The inner strength of each individual who came out in protest, according to Marcus Aurelius, was spurred on by the trust and confidence placed in the collective: “If a thing is difficult to be accomplished by thyself, do not think that it is impossible for man; but if anything is possible for man and conformable to his nature, think that this can be attained by thyself too”.
by Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne in Montreal
“In our youth, our hearts were touched with fire” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
Inasmuch as the most fecund outcome of the “Aragalaya” - as the social uprising in Sri Lanka is called – has been its resounding success in deposing without the use of force an unacceptable regime, arguably its most interesting and intriguing feature was that there was no discernible leader or leaders who could be individually identified as leading from the front. To this phenomenon one could invoke the famous saying of Lao-tzu: “a leader is best when people barely know he exists; when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves”.
Indeed, they did it themselves, as though the spirit of Plutarch (46 -120 AD) had inspired them with his “city before self” motto to be achieved with moral rectitude. This approach impelled the thousands of youth and elders to invoke and exercise what is now called “collective leadership” - a form of leadership that has become a trend where multiple individuals exercise their leadership roles within a group whereafter the entire group collectively provides group leadership to the entire populace involved in protesting. Collective leadership has been further explained by David Trafford, Co-author of Beyond Default and Managing Director of Formicio, a strategy and change management consultancy, and Peter Boggis, Co-author of Beyond Default “It’s a fluid and flexible approach to leadership, where roles and resultant accountabilities evolve in response to changing circumstances. Leadership teams are often described as being aligned in their decisions and actions; they act as one and are linked up in their thinking and behaviour. A key aspect of collective leadership is collective accountability – where the outcomes of decisions and actions are felt by every leader in equal measure. As a result, the power of a leadership team practising collective leadership is greater than the sum of the individual leaders”.
The most effective form of collective leadership can be seen when individuals consider themselves to have a mission and band together in pursuance of a common goal. David Gergen, in his excellently researched treatise “Hearts Touched with Fire” quotes Walt Disney who said: “if you can dream it, you can do it”. Gergen says further: “most great groups have characteristics that separate them from average organizations. They tend to be motivated internally and like to be problem solvers…one caution about great teams: They should not be confused with great stars. A team of stars is made up of individuals looking out for themselves; players on a great team look out for each other”. This epitomises the principle that it is not the best players that win, but the right players.
Perhaps the greatest protagonist in the Aragalaya is Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD) who said: “A man should always have these two rules in readiness; the one, to do only whatever the reason of the ruling that may suggest for the use of men; the other; to change thy opinion, if there is any one at hand who sets thee right and moves thee from any opinion”. When one sees in the media the many protesters who say they voted for the incumbents in the 2019 election but are now impelled by the surge of credible public opinion to change their loyalties,, the fundamental thrust of Marcus Aurelius emerges. The second limb of Marcus Aurelius’ statement – movement from belief to reality – is also seen in the fact that the protests were not merely and exclusively based on deprivation, discontent, and frustration which the impoverished felt, but was based on the overall plight of a people – a fact evidenced by the participation of the privileged class as well.
The inner strength of each individual who came out in protest, according to Marcus Aurelius, was spurred on by the trust and confidence placed in the collective: “If a thing is difficult to be accomplished by thyself, do not think that it is impossible for man; but if anything is possible for man and conformable to his nature, think that this can be attained by thyself too”.
The protesters were relentless amidst threats and acts of violence fraught with risks to their own lives. Marcus Aurelius infused his great oratory with the incantation for unyielding strength of conviction which the protesters showed in their uprising: “How can our principles become dead unless the impressions (thoughts) which respond to them are extinguished? But it is in thy power continuously to fan these thoughts into a flame. I can have that opinion about anything, which I ought to have. If I can, why am I disturbed?”
Finally, the protesters gave a valuable lesson in the context of the words pertaining to the extinguishing of impressions created by the flaws of constitutional democracy. When they fought for removal of the existing leadership, the argument given by the rulers was that leadership could be changed only through a constitutional process which allowed the leadership to remain for a couple of years more. The attempt to kill the principles of the protesters by this argument seemingly based on democracy was obviated by the protesters who showed collective strength of the principle “salus populi est suprema lex” (the welfare of the populace is the supreme law).
The Aragalaya has also done something very significant and valuable for Sri Lanka and its present and future generations: it finally put to rest the perceived implacability of the so-called democracy and parliamentary process behind which mendacious leaders take solace. The protesters exposed this fallacy. The folly of democracy has always been that its history throughout the 20th century is a story of repeated crises during which politicians and the public have been at loggerheads between the duality of overreacting and indolence to the dangers, without ever coming to grips with the balance between them. The initial problem with democracy is itself serving parochialism and the monotonous regularity in which it has evolved as a condescending social construct between the affluent elite and the poor masses. No one doubts that democracy is an ancient concept, but not many would know the disturbing truth that ancient Greek and Roman civilizations practiced a democracy that was deeply reliant on their sustenance through slavery and an expanding slave population that they needed to control.
In ancient Greece the Athenian government which was governed “by the people” excluded many categories on non-citizens such as slaves, women, foreigners, prostitutes and others of questionable morals and birth from the process of “democratic” governance. William G. Gardner, in his book “The Trouble with Democracy” makes the clear statement that democracy is just a technique for deciding the distribution of power in society. In other words, it is a tool for deciding which individuals and institutions would be sharing the fruits of power by coercion”. Gardner calls democracy a theory of power where once an election is over, there is nothing said about the rights or freedoms of those who voted for the losing party, except that they have the right to grab power the next time in the same manner.
Another problem with democracy is that one is never certain whether some who are “democratically” elected have an understanding of the philosophy of democracy and how it has evolved. Such persons inevitably ascribe to themselves power on the tendentious basis that the wining of an election bestows on them godly powers to decide for all the people without consulting them when necessary. In this perspective, the meaning, purpose, and evolution of democracy through centuries of philosophical thinking have been far too rigid.
All that has now been upended.
Post a Comment