• A polemic against giving monkeys razorblades 

In the context of theParliamentary  General Election, which politicians will come to power, what they are planning to do, and how the public can expect from what is expected of public representatives are often discussed topics, and to a considerable degree, these decide election results.

These matters were discussed during political debates and discussions that took place in the run-up to today’s (14) Election. In addition, these discussions also paid attention to the perks available for the Members of Parliament (MPs). Firearms provided to Parliamentarians to ensure their own safety is a notable topic in discussion, and these concerns were triggered by election candidates that expressed willingness to accept or reject State/Government-issued firearms. Social media discussions regarding the matter showed considerable disapproval of the election candidates that said that they will accept these firearms.

Politics & security in SL

Sri Lanka has a long history of political conflict, from ethnic tensions to struggles over power and governance. Over the decades, various forms of conflict – be they civil wars, political unrest, or economic crises – have shaped the nation’s political landscape. These issues often place politicians at the centre of controversy, making them vulnerable targets.

As leaders tasked with making decisions that affect scores of citizens, they are frequently drawn into high-stakes situations where their actions or policies can lead to strong opposition, both from political rivals and dissatisfied segments of the public. Sri Lankan politicians, especially MPs, are regularly at the centre of national debates, and their decisions often provoke intense reactions from different communities. In such an environment, politicians become targets for violence, threats, and intimidation. At the same time, many MPs also act as mediators in resolving national issues, which places them in positions of great scrutiny and opposition. As they navigate issues like ethnic reconciliation, Governmental reforms, and international relations, their actions are scrutinised and often contested, raising the potential for hostility.

Given the volatile political climate and the very real threats that politicians face, it is imperative to ensure that they have adequate protection. Their safety is not just a matter of personal security, but a necessity for the stability and functioning of the democratic process in Sri Lanka.

Are firearms a necessity?

However, in Sri Lanka, while politicians are facing multifarious security threats, the question arises as to whether arming them with firearms is the most effective solution. Given the history of misuse of legally issued firearms by some political figures for illegal or unethical purposes, it is worth considering alternative and more effective approaches that prioritise safety without exacerbating potential risks. Allowing politicians to possess firearms could create more problems than it solves. There have been instances in the past where legally-owned weapons have been misused for personal reasons, which even involved violence. Such incidents not only undermine the integrity of political leadership but also pose a danger to public safety. A more responsible solution would be to ensure the protection of politicians through specialised security services.

Instead of issuing firearms to politicians, security can be entrusted to trained professionals such as the Police, the armed forces, and private security firms. These groups are better equipped to handle threats with the proper training, and adherence to laws, regulations, and established procedures. Their actions are guided by discipline, ensuring a controlled and lawful approach in protecting public figures. In addition, these professionals can provide a security presence tailored to the specific needs and threats faced by politicians, without the complications of individual firearm ownership.

However, it is crucial that any security provision be based on a careful and thorough evaluation of the threats faced by individual MPs. A security assessment should determine the level and type of protection required, ensuring that resources are allocated where they are most needed. In this way, Sri Lanka can balance the safety of its politicians with the need for law and order, reducing the potential for misuse and protecting both public figures and citizens alike.

Training, discipline & responsibility

In a democracy, the notion of equality before the law is fundamental. This principle extends to every citizen, including those who hold political office. Politicians should not be granted access to weapons without undergoing more rigorous security and competency checks that ordinary citizens must endure when obtaining a firearm. Allowing politicians to possess firearms without ensuring proper training and discipline is not only unacceptable, but it also poses a significant threat to public safety and not to mention, their (the politicians’) own safety.

During the past few years, Sri Lanka saw the dangers of allowing them to use firearms, as a number of instances were reported where politicians misused their firearms. At times, it was to commit illegal acts. Among them were Ministers as well as MPs, and they had misused their firearms given for personal safety to threaten various parties. In an interview, one such since-deceased MP admits that he was fully prepared to shoot those who were protesting at the GotaGoGama at the Galle Face during the ‘aragalaya’ era (the public protest movement that sought the former Rajapaksa-led Government’s resignation and a system change especially in the political sphere). The late MP in question said that he had two licensed weapons, which raises concerns about how many firearms an MP can obtain and what systems are in place to regulate their use of these firearms.

The first and foremost reason that politicians should not be given weapons is that they lack the necessary training to handle them responsibly. Firearms are dangerous tools that require extensive education and practice to wield safely, and that is why an ordinary citizen has to go through a rigorous procedure to obtain a firearm. Training in the proper handling, storage, and maintenance of weapons is critical to ensuring that they are used only in the appropriate circumstances and even then, appropriately. Politicians, by the nature of their work, are not typically required to undergo this kind of training. Providing them with firearms without ensuring both proper training and discipline could easily lead to accidents or misuse, putting lives at risk.

More importantly, the discipline required to use a weapon responsibly is also absent in many politicians. The decision to use a firearm, especially in times of stress or confrontation, demands emotional control and a clear, measured response, which a significant number of Sri Lankan politicians have proven that they do not have. Politicians are often involved in heated debates and conflicts, even in the Parliament, and the presence of weapons in such charged environments could easily increase the potential for impulsive and reckless decisions.

Proportionate responses to threats 

In light of the concerns surrounding the misuse of firearms and their potential to escalate violence, it is important that Sri Lanka considers the adoption of alternative security methods that are both public-friendly and effective in managing threats to politicians. While specialised security teams, such as the Police and the armed forces, can play a crucial role in protecting political figures, they should be equipped with a broader range of tools beyond firearms, especially in situations where a non-lethal response is possible and more appropriate.

Methods such as rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray, and tasers offer a safer and less lethal alternative to firearms, which in many cases would be adequate and proportionate to manage immediate security threats. These tools are designed to incapacitate or deter individuals posing a security threat without causing fatal injuries. In the international context, non-lethal methods such as rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray, and tasers have increasingly been employed to provide safety for politicians, offering effective and controlled responses to security threats. Rubber bullets have been widely used in crowd control, particularly in high-tension areas where political protests or unrest may escalate. They allow security forces to disperse crowds and neutralise potential threats while minimising the risk of lethal injury. Tear gas is deployed to create temporary disorientation and force individuals to retreat, providing a means of containing a threat until the authorities can take further action. Pepper spray, often used in more confined spaces, is effective in subduing aggressive parties by causing irritation, allowing security personnel to manage threats with minimal harm. In addition, tasers have become an increasingly popular tool for law enforcement and private security firms. 

These methods have been used in the international context for a long time, and it is time for Sri Lanka also to consider benefiting from the same. Such would not only prevent unwarranted fatalities, but would also reduce the economic cost of security.

By equipping security details with these non-lethal methods, the need for firearms – whose use can often result in serious injury or death even when such responses may not be warranted – can be minimised. These alternative approaches allow for a proportionate response to a security threat, ensuring that the safety of both the politician and the public is preserved. Moreover, these tools can be used as a temporary measure to neutralise a threat while the authorities work to apprehend the relevant individual or address the situation more comprehensively. Ultimately, integrating these alternative security methods offers a balanced approach to protecting public figures, reducing the risk of unnecessary harm, and maintaining public trust in the effectiveness and ethics of security protocols.

However, this is not to say that firearms should be completely taken away from the groups providing security for politicians. They should still have such tools to ensure the effective provision of security, but in reduced numbers.