It ought to be an hour of soul-searching for those sections of the US electorate that voted Donald Trump to the position of US President for the second time. Primarily, does it sit easy on their consciences that their President-elect has a past criminal record?

Are they comfortable with the fact that he tried to wreck their country’s democratic process by seeking to overturn the presidential electoral verdict that brought Joe Biden to the pinnacle of governance in ‘the world’s mightiest democracy’ in 2020?

These are merely two of the most basic questions that Trump supporters need to ideally address. The US is far from being the proverbial ‘beacon of light’ for the rest of the world in quite a few respects but from the viewpoint of democratic development the US has thus far been considered foremost.

It follows that what the US does with its democracy, given this reputation, has an impact on the rest of the democratic world. Bad examples ‘from the top’ at whatever level or sphere tend to have a strong ‘copycat’ effect. That’s the troubling prospect for the admirers of the US in general and for Trump supporters in particular.

It was in Donald Trump’s narrow interests to get back to power. For some time at least it would ensure a spell of relative security for himself from the numerous lawsuits which were brought against him and their troubling legal consequences. It would also enable him to continue with his financial empire-building and ensure the seeming consolidation of what has come to be labelled as the ‘free enterprise system’ in the US. But what’s in Trump’s comeback for his supporters? Particularly those supporters who tried to savage the presidential election result of 2020? How do they stand to gain from their electoral decision?

Right now, if these rank-and-file Trump supporters believe that their personal lot would be any better under Trump, they are in for a huge disappointment. The fact is that inflation and related economic hardships would not only continue to plague them but would worsen in the future since Trump has announced no-holds-barred trade wars between the US and the foremost of economic powers, such as China.

For that matter how could any economy hope to be in one piece by having troubled economic links with China, the world’s second most vibrant economy and the world’s number one exporter of goods and services? Right now, there is no country that is not dependent to some degree on Chinese goods. Apparently, Trump supporters have bitten off more than they could chew by depending on some kind of ‘Trump magic’ to deliver them from their economic woes.

Besides, are die-hard Trump supporters expecting the US to be the number one world power indefinitely? Right now, the US is the foremost power alright but this position is not going unchallenged. There is of course China to consider. There is also the fact that India is fast catching up on both these powers. It wouldn’t be too long before India would prove no easy ‘push-over’ for the rest of the world’s foremost powers.

India’s current achievements in science and technology speak for themselves. Besides, India is the US’ topmost trading partner. China has been elbowed out of contention in this respect. For example, it is reported that India’s bilateral trade with the US would ‘cross the $ 200 billion mark in 2024 from $ 195 billion in 2023.’ Accordingly, international economic realities are increasing in complexity.

It would be foolish on the part of any section to think in simplistic terms on these questions. It would smack of naivety, for instance, to see the US’ seeming economic supremacy going indefinitely unchallenged. As matters stand, international economics would primarily drive international politics.

Considering even only the foregoing it seems that considerable sections of Trump supporters thought naively when they voted Trump back to power. Apparently, they fell for Trump’s rhetorical claims of the kind that the US would be made ‘number one’ in the world once again. Apparently, rationality was not their strong point.

But these supporters could not be judged harshly. An economically battered people easily fall for election platform rhetoric. This has time again been proved even in Small Sri Lanka; once described as South Asia’s ‘five star’ democracy.

Even on the foreign relations front, there are complex realities that the average US voter needs to ponder over. The Middle East is where a Trump administration’s foreign policy sagacity would be tested most. In that ‘powder keg’ region a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas is believed to be taking shape, but much give-and-take between the warring sides is called for.

Getting the hostages back is compulsory for both sides but there needs to be a guarantee that there would be no reversion to bloodshed and contention once this is done. Right now, it is open to question whether the incoming Trump administration could provide this ironclad guarantee.

To begin with, Trump would need to get tough with the Netanyahu regime and the political right supporting it. Since the Trump administration is itself backed by the extreme political right on the domestic front and is hand-in-glove with religious fundamentalist opinion in the US, it is doubtful whether Trump could deliver a durable peace in the Middle East.

It ought to be equally thought-provoking for the impartial commentator that considerable sections of Trump supporters apparently allowed themselves to be carried away by his racist slogans. Illegal migration is a major issue in US politics and there need to be legal ways to manage the crisis, but a successful democracy stands or falls by the way it treats its minority communities.

Considering the foregoing what one could gather is that the majority of Trump supporters were egged-on by emotion rather than reason when they opted to vote for him. It ought to have been clear to them that there are no quick-fixes for the ‘foreigner presence’ in their midst.

For instance, they ought to have seen that to act heavy-handedly towards ‘foreigners’ was tantamount to vitiating the values of tolerance and fair treatment which are central to the democratic ethos, which hitherto have been considered a defining essence of US governance.

However, Trump appealed to the gut emotions of his hardline supporters when he claimed, for instance, that the US public needed to protect their pets from migrants. The implication was that the latter were indiscreet flesh eaters. Such claims would have undoubtedly turned credulous sections in the US against migrants and compelled them to see in Trump a savior of sorts. Thus, Trump’s incendiary rhetoric translated into votes.

However, the upshot of these developments and more was that the democratic system in the US was exposed as vulnerable to rabble-rousing presidential contenders. The democratic vibrancy or ‘health’ of US governance has thus come into question. It’s an issue the US polity needs to address urgently.

By Professor Ajith DeSilva
LDESILVA@westga.edu

The concept of “Free Education” has long been a cornerstone of Sri Lankan identity, championed as a remarkable achievement of Dr. C.W.W. Kannangara’s visionary reforms in the mid-20th century. However, in today’s globalised world, it is essential to critically examine what “Free Education” truly means—and whether Sri Lanka’s system is as unique as it is often portrayed.

Free Education in Schools:

A Global Norm

Kannangara’s efforts to make education accessible to all Sri Lankan children in the 1940s were groundbreaking for their time. By establishing free primary (grades 1 – 5) and secondary education (grades 6 – 12), Sri Lanka provided a pathway for countless children from underprivileged communities to escape the cycle of poverty. But today, this framework is no longer an exception to the rule; it has become a universal standard.

The United Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights (Article 26) recognises free and compulsory education as a fundamental right for all children. As of now, nearly every country in the world provides free Kindergarten – 12th grade (K-12) education. Nations like Finland, Japan, and Germany offer universally free primary and secondary education, while others, like the United States and Canada, provide public education without direct cost to families. This means Sri Lanka’s primary and secondary “free education” model, while commendable, is no longer a unique phenomenon. Rather, it is part of a broader global movement that aligns with UN norms.

University Education: Merit-Based Scholarships, Not Truly Free

The discussion becomes more complex when we examine university education. Sri Lanka takes pride in offering free university education, but this term is misleading. What Sri Lanka truly offers is a merit-based scholarship system, accessible only to a limited number of high-achieving students from GCE A/L. While the state bears the cost for these students, it is important to recognise that this is not “Free Education” in its purest sense, but a selective programe benefiting a small proportion of the population.

In the early 1980s, less than 5% of eligible students in Sri Lanka gained admission to government universities. Today, while this has risen to around 15%, the majority still lack access and are forced to seek costly alternatives, such as private universities or foreign institutions. Even for those admitted to state universities, a rigid ranking system often denies them the freedom to choose their preferred discipline or institution. This highlights that Sri Lanka’s “free” higher education system is neither financially accessible for most students nor supportive of academic freedom.

From a global perspective, we observe that in Germany, public universities provide free or low-cost education to both domestic and international students. However, admission is often tied to academic performance, with certain programmes, particularly in high-demand fields like medicine, governed by strict quotas.

In the United States, fewer than 5% of students receive fully government-funded merit-based scholarships, while approximately 15 – 20% benefit from partial funding. Eligibility for these scholarships and grants is determined by various factors, including academic performance, athletic abilities, financial need, and specific criteria like household income relative to the poverty line. Since the U.S. education system is largely state-driven, each state provides its own grant and scholarship programes based on need, merit, or career-focused incentives, such as those for teaching, military service, or nursing.

Countries such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland, celebrated for their free higher education systems, may, however, rely on selective university admissions. As a result, tuition-free education is predominantly available to top-performing students, with universities imposing competitive entry requirements to control demand.

Other countries similarly offer free or highly subsidised education that is tied to merit and financial need, demonstrating that Sri Lanka is not unique in providing access to higher education without direct tuition costs. However, Sri Lanka’s claim to offer “free” education is debatable, as its system limits access and academic freedom while ignoring the financial burden of alternative pathways for most students.

The Need for a Paradigm Shift

Sri Lanka’s merit-based system has undoubtedly provided opportunities for many bright and deserving students. However, it raises two critical questions: (1) Are we doing enough to expand access to higher education for all Sri Lankans? and (2) Should we continue to cling to the rhetoric of “Free Education,” or should we acknowledge the reality of a selective scholarship model?

Countries like India and China have introduced hybrid systems that combine merit-based scholarships with income-based financial aid, ensuring that students from lower-income families are not left behind. In Sri Lanka, there is room to explore similar policies, where government support is extended not just to a select few but also to those who may lack top-tier academic scores yet demonstrate significant potential and need.

Moreover, as the demand for higher education grows, Sri Lanka must address the challenges of funding and infrastructure. Expanding university capacity, fostering partnerships with private institutions, and encouraging vocational and technical education are vital steps toward creating a more inclusive and sustainable system.

Conclusion: Moving Beyond the Myth

While Sri Lanka can be proud of its educational legacy, it is time to shed the myth of “Free Education” as an exceptional Sri Lankan achievement. In today’s world, free primary and secondary education is a global norm, and Sri Lanka’s university system functions more like a merit-based scholarship programme than a universally accessible model.

By recognising these realities, we can shift the national conversation toward improving access, equity, and quality across all levels of education. The true measure of an education system is not how much it is subsidised, but how effectively it empowers every citizen to reach their full potential. Sri Lanka’s future depends on moving beyond the rhetoric of “Free Education” and embracing a vision that includes all. Admittedly, opposition to fee-based education has hindered the implementation of proposals aimed at expanding higher education opportunities to a larger portion of our student population.

Sri Lankans marked themselves as ‘safe’

While the whole world is in shock by the disaster that has struck the celebrity neighbourhoods, near Malibu, I’m told a similar-sized blaze, in Eaton Canyon, North of Los Angeles, has ravaged Altadena, a racially and economically diverse community.

Black and Latino families have lived in Altadena for generations and the suburb is also popular with younger artistes and engineers working at the nearby NASA rocket lab who were attracted by the small-town vibe and access to nature.

Quite a few Sri Lankans, living in LA, have marked themselves as ‘safe,’ including Rohan Toney Mendis (of Apple Green fame and now Dynasty), Sunalie Ratnayake, Jehan Mendis (Dynasty), and singer Sondra Wise Kumaraperu.

Singer Britney Spears, who is quite popular in our scene, evacuated her $7.4 million mansion as the Los Angeles Wildfires engulfed the celebrity neighbourhoods.

She had to evacuate her home and had to drive four hours to a hotel.

“Most people may not even be on their phones!” she indicated in an Instagram message. “I wasn’t on the phone the past two days because I had no electricity to charge and I just got my phone back!”

A few days after Tina Knowles’s birthday, Beyoncé and Solange’s mom sadly announced her Malibu bungalow had been burnt down. “It was my favourite place, my sanctuary, my sacred happy place,” she wrote.

Paris Hilton said on Instagram she was “heartbroken beyond words” after losing her home and watching it being destroyed on television.

“Sitting with my family, watching the news, and seeing our home in Malibu burn to the ground, on live TV, is something no one should ever have to experience,” she wrote. “This home was where we built so many precious memories.”

The ‘Simple Life’ star continued that “while the loss is overwhelming, I’m holding onto gratitude that my family and pets are safe,” adding, “To know so many are waking up today without the place they called home is truly heartbreaking.”

American actor and filmmaker Mel Gibson revealed that his home burned down while he was recording a podcast episode with Joe Rogan. “[I was] kind of ill at ease while we were talking, because I knew my neighbourhood was on fire, so I thought, ‘I wonder if my place is still there.’ But when I got home, sure enough, it wasn’t there.”

Gibson calls the loss “devastating” and “emotional.” “You live there for a long time, and you had all your stuff,” he added.

The Pacific Palisades property of the late Matthew Perry, who gained fame in the television series ‘Friends,’ a popular TV series with Sri Lankans, was one of the many homes that burnt down during the fires.

The property was just purchased for $8.6 million by a real-estate developer.

Some of the other known celebrities who lost their homes to the LA Fires include Sir Anthony Hopkins, Adam Brody and Leighton Meester, Anna Farris, Mandy Moore, Milo Ventimiglia, Melissa Rivers, Miles and Keleigh Teller, Ben Affleck, Pete Lee, Barbara Corcoran, Harvey Guillen, and Jeff Bridges.