BY EDWARD THEOPHILUS

The concept of democracy for government administration arrived in Sri Lanka with foreign invasion, especially by Europeans.  In the book of John Doily, the sketch of the Kandian Kingdom attempted to give reasonable details of the system of administration in Sri Lanka in the past and it indicated that Sri Lanka had an authoritative rule and people did not attempt to question the administration anything about the rules and the format of the government and attempted to bear the consequences of administration as they were own problem but not the issue of the government.  People did their work for a living and they did not want to earn qualifications and experience and skills to go overseas. The environment has been changed during the past several decades and leftists educated people to fist against the administration on the role of contribution.  Current Galle Face Protest reflects the reality of misleading politics.

It was the nature of administration in other countries and tourists arrived in Sri Lanka for example Marco Polo also confirmed the nature of administration and it is clear that there was no proof of democracy in political administration in Sri Lanka. However, John Doily noted that the king had been listening to the views of chief Buddhist monks because if the decision of the government went against Buddhist feelings it could be an administrative problem in the country and people would have gone against the administration of the king.

The current protest indicates that protestors have neither vision nor a plan to administer the country.  How to solve current problems they have no idea and many were motivated by alcohol and other individual incentives.  The rule of a free market system could be used to destroy the society and the education obtained by protestors is not used to critical think about the outcomes of protests.   

Sri Lanka had complicated issues that were related to the economy, religions, castes, languages and many others, despite these issues, people did not ignore performing production and service activities and they performed their work, Robert Knox pointed out a crisis and how the king attempted to solve the problem. A similar situation may have been in other countries, but they are ignored and their approach of them seems to be different from one country to other.

Mahinda Rajapaksa gave leadership to settle an ethnic issue, later Rajapaksa family misunderstood the role and allowed many members of the family to enter political administration people did not like such authority and the opposition people gradually developed and Rajapaksa was silent on this matter.        

The current crisis in Sri Lanka is associated with many issues and it has gone to the international level, people who are motivated are in a difficult situation to manage the problem. The main issue is those who provided food and drinks to protestors are relegated to spending their wealth to maintain the protest and motivators have become vindicated. For a short period, they can financially afford it, but they expected this type of cross to carry.  One way, motivated and associated leaders of the protest were relegated to many difficulties spending their wealth for work like charities and deteriorating the expected result and it is a gradually coming to a situation explains in a traditional saying of Sri Lanka, if you go home your wife will be killed and if you stay on the road you would be killed by the secret lover of own wife”. This is also an example of another traditional Sinhala saying Think before Jump to a conclusion”.

It seems that university students manipulated the crisis and certain capitalist media owners supported it, now all want to give up and they (supporters) don’t want to show that they lost money and many others. According to a general estimate based on the past information, this is the outcome of the leftist and Marxist based struggle in Sri Lanka. The biggest mistake done by the Rajapaksa family as they attempted to get power into their hands and it was reflected by people and had sufficient evidence to go against it.

It seems that president Gotabaya Rajapaksa has wisely handled his situation, one thing his decisions were reviewed and made decisions without allowing protesters to break the law and giving them time to get tired of the protestors. The probable reaction of protestors may go against leaders who have no answers to the problems of the country and although they expected the killing of more protestors by the government forces such actions have not come to be realized.  The history of Sri Lanka has confirmed this type of outcome many left political parties dead at their birthplace and financial contributors to protest lost an unexpected volume of money.

Many supporters of the struggle have no idea that radical university students are associated with the struggle and have honestly support for protest or not and they are following the statement of Rohana Wijeweera that we have nothing to lose but there is a world to win. This was a blind idea based on Marxism. Where is that world on this planet or somewhere else, nobody knows? Finally, all supporters need to understand that there is no medicine for stupidity. After the revolution in 1917 people had to bear many difficulties.

One thing true in the current situation is if the Rajapaksa family got away from the politics, the crisis would have not come effective and they should have wisely thought about the situation. India, China, Japan, America and other countries knew about this situation and ethnic leaders and religious leaders knew about the situation. Why didn’t religious leaders advise the Rajapaksa family about this situation? The Rajapaksa family has been in the wrong footage that people would agree with them. Sri Lanka has many economic problems that cannot solve overnight.