakeholder workshops and greater integration of marine conservation into school and university curricula.

“Inclusive and transparent engagement will build trust and reduce conflict,” she said.

A Regional Milestone

Sudarsha De Silva described the study as a milestone for Sri Lanka and the wider Asian region.

“When you consider research publications on this topic in Asia, they are extremely limited,” De Silva told The Island. “This is one of the first comprehensive studies in Sri Lanka examining public perception of deep-sea mining. Organizations like the Sustainable Ocean Alliance stepping forward to collaborate with Sri Lankan academics is a great achievement.”

He also acknowledged the contribution of youth research assistants from EarthLanka — Malsha Keshani, Fathima Shamla and Sachini Wijebandara — for their support in executing the study.

A Defining Choice

As Sri Lanka charts its blue economy future, the message from citizens appears unmistakable.

Development is not rejected. But it must not come at the cost of irreversible ecological damage.

The ocean’s true wealth, respondents suggest, lies not merely in minerals beneath the seabed, but in the living systems above it — systems that sustain fisheries, tourism and coastal communities.

For policymakers weighing the promise of mineral wealth against ecological risk, the findings shared with The Island offer a clear signal: sustainable governance and biodiversity protection align more closely with public expectations than unchecked extraction.

In the end, protecting the ocean may prove to be not only an environmental responsibility — but the most prudent long-term investment Sri Lanka can make.

By Ifham Nizam

Features

How Black Civil Rights leaders strengthen democracy in the US

Published

3 days ago

2026/02/19

Sahan Weerasooriya

Jesse Jackson / Barack Obama

On being elected US President in 2008, Barack Obama famously stated: ‘Change has come to America’. Considering the questions continuing to grow out of the status of minority rights in particular in the US, this declaration by the former US President could come to be seen as somewhat premature by some. However, there could be no doubt that the election of Barack Obama to the US presidency proved that democracy in the US is to a considerable degree inclusive and accommodating.

If this were not so, Barack Obama, an Afro-American politician, would never have been elected President of the US. Obama was exceptionally capable, charismatic and eloquent but these qualities alone could not have paved the way for his victory. On careful reflection it could be said that the solid groundwork laid by indefatigable Black Civil Rights activists in the US of the likes of Martin Luther King (Jnr) and Jesse Jackson, who passed away just recently, went a great distance to enable Obama to come to power and that too for two terms. Obama is on record as owning to the profound influence these Civil Rights leaders had on his career.

The fact is that these Civil Rights activists and Obama himself spoke to the hearts and minds of most Americans and convinced them of the need for democratic inclusion in the US. They, in other words, made a convincing case for Black rights. Above all, their struggles were largely peaceful.

Their reasoning resonated well with the thinking sections of the US who saw them as subscribers to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for instance, which made a lucid case for mankind’s equal dignity. That is, ‘all human beings are equal in dignity.’

It may be recalled that Martin Luther King (Jnr.) famously declared: ‘I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up, live out the true meaning of its creed….We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’

Jesse Jackson vied unsuccessfully to be a Democratic Party presidential candidate twice but his energetic campaigns helped to raise public awareness about the injustices and material hardships suffered by the black community in particular. Obama, we now know, worked hard at grass roots level in the run-up to his election. This experience proved invaluable in his efforts to sensitize the public to the harsh realities of the depressed sections of US society.

Cynics are bound to retort on reading the foregoing that all the good work done by the political personalities in question has come to nought in the US; currently administered by Republican hard line President Donald Trump. Needless to say, minority communities are now no longer welcome in the US and migrants are coming to be seen as virtual outcasts who need to be ‘shown the door’ . All this seems to be happening in so short a while since the Democrats were voted out of office at the last presidential election.

However, the last US presidential election was not free of controversy and the lesson is far too easily forgotten that democratic development is a process that needs to be persisted with. In a vital sense it is ‘a journey’ that encounters huge ups and downs. More so why it must be judiciously steered and in the absence of such foresighted managing the democratic process could very well run aground and this misfortune is overtaking the US to a notable extent.

The onus is on the Democratic Party and other sections supportive of democracy to halt the US’ steady slide into authoritarianism and white supremacist rule. They would need to demonstrate the foresight, dexterity and resourcefulness of the Black leaders in focus. In the absence of such dynamic political activism, the steady decline of the US as a major democracy cannot be prevented.

From the foregoing some important foreign policy issues crop-up for the global South in particular. The US’ prowess as the ‘world’s mightiest democracy’ could be called in question at present but none could doubt the flexibility of its governance system. The system’s inclusivity and accommodative nature remains and the possibility could not be ruled out of the system throwing up another leader of the stature of Barack Obama who could to a great extent rally the US public behind him in the direction of democratic development. In the event of the latter happening, the US could come to experience a democratic rejuvenation.

The latter possibilities need to be borne in mind by politicians of the South in particular. The latter have come to inherit a legacy of Non-alignment and this will stand them in good stead; particularly if their countries are bankrupt and helpless, as is Sri Lanka’s lot currently. They cannot afford to take sides rigorously in the foreign relations sphere but Non-alignment should not come to mean for them an unreserved alliance with the major powers of the South, such as China. Nor could they come under the dictates of Russia. For, both these major powers that have been deferentially treated by the South over the decades are essentially authoritarian in nature and a blind tie-up with them would not be in the best interests of the South, going forward.

However, while the South should not ruffle its ties with the big powers of the South it would need to ensure that its ties with the democracies of the West in particular remain intact in a flourishing condition. This is what Non-alignment, correctly understood, advises.

Accordingly, considering the US’ democratic resilience and its intrinsic strengths, the South would do well to be on cordial terms with the US as well. A Black presidency in the US has after all proved that the US is not predestined, so to speak, to be a country for only the jingoistic whites. It could genuinely be an all-inclusive, accommodative democracy and by virtue of these characteristics could be an inspiration for the South.

However, political leaders of the South would need to consider their development options very judiciously. The ‘neo-liberal’ ideology of the West need not necessarily be adopted but central planning and equity could be brought to the forefront of their talks with Western financial institutions. Dexterity in diplomacy would prove vital.