 |
| File Photo |
|
by Nilantha Ilangamuwa
“History had a slow pulse; man
counted in years, history in generations”
― Arthur Koestler, Darkness at
Noon
( October 11, 2012, Colombo, Sri
Lanka Guardian) It was another extrajudicial killing. And, it happened two days
ago. This time the victim was cut into pieces and the pieces were strewn in a
suburb of Colombo. Eyewitness to the incident told media that some people
arrived in a vehicle, threw 'something' out, and set the same alight in the
early hours of the day. Later, the villagers realized the pieces belonged to a
human body. Nobody knows who the victim
is; the police are ‘busy’ conducting their ‘investigation.’
There have been dozens of
mysterious killings in the highly militarized island nation in last couple of
weeks. Are they part of an “international conspiracy”, as the government has
always suspected? The conspiracy theory has become a political comedy –
considered the best strategy to cover up the failures of the government, not
only in Sri Lanka, but in many countries of the world. The fact is that, “to
live and seethe in that world of conspiracy theories means rejecting any form
of objective reality” (Editorial; International Heralds Tribune, October
11th 2012).
We have lost something but are
unsure what exactly it is we have lost. It was my personal experience to see
human beings not have the validity of even an animal, when confronted with a
brutal war. As we define terrorism, we see that war also is a symptom of the
same disease, and once one finishes the battle on the ground the true
implications lay bare. In the Sri Lankan context, what we saw during and after
the battle was that we had eliminated the LTTE but never really understood the
true consequences of the underlying problems. Were we hiding the real problems
for the time being to expand personal wealth? The nation became a pool to
pirates and plundering state resources is still the daily experience.
We have lost the strength to
fight against the unjust, and the dissidents lost the art of fighting against
autocracy. We shouted loudly against one autocracy for the chance to take up
another. One after another; we changed the heads but we never thought to change
the system.
We used an “electoral system” to
show others that we are civilized and we are implementing basic principles of
freedom in a way that everyone can enjoy. But in reality we changed the
appearance of power but didn’t scratch the soul; and perhaps we dressed up
“racial nihilism” as a guardian of the nation.
B.R. Ambedkar’s comment that
"it is very easy for anybody to become a Mahatma in India by merely
changing his dress," is applicable to the situation in Sri Lanka. “If you
are wearing an ordinary dress and leading an ordinary life even if you perform
extraordinary noble deeds, nobody takes, any notice of you. But a person who
does not behave in normal manner and shows some peculiar trends and
abnormalities in his character becomes a saint or a Mahatma;” he wrote.
If we no longer believe in our
own infallibility; then it is obvious we will lose the battle. What we have to
understand in this dire point in time is that we have given power to a tyrant.
Only once we have fully understood the nature of this disaster, can we really find
out how we can take it back. Let us therefore consider the changes that came
about since the 1978 constitution from a different perspective.
Étienne de La Boétie, was a
French judge, writer, anarchist, and "a founder of modern political
philosophy in France. He wrote in his famous essay entitled, “Discours de la
Servitude Volontaire” (The Politics of Obedience: the Discourse of Voluntary
Servitude also known as Anti-One), which is one of the foundations of political
dissent and the balance of power. As Roland Bleiker of Cambridge University
described, “while Machiavelli’s The Prince helped to define sovereignty, state
power and the ensuing international order, La Boetie’s Anti-One contributed to
the emergence of forces that came to circumvent and undermine the spatial and
political logic of this order.” In his
writing as a young student, Étienne de La Boétie expressed his objections
against the authority and royal absolutions while spreading an idea of struggle
for freedom and how to deal with radical oppression against absolute power. In
the beginning of his Discours de la Servitude Volontaire, La Boétie, noted his
main objective in dealing with the subject.
“It must be said that the
domination of several could not be good for the power of one alone, as soon as
he acquires the title of master, is harsh & unreasonable . . . it is
extremely unfortunate to be subjected to one master, whose kindness one can
never be assured of, since it is always in his power to be cruel whenever he
desires; & as for having several masters, the more one has, the more
extremely unfortunate it is.” La Boétie thus launched a fresh attack against
royal absolutism.
The 1978 constitution in Sri
Lanka was based on this critical issue, where we again opened our gates to
royal absolutism, which had been annulled after a series of devilish struggles
and colonialism. Unfortunately, we never critically analyzed this to create
authentic dissent that can fight against this absolute power and a corrupted
system. While we are taking Machiavelli into our home from the back door, we
remained unconcerned as we wanted to find another side of Machiavellian
politics in the western philosophical context.
Machiavelli and La Boétie are
black and white if we compare a colour combination of their works. The writings
by La Boétie were geared towards achieving personal liberty in ordinary
citizen, as different from Machiavellian politics in the West. La Boétie always
encouraged the citizen and discourses of volunteerism against the royal
absolutism.
Even after the 18th Amendment to
the Constitution in Sri Lanka, we are not moving any closer towards core
notions of personal freedom (liberty) of citizens in the country. Instead,
conducting narrow minded nihilistic actions have become a common phenomenon.
Freedom seems to always be beyond reach in our society. What we have dragged up
as freedom is not actual freedom. But how did we lose it? In other words, how
did the regime become capable of creating a framework which limits freedom? How
“tyrants get power and maintain it, it’s simple assumption is that real power
always lies in the hands of the people and that they can free themselves from a
despot by an act of will unaccompanied by any gesture of violence.”
The power of people is always
exceptional and it can change the system. In China, a traditional saying goes:
“Water can both sustain and sink a ship.”
Real ideology will never proclaim
social reforms through violence. Thus La Boétie tried to explain that the tyrant
is in power because of the people and only people can evaluate society to find
the real meaning of freedom. What he explains is that tyrants are never true
friends to his or her country but gaining and expanding absolute power is only
the ultimate goal of the tyrant.
Today, Sri Lanka has become a
sick society. There is an unimaginable level of destruction and the way in
which her ordinary people live resembles a situation where the dead walk.
