The idea of a deep state in Sri Lanka lacks substantive evidence and stands contradicted by our historical experience. The 1962 coup attempt remains the last significant indication of military insurrection, one that was decisively quelled.
by Luxman Aravind
The concept of a “deep state”—a clandestine network of military and intelligence officials acting beyond the constraints of democratic oversight—has gained significant traction in political discourse globally, particularly in Sri Lanka. In the wake of the tragic Easter Sunday attacks in 2019, the invocation of this notion has intensified, raising questions about the legitimacy and authority of our political institutions. However, a rigorous examination of Sri Lanka’s historical context reveals that the idea of a deep state is little more than a myth, perpetuated by critics seemingly intent on undermining the integrity of our democratic framework.
 |
| File Illustration [ Shutterstock] |
The term “deep state” originated in Turkey, embodied by “Derin Devlet,” which signified the clandestine alliances among military, bureaucratic, and elite interests that exerted influence from the shadows to manipulate political outcomes. This concept arose amidst the power struggles of the late Ottoman Empire and persisted after its dissolution in 1923. In the modern Turkish Republic, military and elite factions wielded substantial power, often distorting the political landscape to serve their own interests. The full extent of this influence was unveiled through military coups and political scandals, cementing the perception of a deep state embedded within the fabric of Turkish governance.
Globally, the notion proliferated during the Cold War, particularly in the United States and Europe, as suspicions grew regarding the roles of intelligence agencies and military power. President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s admonition in his 1961 farewell address regarding the military-industrial complex articulated anxieties over unelected officials potentially wielding more power than those elected to govern. He warned, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” This concern intensified following the Watergate scandal, which exposed covert operations and manipulations by intelligence agencies. The waning of the Cold War saw the concept of the deep state intertwined with the rise of populism and disillusionment with established political elites, as exemplified by figures like Donald Trump, who framed their political battles as noble struggles against insidious conspiracies that threatened democratic governance.
In contemporary discourse, “deep state” has morphed to encompass a spectrum of interpretations, from legitimate critiques of bureaucratic influence to conspiracy theories positing secretive cabals orchestrating government actions. While it is undeniable that elements within governments—such as bureaucrats and intelligence officials—can exert disproportionate influence, invoking the term “deep state” can risk undermining vital institutions and exacerbating societal polarization. This discourse resonates across various contexts, including Pakistan and Latin America, where military and intelligence services often hold considerable power. As societies navigate the complexities of governance and accountability, it becomes essential to distinguish between genuine concerns regarding state influence and baseless conspiracy theories, fostering an informed public dialogue that safeguards the integrity of democratic processes.
The historical narrative of Sri Lanka illustrates a consistent theme: military and other institutions have operated under the purview of political leadership, particularly since independence in 1948. The last notable attempt at military insurrection—the 1962 coup d’état—serves as a pivotal moment in our political history. Orchestrated by disenchanted military and police officers feeling marginalised in a rapidly evolving political landscape, the coup was swiftly thwarted by Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike and her government. This decisive response not only preserved democratic governance but also communicated a resolute message: any attempt to undermine civilian authority would be met with unwavering resistance.
In the decades following this thwarted coup, Sri Lanka confronted myriad challenges, including a protracted civil war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), lasting nearly three decades and culminating in 2009. Despite the complex intricacies surrounding this conflict, one fundamental truth remains clear: throughout this turbulent period, the military consistently operated under civilian control. The leadership of the armed forces remained steadfastly aligned with the directives of elected officials, exemplifying a commitment to democratic principles even amid extraordinary adversity.
Critics who cite the military’s expanded role during the civil war as evidence of a deep state conveniently overlook the context of national security and the existential threats posed by the LTTE. The prioritisation of military action was not indicative of a shadowy agenda but rather a necessary response to a perilous situation that demanded unity and a robust defensive strategy. The military’s actions were framed within a constitutional mandate, executed under the supervision and guidance of democratically elected leadership.
The spectre of a deep state has resurfaced in discussions surrounding the Easter Sunday attacks, where some hastily ascribe blame to alleged elements within the state apparatus. This narrative not only undermines accountability for the actual perpetrators—Islamic extremists—but also diverts attention from the substantial strides Sri Lanka has made towards transparency and effective governance. In the aftermath of the attacks, our security forces worked diligently to dismantle networks of extremism, reaffirming their loyalty to the nation and its democratic institutions.
The persistence of conspiracy theories surrounding these events reveals a deeper political malaise: a refusal to engage with the complexities of terrorism and extremism, coupled with an unfounded inclination to simplify blame. Rather than fostering constructive discourse about the necessity for enhanced security measures or social cohesion, critics cling to the allure of conspiracies, ultimately undermining the legitimate institutions that safeguard our democracy. As Karl Popper astutely remarked, “We must be able to reject theories which cannot be tested and that are not refutable by any conceivable event.” In this light, the rejection of unfounded conspiracy theories is essential in upholding the integrity of our democratic discourse.
Post a Comment