Sri Lanka’s political history reveals that ambition often clashes with reality. Power is not simply the product of personal aspirations, but of external forces — timing, fate, and circumstance.
Editorial
Since the British handed power to a select group of their loyalists—wealthy opportunists who gained their status by oppressing indigenous communities—Sri Lankan leadership has been driven by lineage and chance, not by strategic brilliance or merit. These self-proclaimed elites, descendants of colonial bootlickers, have shaped the nation’s political landscape through inherited power and unexpected turns of fate, rather than genuine leadership. Of the fourteen individuals who have led the country, many ascended to power through familial succession or unforeseen events, revealing the chaotic nature of political authority in the nation. This unpredictability speaks volumes about the psychology of power and ego, exposing the randomness that often drives leadership trajectories in Sri Lankan politics.
 |
| As the leader of the United National Party, Ranil Wickremesinghe, now the President, participated in a Satyagraha demonstration in Colombo, Sri Lanka, on March 25, 2022. The protest was against the acute shortage of food, fuel, imported goods, and the foreign exchange crisis. (Photo by Pradeep Dambarage/NurPhoto via Getty Images) |
Dynastic politics is a dominant force in shaping Sri Lankan leadership. The legacies of figures like D.S. Senanayake, S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, and Mahinda Rajapaksa underline the South Asian tradition of political dynasties, where power is passed down as though it were a family heirloom. This system creates a sense of entitlement within political families, allowing leaders to assume that their rise to power is a birthright rather than something earned. This entitlement fuels an inherent disconnection from democratic processes, turning these figures into rulers rather than representatives, estranged from the very people they claim to serve.
But inheritance is not the only way to the top. Five out of Sri Lanka’s fourteen leaders rose through unexpected circumstances — accidents of fate, not the product of deliberate ambition. Leaders like W. Dahanayake and D.B. Wijetunga found themselves thrust into leadership, unprepared for the gravity of their new roles. For instance, Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s rise after her husband’s assassination exemplifies how death and crisis can suddenly thrust someone into a position of enormous power. This randomness of political leadership reveals a harsh truth: many of those who assume control are not shaped by skill or vision, but by sudden events, often ill-prepared to handle the weight of governance.
Ranil Wickremesinghe’s ascent is another striking example of leadership as an outcome of circumstance rather than merit. His rise after Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s ousting was less a result of electoral prowess and more about being the last option standing — a victory by default. For someone entrenched in Sri Lankan politics for decades, his ultimate rise to power highlights the randomness and lack of control that characterizes political leadership. It begs the question: how much of leadership is skill, and how much is merely being in the right place at the right time?
Maithripala Sirisena’s story provides another case of a leader propelled into power by forces beyond his control. As secretary of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party in 2015, Sirisena was far from a natural successor in a landscape dominated by the Rajapaksa family. His rise as the opposition candidate was not a testament to his political acumen, but rather a consequence of a unique socio-political moment. This episode underscores how leadership can be shaped by opposition and rebellion, not by vision or talent.
What emerges from these examples is the collision of ego and chance in the pursuit of power. Figures like Sarath Fonseka, whose military leadership brought him national prominence, reveal the role of inflated egos in political ambition. Fonseka’s belief that his wartime achievements entitled him to the presidency showed a failure to understand the broader dynamics of political power. His defeat in 2010, despite his military success, illustrates how ego can blind leaders to the shifting realities of political landscapes. Politics, after all, is not a battlefield where victory guarantees power—it is a fluid arena where personal ambition must navigate complex external forces.
This overestimation of one’s political destiny is not confined to Fonseka alone. Champika Ranawaka, a politician of notable intellectual and political capability, also harboured ambitions of leadership, but he appears to have grasped the importance of timing. Unlike Fonseka, Ranawaka has maneuvered the political terrain with a more calculated approach, positioning himself carefully to remain relevant. The contrast between these two figures lays bare the unforgiving nature of political power. Those who misjudge their standing, fail to grasp the fluidity of politics, or refuse to adapt often find themselves sidelined or humiliated.
Sri Lanka’s political history reveals that ambition often clashes with reality. Power is not simply the product of personal aspirations, but of external forces — timing, fate, and circumstance. Figures like Premadasa, who built their careers through years of public service and activism, stand in stark contrast to those who expected leadership to fall into their laps by virtue of birthright or chance. Premadasa’s rise highlights the importance of struggle and determination, rather than simply being handed the reins of power.
Ultimately, Sri Lankan leadership since independence has been driven by a volatile mixture of family legacy, chance, and personal ambition. Leadership, far from being the outcome of merit or careful strategy, is often the result of random events and external pressures. As Sri Lanka continues to face a turbulent political landscape, future leaders must recognize that power is not about ego or entitlement, but about understanding the unpredictable nature of political reality. The challenge for any leader is to bridge the chasm between personal ambition and the ever-shifting dynamics of power.
Post a Comment