Dr Sarath Obeysekera Kandidat tekneecheski Nauk  1977

Kandidat tekneecheski Nauk  1977

Кандидат технических наук

History shows that overthrowing an old order is often easier than building a stable new one. After the 1917 Russian Revolution, the victorious Bolsheviks discovered that unity during struggle did not guarantee unity in government. The same lesson can be observed in many revolutionary or protest movements around the world, including debates now emerging in Sri Lanka regarding the future direction of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna and the National People’s Power.

When the forces led by Vladimir Lenin defeated the anti-communist White Russians” during the Russian Civil War, the Bolsheviks emerged victorious but exhausted. Russia’s economy had collapsed, industries were paralyzed, agriculture was devastated, and famine spread across the country. Revolutionary slogans alone could not feed people or rebuild a nation.

The Bolshevik leadership itself soon became divided on fundamental questions.

Lenin vs Trotsky – Different Visions

Leon Trotsky, one of the principal architects of the Red Army, believed the revolution should spread internationally. He argued that socialism in Russia could not survive in isolation and needed global revolutionary momentum.

Others within the leadership, especially Joseph Stalin later argued for socialism in one country” — consolidating power internally before exporting revolutionary ideals abroad.

Even Vladimir Lenin himself became concerned about growing bureaucracy, concentration of power, and internal authoritarianism within the party. The revolution that promised workers’ freedom slowly evolved into a rigid state apparatus.

The result was internal purges, ideological conflicts, suppression of dissent, and eventually the sidelining and exile of Trotsky. Revolutionaries who once fought side by side became rivals over policy, power, and the future direction of the nation.

The Universal Problem of Revolutionary Movements

This pattern is not unique to Russia.

Movements formed in opposition often remain united because they share a common enemy. But once power is achieved, difficult questions arise:

• How should the economy be managed?
• Should ideology or pragmatism dominate?
• How much compromise is acceptable?
• Can revolutionary rhetoric coexist with democratic governance?
• How do leaders balance loyalty with competence?

These tensions are visible in many post-revolutionary societies.

A Sri Lankan Reflection

Sri Lanka today is not revolutionary Russia, and direct comparisons would be inaccurate and unfair. However, certain political dynamics invite reflection.

The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna historically emerged as a radical movement opposing inequality, corruption, and elite politics. Over decades, especially through the broader National People’s Power coalition, it has attempted to transform itself into a democratic political force appealing to professionals, youth, academics, workers, and civil society.

This transition from protest movement to governing responsibility inevitably creates internal tensions.

Some supporters expect ideological purity and rapid structural change. Others demand practical governance, foreign investment, economic stability, and international cooperation. The challenge becomes balancing revolutionary passion with administrative realism.

Russia’s experience demonstrates that:

• idealists and pragmatists eventually clash,
• intellectuals and grassroots activists often disagree,
• and governing a struggling economy is far harder than criticizing one.

Economic Reality Eventually Overrides Slogans

After the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks were forced to retreat from strict ideological economics and introduce the New Economic Policy” (NEP), allowing limited private enterprise because the economy was collapsing.

Even revolutionary governments eventually confront economic reality:

• industries need skilled workers,
• investors seek stability,
• agriculture needs efficiency,
• and ordinary citizens demand jobs rather than slogans.

Sri Lanka faces similar pressures today:

• debt restructuring,
• unemployment,
• brain drain,
• industrial decline,
• and the urgent need for technical and vocational skills.

No government — left, right, or centrist — can escape these realities.

The Danger of Internal Fragmentation

History also warns that revolutionary movements can weaken themselves through internal suspicion and factionalism.

The Bolsheviks initially spoke of collective leadership, but eventually internal rivalry created centralized authority and fear. Constructive criticism became dangerous. Loyalty began to outweigh competence.

For Sri Lanka, the lesson is important:
a successful political movement must tolerate debate, encourage expertise, and adapt to changing realities without treating every disagreement as betrayal.

The Most Important Lesson

Perhaps the greatest lesson from post-revolutionary Russia is this:

Destroying an old system does not automatically create a better one.

Building institutions, maintaining democracy, preserving freedom of expression, encouraging skilled industry, and managing the economy require patience, compromise, and technical competence.

Nations survive not merely through ideology, but through disciplined governance, productive citizens, and leaders willing to listen even to criticism from within their own ranks.

Sri Lanka’s future will depend not on whether a movement calls itself revolutionary, nationalist, socialist, or liberal — but on whether it can create jobs, maintain stability, develop industry, and unite a deeply divided society.

Regards

Dr Sarath Obeysekera