The people’s movement in Sri Lanka called “Aragalaya” has thrown out a powerful and corrupt political dynasty like the Rajapakses. It has overthrown many barricades, both physical and political and ultimately held the street which has now become a factor even in the Presidential elections expected to be held on the 20th.  But is this  a conflict between what the movement says and what political institutions stand for?. Are street movements the answer to failed politics? Or they say that conventional politics has failed in the developing South ?.  

Despite the popularity across religious and ethnic lines – a sensitive issue in South Asia in general and Sri Lanka in particular – the movement is fundamentally middle class. The leaders are priests, digital activists and social protestors.  Dependent largely on social media, it's fundamentally located in that space which saw the Arab spring grow and then die. Closer to home it’s what produced Shahbagh which has a great history of youth spirit and energy but ultimately was taken over by the ruling party. The limits of urban middle class protest are clear. And Sri Lanka may be facing that all too going by what is happening.

Read:Sri Lanka: Will the army be forced to act?

Argalaya realities

"Aragalaya has to accept whoever comes into power next. You cannot keep protesting," one lawmaker told organizers in a meeting last week. Thus the movement is now in conflict with the law making body and system. The conventional political state is beginning to assert itself as the ruling class which is always upper in nature finds its space limited by the crowds.

Questions are however rising about the nature and structure of the movement.  “The strength of the Aragalaya movement has been its leaderless, organic nature. It's what makes it so good at spontaneous mass uprisings - but it also makes it difficult to predict or control, “ says the BBC.  Some leaders have said that they were not in favour of storming the Palace as it makes them look “anarchic”.

However, Ranil’s denouncement of them as “fascists” has made them look much better since anything the old leadership says is suspect and has no legitimacy.

But even as the agitations were metaphorically wined and dined by global media, few mentions were made of the long queues on the streets near supply centres of essentials including petrol.  That is a problem which won’t go away no matter who wins the elections or how big the protesting crowd is.  

Can politics deliver?

Sri Lanka is a good example of failed politics.  The genesis of current unrest goes back to the management of the Tamil war, a problem of Sinhala nationalism based politics. Colombo won the war under the Rajapakses but as history shows lost Sri Lanka. And it seems so did  the Sinhalese. Just as nationalism based governance –political- has a weak record so has the trappings of colonial inheritance such as what goes in the name of parliamentary democracy including elections. Rajapakse elections were not walk overs so elections as saviours may be overestimated. It keeps the upper class in perpetual power but doesn’t solve problems. As entire South Asia shows, following the colonial model hasn’t led to universal prosperity including in India.

Both Sri Lanka and the rest of South Asia may need to start examining other options. Meanwhile, Sri Lanka is in for a hard time from which no election can deliver right now.