By Sena Thoradeniya

During their occupation of the Galle Face Green, Galle Face Protesters (GFP) had brought forth the relationship between youth, politics and culture to the focus of cultural critics. Nobody had ventured into study this phenomenon in detail in the uprisings of 1971, 1988-89 and Tamil Eelam War, although fragmentary  references were made into JVP’s post-1971 Vimukthi Gee”  (of Nandana  Marasinghe fame, assassinated by JVP/DJV; a stern warning for those upper class elements who pampered the GFP coining some adorable names such as Aragalists” and Gotagamians”!) , Nanda Malini’s Pawana” and Sathyaye Geethaya” during JVP’s second insurrection and LTTE’s Pongu Thamil Eluchchivila” celebrations.

In this two-part article we first discuss about formal and informal groups and characteristics of informal groups, relating them to Galle Face protest. In the second part we intend to discuss culture of Galle Face Protesters in depth that arose as a blend of individual level variables of members of different groups of protesters and their group level variables.   

 Since saving space is more important, we in this short piece do not intend to define what is meant by youth, politics and especially culture. It is also not necessary to discuss the political demands” of the GFP or what they understood by politics and how they interpreted the current political situation, some surfaced showing their naivety, inexperience and immaturity, all signifying a lacuna in  theory-based political knowledge; some demands were vague and undefined and some uncertain and concealed. What surfaced were parroting of what were scripted by their masters and handlers, local and foreign.  

The main focus of this article is on Galle Face Culture”, which we do not believe that it will be sustained, developed or become a permanent feature in the cultural landscape of Sri Lanka, although we do not deny that some aspects of it can penetrate into the wider society.  Some other arguments against this may arise questioning our premise   whether it is scientific to examine a culture among some loosely knitted individuals, not inhabiting a particular locality permanently.

But some sort of a culture is discernible among groups of office- train travelers (forcible reservation of seats and sections of compartments, playing cards, repartee etc.), parents who chaperon their children to school and Room Mothers”, students sitting next to each other in a classroom, devotees of Bacchus who habitually go to the same barroom, people living in one lane or adjoining apartments or different floors of flats”  etc.. With the advent of Facebook, WhatsApp and other social media platforms another method of group formation receives our attention.  Newspaper reports are in abundance of Facebook parties organised by people who have never met each other physically or engaged in face-to-face communication.  It is common knowledge that the GF protest had originated with the work of some WhatsApp groups. We have discussed this earlier, highlighting how the foreign-funded media agencies played a crucial role in this regard; this needs further investigations. 

In Organisation Behaviour (OB), groups are defined as consisting of people who interact frequently over a period of time and who share similar interests, attitudes and see themselves as a group. Although a universal definition of groups does not exist, readers may revive their memories, how sociologists and management and OB theorists had defined groups, group formation and characteristics of groups.

There are two types of groups: formal and informal groups.  Although the Galle Face protest has passed   more than sixty days to this day (at the time of writing the first version of this piece in the first week of June ) and some occupy the Galle Face Green turning it into a village”, according to Group Dynamics (area of study  that is concerned with the interactions and forces between group members in a social situation), we still defined it as an informal group. This informal group was spontaneously constituted of likeminded people, as a result of interactions through social media platforms, attractions to each other in small circles, with personal agendas such as self-glorification and a common need: chasing out GR.

There is no dispute that the protesters had come from different economic, social and cultural backgrounds, making it a heterogenous mix of individuals. One of the many attributes of group formation is propinquity or spatial or geographical proximity of individuals who join groups.  We argue now with the advent of social media platforms, proximity described by earlier theorists has taken a new dimension; technological proximity had taken precedence and had become more active, effective and faster than physical proximity. Friendship had outweighed   economic, political or cultural needs and other issues considered by theorists as triggers of group formation. A childlike measure taken by a President who had not tasted the bitter pill of political undercurrents, setting up a ready to occupy Protest Site” at the Galle face, solved the problem of proximity of the protesters and permanency of occupation.  As wild elephants do not strictly pass through elephant corridors” demarcated by wild life authorities and devastate crops and property of the peasants, protest sites spead out to other parts of the country based on the simple factors of proximity and common need.

Theoretically speaking, age, gender, marital status, personality characteristics, values, attitudes, emotions, perceptions, ability levels and learning, motivation are the individual level variables they had brought into this informal group. They had to adjust themselves to group level variables such as group behaviour, group standards, communication patterns, leadership styles, power and politics and also conflicts, all integral components of a group. Their culture was determined by the interplay of these two types of variables.

It also can be defined as an open group having free entry as well as free exit which allowed more diverse individuals to shape standards, attitudes, values and behaviours of the rest. People are attracted to informal groups for satisfaction of their needs (in this situation their needs were numerous: personal needs such as gaining recognition, status and pride: theatrical appearance of celebrities, actors, singers, lyricists, medical specialists and many more) and to share a common goal, GotaGoHome”, basically an emotional response of anger, not a product of any ideology, liberal in all aspects, although there were some hidden UNP hardliners and UNP digital strategists. Individuals who experience this emotion seek others who have the same emotion. That was one reason for Galle Face Protesters for not being able to lay a foundation for a new political formation and produce a new breed of political leaders. 

 In the initial stages, we observed that this group inclined to become structured, establishing their external networks, norms or rules of conduct. Emergence of informal leaders and spokespersons which were numerous was a part of this structure. This structure, also can be described as a part of group development through mutual acceptance and open communication; some members volunteering to undertake certain roles and assigning of roles to others by informal leaders, showing some sort of a division of labour.

As the Galle Face group was a large informal group, a mixed clique” in management jargon, we observed the emergence of sub-groups and contending forces with some intriguing names, each calmouring for authorship of hashtags, paternity and leadership arousing internal conflicts; goals becoming inconsistent and unachievable.

Theoretically, the emergence of leaders who are acceptable to all and maintaining cohesiveness in a large informal group like Galle Face Green is unattainable and all leaders who emerge in an informal group remain as informal leaders, who are not formally recognised by all. Imbalances had occurred.  Some self-appointed leaders were chased out attaching the ignominious label Left”.  With the ascendance of Ranil Wickremasinghe it lost its steam, compelling many to decamp. First to decamp were UNP supporters.  

The leadership crisis was the main reason behind the protest becoming an easy prey of more organised political parties, that allowed them to hijack the protest, paving the way to forcibly and unlawfully occupy public buildings, violence, destruction, vandalism, arson and finally being neutralisd and forced to retreat.

In its last days the so-called village” turned into an urban ghetto shaping its culture; vagabonds, drug peddlers and addicts and other underworld elements began to occupy some tents and the communal kitchen became a dana shalawa” to many who search for food.

There is no sign of re-grouping; only veiled threats of a comeback. JVP, FSP and IUSF have started to flex muscles showing that they have become the deciding factor of the next operation. Some of them talk about turning points”.  Representatives of the NGO aristocracy had begun to predict a re-emergence of the protest movement, this time a more clearly organised one with leadership being given by the JVP” and the protests will mount nationally as well”. Who else can predict like this except the fund managers?    

UNP bigwigs who were active with the protesters were given high posts within a very short period, in addition to the positions given to defeated UNPers and ex-Ministers;  (1) one, a former appointed MP, who had launched a malicious social media campaign against Rajapksas and supported the GF protesters, extolling them making  a plethora of posters, as a Presidential Advisor, (2) a staunch anti-Rajapaksa campaigner, former appointed MP, who served less than a month as a parliamentarian and  who made millions by selling the duty free vehicle, as the Trade Union Director, (3) head of a foreign-funded election monitoring outfit as a mandarin in the Presidential Secretariat, (4) a member of the NGO cabal as a media head. How do the Pohottuwa strategists bear this ignominy? So, the present government is not a government of the Rajapakisas, for the Rajapaksas, by the Wickremasinghes” as some make jests. 

Future revelations will tell us who were the real architects of the Galle Face Protest- more on foreign hands, who benefited from it and who were taken for a ride!

https://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/category/sena-thoradeniya/

US Footprints at the Galle Face Protest Site

Saturday, August 20th, 2022

By Sena Thoradeniya M.P. Wimal Weerawansa participating in the debate on Emergency Regulations on 27 July said that CIA through USAID and NED (National Endowment for Democracy) have funded various Sri Lankan Non-Governmental Organisations aiming regime change and protesters were attempting to destroy the State with the aid of external forces. He disclosed the amount […]More >

Posted in Sena Thoradeniya | Edit | No Comments »

Who Were Not Afraid of Galle Face Protesters?

Friday, August 19th, 2022

By Sena Thoradeniya Broadly speaking there were two major groups who supported and sympathised with the Galle Face Protesters (GLF); (1) Local players and (2) International players. It was easy to identify the local players, but not the international players who were hidden and used various agents and dubious methods to attain their main objective, […]More >

Posted in Sena Thoradeniya | Edit | No Comments »

Mirihana Outrage: Harbinger of Present and Some Future Events?

Wednesday, August 17th, 2022

Sena Thoradeniya The previous version of this piece was written soon after the Mirihana Incident (31, March,2022) but I was unable to get it published due to some reasons which do not have any importance to the reader. Whilst accepting that during the past one month (in April) many developments had taken place beyond anybody’s […]More >