Sri Lanka has entered another era of protests. Anti-Government protests that emerged in the context of the aragalaya (the people’s struggle to remove the former Government led by then President Gotabaya Rajapaksa) movement continue against the new administration, while anti-tax hike protestors, mainly professionals such as doctors and high ranking public officials, have taken to the streets demanding that the Government withdraw its new tax policy or that it seek alternative sources of tax revenue.

Regardless of the motives behind these protests, they appear to be intensifying, with the Government showing a rather lethargic and unfriendly attitude towards them. While the Government has responded to anti-tax hike protestors that the former will reconsider tax revisions in the future, protests against the conduct of the Government and the President and Finance, Economic Stabilisation and National Policies Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe have not received such diplomatic responses. On the contrary, during the past few weeks, the Police and defence forces, backed and led by the Government, employed the same approach they did to stifle the aragalaya protests.

The use of Police power to control protests, which many feel is excessive, is at the centre of this discussion. During the said period, the country witnessed how Police officers acted violently and with no openness for the smooth management of protests. The use of tear gas and water cannons, as well as baton attacks and arrests were extremely common sights. There were also reports of protestors sustaining injuries due to this. To make matters worse, the Government, the Police and the defence forces, and many pro-Government figures have justified the Police’s use of disproportionate force to control protests. Their simple but biassed argument was that the Government has a responsibility to control unrest to protect the public and maintain public order, and that the use of force is therefore a necessity.

However, it is not just the Police that act in an unacceptable and oppressive manner. The conduct of certain protestors, especially those who disrupted essential services such as medical and port related services as part of their trade union actions, has resulted in the use of excess force against the public. On the one hand, their protests cost the country millions a day, thus further weakening businesses and livelihoods. On the other hand, the impact of their protests on the general public appears to be reaching an unacceptable level, as was seen in the case of the doctors’ protests which dealt a heavy blow on patients. There were also instances where protestors were seen behaving aggressively during their confrontations with Police officers who remained calm. What is more, Colombo Port employees boasting about the loss that they caused to the country through protests is not a good example to set. Needless to say, aggressive or unlawful protests give the Police more reasons to use excessive powers, and justify it.

There is no denying that every citizen, including anti-tax hike protestors, has a right to protest against the Government’s decisions that adversely impact them. However, those protests must be peaceful, and above all, there should be a limit to the extent to which they inconvenience the public to hurt the Government. At the same time, they should understand that the main purpose of a protest is to send an undeniable message to the authorities, which does not necessarily have to be a damaging act. The world has provided ample examples of protest methods that help hurt Governments without hurting the public.

In addition, the Police’s conduct, as has been discussed many a time before, has to be lawful and public-friendly. Using the Police to unleash the Government’s anger on anti-Government protestors is not a practice that can last long. However, in order to demand that the Police adhere to the law and do not jeopardise the safety of the public, it is crucial that protestors maintain their standards as responsible citizens and professionals.