Midweek Review

JVP/NPP government and social media

Published

2 months ago

2026/05/27

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

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

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

“Dhobies”/”washers”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticising the government from a left political perspective

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: Populism and the treason of intellectuals

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

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

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

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

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

The Treason of the Intellectuals

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

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

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

Three high-profile alleged suicides shaping key investigations

Published

20 hours ago

2026/07/22

Sahan Weerasooriya

Former IGP Chandana Deepal Wickramaratne, 63, succumbed to gunshot injury he received at his residence at Parakrama Mawatha, in Thalahena, Malabe, on 17 July. Wickramaratne, the 35th IGP (25 November, 2020, to 23th November, 2025), was pronounced dead at the Mulleriyawa Hospital.

The incident triggered speculation regarding the circumstances leading to the ex-IGP’s death. Some declared that Wickramaratne shot himself with a weapon issued to his bodyguard. Others alleged that Wickramaratne had been deeply depressed over divorce proceedings, involving his son and daughter-in-law, and accusations directed at his son over domestic violence. They claimed that the situation may have had unexpected bearing on Wickramaratne.

There are also lingering concerns regarding the impact of the ongoing investigations into the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage, on Wickramaratne’s demise, the third such incident after the last presidential elections held in September, 2024.

Assistant Director of the External Resources Department of the Ministry of Finance, Ranga Nishantha Rajapaksa, 50, was found dead in the garden of his Kuliyapitiya home on 30 April, 2026. At the time of Rajapaksa’s alleged suicide, blamed on injuries he supposedly inflicted on himself using a knife, while he was under suspension over the USD 2.5 mn heist from the Treasury. He was the official who lodged a complaint with the CID regarding the unprecedented theft.

Former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of SriLankan Airlines, Kapila Chandrasena, 61, was found dead at No. 38, Pedris Road, Kollupitiya, on 8 May, 2026. Authorities declared Chandrasena died by hanging. Chandrasena was the prime suspect in the SriLankan Airlines bribery case, exposed by the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO), in a joint investigation carried out with US and French authorities. At the time of his death, he was out on bail but faced re-arrest over alleged violations of bail conditions.

The Finance Ministry official and ex-IGP died as a result of ‘incidents’ at their respective homes, while Chandrasena allegedly took his own life at the posh residence of his brother-in-law Aravinda de Silva. Their deaths are mired in controversy for obvious reasons. One of the major issues at hand is whether their deaths impacted the ongoing politically sensitive cases.

The USD 2.5 mn theft sent shockwaves through the National People’s Power (NPP) government, struggling to cope up with a spate of other sensitive developments, such as the massive coal scam that led to the resignation of Energy Minister Kumara Jayakody, and the controversial release of 323 red flagged containers from the Colombo port, without any checks, in addition to two containers carrying narcotics.

The police faced the challenging task of conducting transparent investigations into the deaths of Ranga Nishantha Rajapaksa, Kapila Chandrasena and C.D. Wickramaratne.

Although the Finance Ministry official’s death was caused by cardiorespiratory failure due to heavy loss of blood, many questioned how he inflicted grievous cut wounds on his legs and on his left wrist. The judicial post mortem report that was made available within 24 hours after the alleged suicide raised concerns. The Opposition expressed suspicions. A section of the media, too, weren’t satisfied with the way the government handled the case. The truth is in spite of a post mortem examination conducted by a four-member expert panel, suspicions remain regarding the Finance Ministry official’s death.

It would be pertinent to mention that The Sunday Leader Editor Lasantha Wickrematunga was stabbed to death though police and all others concerned initially claimed firearms attack caused his death. The Attorney-at-Law was killed inside his car that he was driving on the Attidiiya Road, Ratmalana, on 8 January, 2009. Over 17 years after the still unresolved killing of the one-time The Island staffer, the vast majority of people still believe Wickrematunga was shot dead. Wickrematunga’s case is just among several high profile investigations hampered by deliberate falsification of relevant autopsy reports.

Sarah Jasmine factor

Among those who paid their last respects to Wickremaratne at a funeral parlour in Colombo was former President Ranil Wickremesinghe. Former Minister Sagala Ratnayake accompanied the UNP leader.

One of the issues that received public and media attention, following Wickremaratne’s demise, was the controversial third DNA test conducted in spite of two previous DNA tests confirming that Pulastini Rajendran, alias Sarah Jasmine, was not among the dead caused by a series of explosions at Sainthamaruthu, in the East, a week after the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage.

She was married to Achchi Muhammadu Mohammadu Hasthun, the National Thowheeth Jaamath (NTJ) operative who carried out the suicide blast in St. Sebastian Church, Katuwapitiya.

The CID questioned Wickremaratne as he served as the IGP at the time of the third DNA test. Controversy surrounds the decision to call for a third DNA test and, in addition to Wickremaratne, the CID questioned former Deputy IGP of the CID Prasad Ranasinghe in the second week of December last year. Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ananda Wiejapala commented on the issue at hand in Parliament in early June, 2025.

There had been contradictory claims on Sarah, a Batticaloa Tamil convert to Islam, who lived with the extremist group. In spite of investigations, controversy still surrounds her fate, though both Sri Lanka and Indian intelligence services investigated the circumstances of her ‘disappearance.’

There had been claims that she was taken out of the country by Indian intelligence. Let me remind you what the DSJB lawmaker Mujibur Rahuman said in Parliament on 10 November, 2022, during Ranil Wickremesinghe’s presidency. Declaring that Sarah had taken refuge in India, the outspoken parliamentarian alleged that the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government was struggling to prove she died in the Sainthamaruthu blasts, on the night of 26 April, 2019.

Rajarathnam Kavitha, mother of Sarah, is on record as having told the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) that her daughter had been with Zharan Hashim’s wife, Fatima, from early February, 2019, to 26 April, 2019, the day remnants of the NTJ group triggered the Sainthamaruthu blasts.

Sarah’s mysterious status remains a key factor in the overall investigation, with retired Major General Suresh Sallay named a suspect in the high profile case. Sallay served as the Director of State Intelligence Service (SIS) from November, 2019, to October, 2024. The CID arrested the one-time head of the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI/ 2012 to 2016) in late February 2026, under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).

Archbishop of Colombo, Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith, recently filed an intervening petition before the Court of Appeal in respect of the petition filed by Sallay challenging his arrest and detention under the PTA. Cardinal Ranjith sought permission to make submissions regarding Sallay’s petition while requesting the court to dismiss the latter’s petition.

The Church intervened after several prominent Buddhist monks, religious and civil society organisations filed intervenient petitions seeking leave to intervene in Sallay’s writ application, filed by the retired top intelligence officer, challenging the legality of his arrest and detention.

They highlighted the following points:

• The Supreme Court and the PCoI identified Zahran Hashim and the ISIS-inspired NTJ as the perpetrators of the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage while attributing responsibility to State officials for failing to act on prior intelligence.

• None of the official investigations or judicial findings implicated Sallay in planning or facilitating the Easter Sunday attacks.

• The PCoI recorded that Major General Sallay had warned authorities about the rise of Islamist extremism before the attacks.

• The intervening petitions expressed concerns that unsubstantiated allegations have created a public narrative suggesting a wider conspiracy involving Sinhala Buddhist military and intelligence officers, contrary to the findings of the Supreme Court and the PCoI.

• The petitions argued that such unsupported narratives risk undermining public confidence, damaging communal harmony, and unfairly tarnishing the reputation of individuals and institutions without credible evidentiary foundation.

Ex-IGP’s statement

In his statement to the CID, Wickremaratne explained that he directed the senior police officer, in charge of Ampara, to secure the military and STF backing for the Sainthamaruthu operation that led to the death of some inner remnants of Zahran’s group. The Ampara-based officer, identified as Samantha Wijesekera, had got in touch with the Department’s number two officer, as IGP Jayasundera couldn’t be contacted over the phone. That statement dealt with the measures taken by them to ascertain Sarah’s status and the final assertion on the basis of the Government Analyst’s findings (third DNA test) that she was among those who perished in the Sainthamaruthu suicide blast.

The then Police Spokesman DIG, Nihal Thalduwa, has been directed by Wickremaratne to issue a press release confirming Sarah’s death. In his statement to the CID, Wickremaratne explained the deep interest shown by the head of the Indian Intelligence, based in Colombo, regarding Sarah’s status, underscoring their requirement to know whether she was dead or alive. The Indian official has repeatedly emphasised the pivotal importance of establishing Sarah’s status and, according to Wickremaratne, never tried to hide their interest in knowing her fate.

Did India accept the findings of the third DNA test? The possibility of Sarah being an Indian informant cannot be ruled out as India was able to alert Sri Lanka of the impending attacks. SJB Colombo District MP Rahuman has often commented on this possibility. Or, perhaps, India knew of Sarah’s status but raised the issue with Wickremaratne in a bid to indicate they, too, weren’t aware. Perhaps, we’ll never know the truth.

Sri Lanka received three specific warnings on 4, 20 and 21 April regarding impending dastardly NTJ operation. The last warning was received several hours before the NTJ struck hotels and Churches in Colombo, Katana and Batticaloa. The blasts killed 270 persons and wounded about 500.

At the time of the NTJ operation, the DMI was headed by Brigadier Chula Kodituwakku, who appeared alongside President Maithripala Sirisena when he met the media at the Janadhipathi Mandiraya, several days after the attacks. Now retired, Kodituwakku, in his testimony in courts, declared that the SIS refrained from sharing foreign intelligence with the DMI. In fact, Army Commander Lt. Gen. Mahesh Senanayake, who also addressed the media, explained the difficulties experienced by the Army due to refusal on the part of the SIS to cooperate with the DMI.

According to an appeal filed against an order of the High Court-at-Bar, in terms of the Section 451 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979, as amended, read with Article 128 of the Constitution, in the Supreme Court, India issued the following warning: “As per an input, Sri Lanka based Zahran Hashim of National Thowheeth Jamath and his associates are planning to carry out suicide terror attack in Sri Lanka shortly. They are planning to target some important churches. It is further learnt that they have conducted reconnaissance of the Indian High Commission in Sri Lanka and it is one of the targets for the planned attack.”

No holds barred investigation is required to establish the truth. The Opposition has repeatedly questioned the handing over of the investigation to retired Shani Abeysekera, who had been the Director, CID, at the time of the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage, and accommodating Senior DIG Ravi Seneviratne as the Secretary Public Security Ministry. They had been accused of failing to act on specific intelligence received from the SIS.

Both Abeysekera and Seneviratne, as members of the Retired Police Collective, backed the NPP campaigns in the run-up to the presidential and parliamentary polls, in 2024. Abeysekera, who retired on 30 June, 2021, was recalled and officially reappointed as the Director of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), on a contract basis, by the NPP.

Political factors

There had never been a case as politicised as the 2019 Easter Sunday carnage. Immediately after the massive security lapse, and negligence on the part of the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government, facilitated the NTJ operation, the Church threw its weight behind Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s 2019 presidential bid.

The Church backing made a significant difference on the ground. That prompted SJB’s Harin Fernando to directly accuse Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith of ensuring Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s victory at the expense of Sajith Premadasa. Since the SJB’s highly publicised June, 2020, accusations, there had been contradictory statements regarding the Easter Sunday attacks.

In February, 2021, on behalf of the JVP/NPP, Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa (current Health and Media Minister) declared that India masterminded the Easter Sunday attacks.

This accusation was made just a few weeks after the PCoI handed over its report to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who, for some strange reason, appointed a six-member committee, consisting of SLPP lawmakers, headed by his elder brother Chamal, than requesting the Attorney General Dappula de Livera, PC, to act on the recommendations.

In May, 2021, Dappula, after having failed to convince President Rajapaksa to extend his term by one year, alleged that the Easter Sunday attack was a grand conspiracy. In spite of growing doubts regarding the delay in implementing the PCoI recommendations, the Church tried to convince the President to act on them. In July 2021, the Church wrote to President Rajapaksa. Against the backdrop of the SLPP’s continuing indifference, by the end of that year, the Church reached a consensus with those opposed to the government.

The Church openly backed the protest campaign, against President Rajapaksa, and remained committed to the operation until the very end.

Two sons of wealthy spice merchant and JVP National List MP, at the 2015 general election Mohamed Yusuf Ibrahim’s sons Ilham Ahamed and Imsath Ibrahim, carrying out suicide attacks, on behalf of the NTJ, made no difference. Ibrahim was later released on bail, in May, 2022, during Wickremesinghe’s tenure as the President. Ilham Ahamed’s heavily pregnant wife detonated an explosive vest, inside their Dematagoda mansion, when the police surrounded the place, soon after the attacks. Did the spice trader know about the despicable NTJ strategy? Zaharan Hashim’s wife Abdul Cader Fathima, who survived the Sainthamaruthu blast too was granted bail in March, 2023, during Wickremesinghe’s presidency.

The Church, at one point, demanded that the Deputy Defence Minister Maj. Gen. Aruna Jayasekera be removed pending conclusion of the investigations. The Church claimed that as Jayasekera served as the Eastern Commander at the time of the Sainthamaruthu blasts, he should give up the Defence portfolio for the time being. The government ignored that demand.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Midweek Review

‘The Play’s the Thing’, in Shakespeare

Published

20 hours ago

2026/07/22

Sahan Weerasooriya

Shakespeare. Image courtesy NYT

Exposing Complexities of the Human Condition in Man’s Quest for Power

Shakespeare believed that drama could illuminate truths about human nature more effectively than argument or philosophy. The famous line, “The play’s the thing, wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king,” expresses not merely Hamlet’s strategy but Shakespeare’s own artistic philosophy – that theatre exposes hidden moral realities and awakens the human conscience.

Shakespeare and the Human Condition

Shakespeare displayed an extraordinary understanding of the human mind, long before psychology emerged as a formal discipline. He possessed an unparalleled gift for revealing human experience through vividly drawn characters and situations they create. He drew from Renaissance historical material as they provided a rich source of dramatic material, and chose themes that reflected musings of the Elizabethan era he lived in, taking his audiences with him.

Complexities of the human condition, regardless of culture, nationality or historical period have endured. As his fellow playwright, Ben Jonson famously proclaimed over four hundred years ago: “He [Shakespeare] is not of an age, but for all time”. He continues to alert our senses and raise our conscience about humanity with all its strengths and weaknesses by way of dramatic expression. Shakespeare is our contemporary.

I have endeavoured to examine the great playwright’s work in relation to the treatment of psychological and moral complexities surrounding humanity’s pursuit for power, in order to demonstrate how these works continue to speak with remarkable urgency to our own time. The enduring relevance of this idea becomes apparent in the following three Shakespeare’s plays: Henry V, Macbeth and The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, I have chosen to illustrate my argument.

Henry V: Leadership and the Cost of Glory

It is a reflection on Shakespeare’s stature that he portrays triumphalism of leadership and the anguish of those who pay with their lives in war, in equal measure. In his Historical play, Henry V. King Henry of England makes a claim to the French throne, egged on by church leaders who wish to distract him from domestic issues. Feeling mocked by the French response, Henry declares war. He invades France displaying strong leadership despite hardship and heavy loss of life. On the eve of the pivotal battle of Agincourt, on St. Crispin’s day, he delivers an inspiring speech to his outnumbered troops. The long and poetic speech, which came to be known as the St. Crispin’s day speech – one of the best known in all Shakespeare – strengthened his powerful status in the play.

“…This story shall the good man teach his son;

And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,

From this day to the ending of the world,

But we in it shall be remember’d.

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he to-day that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,

This day shall gentle his condition …”

Against the odds, the English defeat the French at Agincourt. The play ends with a note of political and personal triumph, as Henry woos and marries Princess Catherine of France, securing peace between the two nations, at an immense cost to human life.

Macbeth: Ambition and Moral Corruption

In the reign of King Duncan of Scotland, General Macbeth who commands respect as a valiant soldier, returning home with his colleague Banquo following a victorious military expedition, is confronted by three witches who predict cryptically that he is destined to become King of Scotland. Macbeth is urged on by his wife, who, in an ‘’unquenchable desire to become queen’’, attempts to persuade her husband with ‘a humane disposition’ to assassinate the king while he is asleep as a royal guest in their home, and frame the two intoxicated royal aides. Malcolm and Donalbain, King Duncan’s two sons who accompanied him, fled to England.

Macbeth, the play, portrays the tale of a man in pursuit of power destroying anyone on his way, bringing about a collapse in moral order, providing insights into everything inhumane about humankind. The character of Macbeth is first acknowledged as a ‘hero’; his innate desire for power is activated by the prophecy of the witches. But bound by his loyalty to his king, his ‘conscience’ would not allow him the thought of regicide: “If chance will have me king, why, chance may crown me/ without my stir”. Weighed down by fear and guilt, he drags his feet, but the valiant soldier succumbs to the “valour of his wife’s tongue”: “Your hand, your tongue look like th’ innocent flower/ But be the serpent under’t”. She herself did not have the courage to murder her royal guest with her own hand, but was persuasive: morality yields to the pressure of evil desire. Macbeth completes the task, and they feign their lament at the king’s death which they themselves brought about.

Power did not bring in peace, but inner turmoil: “In the affliction of these terrible dreams/ That shake us nightly; better be with the dead/ Whom we, to gain our peace, have sent to peace/ Than on the torture of the mind to lie/ In restless ecstasy”. Fear, guilt and repentance grip the usurper but pride would not allow their expression.

Fear and insecurity bred paranoia in Macbeth. The usurpers became preoccupied with protecting the throne and handing over sovereignty to their progeny which they were yet to produce. With the advice of the witches he arranges the murder of all they suspect would take over rule after him. First they get Banquo, his colleague, ambushed and killed; Fleance, who accompanied his father, escapes. He then learns that Macduff, the feudal lord of Fife, has fled to England to join Malcolm, the son of the slain King Duncan, and, together they are mobilising an army to attack Scotland with the intent of displacing him from the throne. An outraged Macbeth orders the slaughter of Macduff’s wife and children who remained in Scotland, and anyone related to the defector.

Malcolm and Macduff invade Scotland with a powerful army. Lady Macbeth, afflicted with intense guilt, took her own life. Macbeth was slain after a fierce battle and his severed head was presented to the newly crowned king, Malcolm, who proclaimed …”I should/ Pour the sweet milk of concord, into hell? Uproar the universal peace, confound/ All unity on earth”.

In Macbeth, Shakespeare places on stage a disturbing portrayal of humanity with all its base characteristics that compels us to see ourselves in.

Julius Caesar: Political Power, Hypocrisy and Betrayal

The theme of humans competing with each other for power, exercised inappropriately, provides a fertile ground for Shakespeare to explore the complexities of the human condition. Drawing from history, he gives dramatic expression to such a scenario in his popular play, ‘The Tragedy of Julius Caesar’, displaying the patterns of behaviour of the main characters, the focus for interpretation. The propensity to manipulate the truth in political machinations takes centre stage in the play. “Men may examine things after their fashion/ Clean from the purpose of things themselves” [Cicero: Act 1]

Julius Caesar, the Roman military expansionist, emerged as a formidable leader of the territories, following his successful campaigns in Europe. The play begins with Caesar’s triumphant return to Rome after one of his military expeditions, accompanied by generals and political figures – Cassius, Brutus and Antony. They were welcomed by scores of cheering Romans for bringing ‘‘many captives home… whose ransoms, did the general coffers fill’’. The contention for leadership of the territories, in its entirety, between Caesar and Pompey resulted in a bitter civil war with Caesar emerging victorious.

Cassius and Brutus who too had leadership ambitions fought with Pompey against Caesar. Caesar in his magnanimity, while being merciful towards his defeated opponents, remained cautious about Cassius. There was growing concern amongst the common folk [plebeians] regarding their newly emerged leader “soar[ing] above the view of men”, and using his supreme power to establish a new monarchy. They were averse to the extravagant lifestyle and corrupt practices of their former monarchical rulers and feared that Caesar may override their desire to form a republican form of governance with greater representation by commoners.

Cassius, envious of Caesar’s might, instigates a plot to remove him from power. He hatches a plot to draw Brutus into the conspiracy to lend respectability to the project as Brutus is held in high regard by the populace. Brutus is faced with having to balance his personal friendship with Caesar against the “general good of the Republic”. He finally overcomes his ambivalence and joins the conspirators in a plot to assassinate Caesar. “Let not our looks put on our purposes/ But bear it as our Roman actors do/ With untir’d spirits and formal constancy”…. “Let’s kill him boldly, but not wrathfully/Let’s carve him as a dish for the Gods”. [Brutus: Act 2. Scene1]. Caesar is stabbed to death by the conspirators, one after the other, on the ‘ides of March’ – the first full moon of the New Year for festivities and sacrifice. Turning to his friend Brutus, Caesar uttered his last words: “et tu Brute?” [Even you Brutus?”].

In a funeral oration that followed, Brutus pacified an agitated crowd by stating that despite his love for Caesar, he loved Rome more, and that Caesar posed a danger to the liberty of the nation. The masses perceived his act of murdering Caesar as a deed of heroism! But, Mark Antony, a loyalist of Caesar, after skilfully negotiating with Brutus, delivers a stirring oration with the starting captivating lines, which lives on: “Friends, Romans, Countrymen” [Act 3, Scene 2]. In his speech replete with irony, while referring to Brutus as “an honourable man”, refuted the claim by Brutus that Caesar acted in ambition and self-interest. An enraged crowd drove away Cassius and Brutus.

The two exiled assassins, Cassius and Brutus, raise an army to combat a newly formed alliance of Antony, Lepidus and Octavius [adopted son of Caesar]. Undeterred by the suicide of his wife, in his absence, Brutus marched on to combat the enemy at Philippi. “There is a tide in the affairs of men/ Which take at the flood, leads on to fortune;/ Omitted on the voyage of their life,/ Is bound in shallows, and I miseries……[Act 4, Scene 2].

Following the poor performance at the Battle of Philippi, and facing defeat, Cassius gets one of his men to kill him with his own sword. Brutus learning about the death of Cassius, commits suicide by running through a sword held by a colleague. The power sharing alliance between Octavius, Antony and Lepidus ended following a struggle for supremacy.

Shakespeare and the Modern World

Shakespeare presents man’s quest for power as a lens through which the complexities of the human condition are revealed. Portraying such a pursuit as a powerful but destructive force, he reveals the tension between honour and ambition, rhetoric and reality, leadership and moral conflict and glory and human suffering – characteristics that are universal and timeless.

Shakespeare, like other great literary artists, does not lecture to us, nor does he offer solutions, but helps us broaden our sense in recognising the humanity we share with the good and the bad, and our desires that lead us into animosity.

We live in a volatile and unpredictable world marked by geopolitical tensions, economic competition, social discontent and armed conflict resulting in global instability. Contemporary societies are currently experiencing a sense of uncertainty, desperate to find answers to establishing world order and peace.

Alongside technological advancement, humankind has developed increasingly lethal weapons with which to wage war to gain power over one another. Warfare has transformed the battlefield from land to the skies, most recently through airborne long-range missiles targeted with the use of AI; and across the oceans both on the surface and beneath it through submarines, transforming the nature of combat at immense cost to human life and property. The loss of innocent civilians, including children, caught in these conflicts has given rise to the troubling yet widely invoked phrase ‘collateral damage’, a term that seeks to justify what remains profoundly deplorable. Powerful nations frequently evade meaningful accountability, despite widespread international condemnation. And, spirituality appears to have done little to awaken human conscience and humans continue to wage conflict over religious ideology.

Although art and literature do not intend to maintain order in the way the military, the laws and institutions do, their influence is subtle yet foundational in shaping how individuals and societies, and especially their leaders envisage justice, empathy and coexistence, and in lifting us out of the moral darkness we are in. Art, including dramatic art, has a transformative influence on humanity.

Conclusion

Human beings possess an enduring duality: they are capable of reason and irrationality, compassion and cruelty, cooperation and conflict, creation and destruction. These fundamental characteristics have remained remarkably constant across history, even as cultures and technologies have changed. Great literature – particularly Shakespeare’s plays – explores this universal human condition, revealing how love, ambition, fear, grief, honour, jealousy, and the desire for power continue to shape individual actions and the course of history.

by DR. Siri Galhenage, Psychiatrist [Retd.]
[sirigalhenage@gmail.com]