In Sri Lanka, religious leaders, especially Buddhist clergy, have played a key role in many nationally decisive steps, and have been assigned a certain reputation and a power in the political and social spheres. However, over the years, that power seems to have waned considerably, while the extent to which the exercise of that power is justifiable has been questioned.

One of the reasons for such a situation is the religious leaders' unjustifiable involvement in politics as religious leaders rather than as citizens. This trend was seen again this week, when a group of Buddhist monks decided to burn a copy of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution against the Government's plan to enforce it, and asserted that they would not allow the implementation of Police and land powers through this Amendment.

They have several claims and allegations. Addressing the protest, Ven. Prof. Omalpe Sobitha Thera stated that the stance taken by the Government to implement the 13th Amendment is in fact an effort to obtain some 300,000 votes from the Northern Province, while protestors overall alleged that the said plan is purely political. However, what they demanded was not a proper assessment of the situation, or a discussion with those that demand the full implementation of the 13th Amendment and the Government, but the total withdrawal of the Government's plan. They opined that the Northerners do not want land and Police powers.

The fact of the matter is, as citizens of the country, Buddhist monks have a right to protest and voice their concerns as any other citizen. However, that is within the limits that any citizen is subjected to, and prominent Buddhist monks who participated in the said protest should be mindful of that fact. Using the reputation or the power that they have been assigned on the basis of their religious background in order to force a government to take or rescind nationally important decisions, is not acceptable or warranted. Doing so, based on conjectures rather than on concrete facts, and using their religious influence rather than justifiable arguments, does not set a good example.

Buddhist monks intervening in the State's functions unnecessarily and excessively, is not a new issue. However, that seems far from being resolved with politicians and others supporting Buddhist monks to exert influence on matters that remotely concern them, while Buddhist monks keep using that influence to achieve what they think is right or necessary. A good recent example in this regard is Buddhist monks' unreasonable interference in the discourse on allowing school teachers to choose an appropriate and comfortable replacement for sarees. A number of Buddhist monks, who did not care at all about the practical reasons that led to that discussion, demanded that female teachers continue to wear sarees to protect a so-called tradition. 

This situation has to change. No party should have the right to unreasonably exert influence on the State's decisions, and demand that their personal beliefs be accepted as the country's beliefs. Most importantly, no one should be allowed to misuse the reputation that they have been assigned in one context to gain advantage in another. This should be applicable for not just Buddhist monks but for all religious and community leaders.