The ‘Aragalaya’ (‘public uprising’ in Sinhala) of 9 April 2022, is a distinctive and historic moment in Sri Lanka’s political landscape of 75 years since independence. It signified a unique set of circumstances and a fusion of multiple social movements that managed to garner widespread popular support, which cut across Sri Lanka’s torn ethno-religious tapestry, and for a moment shine a bright light at the island's deeply flawed culture of governance. 

The movement managed to shock the mainstream political parties to the core by their ability to mobiles disgruntled citizens. Never in Sri Lanka’s history had such a movement been seen. Despite witnessing two insurrections largely in the South, and an insurgency which broadly used terrorism as a preferred tool of cohesion in the North and North East, Sri Lanka had not seen the countries’ top leadership forced to step down due to insurgent action.

The ‘Aragalaya’ was a largely non-violent movement that rose quickly and was successful in achieving its immediate demand of ejecting the country’s top leadership.  The movement was broadly viewed as a cry for help by a wide cross section of society, calling for a change in the political culture of Sri Lanka, for a better governance structure, and highlighting calls for reforms. Two years after the fact, the change the broadly supported - ‘Aragalaya’ movement sought, is gaining ground slowly, but significant challenges persist.    

The ‘Aragalaya’ movement was unique in many ways. It began as and was largely an organic, voluntary, citizen driven movement with no visible political party affiliation nor leadership structure, at the early stages. However, there has been much said about narrative snatching, allegations of left wing politics highjacking of the movement, and also some allegations that parts of the ‘Aragalaya’ was driven by foreign influence agents. None of the allegations about the movement are yet to be proven. Irrespective of how the ‘Aragalaya’ was viewed during the heat of the protests in April 2022, at present, or in the future, it has left a lasting impression on Sri Lankan politics. Over the last several years, confidence in the governance system of Sri Lanka, and also in Sri Lanka as a functional state, in the eyes of the masses, have eroded. The ‘Aragalaya’ was also a voice of no confidence in the State and our governance system, and along with ‘Gota Go Home’ and calls for the President and the then Prime Minister to step down,  a common slogan which emerged, which has now become a mainstay on the lips of many, is ‘the entire 225 must be kicked out’. Such slogans don’t emerge out of thin air, it is an echo of the suffering born by the masses, at the hands of poor governance and lack of statesmanship, which Sri Lanka has been cursed for decades.

Today, a wider segment of Sri Lankans are ‘politically aware’ and have begun to question how policies are formulated, and seek transparency, accountability and want to participate in the political process. The movement, irrespective of who many claim ownership of it today, during the protest movement–sought to enlighten the public about policy making and its effects, something few movements have attempted to do so before. The movement has also clearly ‘awakened’ a broader cross section of the populace, especially those in the middle-income category and the young to become more actively involved in politics. With election season now clearly underway, there are early indications of the political culture in Sri Lanka changings, post ‘Aragalaya’. To begin with, almost every mainstream political party is today talking about a ‘national plan’ and have begun to question the other about ‘Economic Policies’ and the reforms agenda each group plans to enact. There also has been a call for open debates on each party’s policy plan for recovery, which is a healthy development. Such televised–US presidential candidate debate style scrutiny of the rivals policies, would be a welcomed change from the egotistical, personality promotion–‘he / she is our only saviour’ type marketing of politics which has been seen in the past. Further, the public are more prone to question about state expenditure and there is significant public pressure to hold corrupt officials responsible. While this pressure has resulted in some results, it remains to be seen if it can be sustained to effect long-term change.

One narrative which came towards the tail end of the 2022 ‘Aragalaya’ movement, which may not necessarily be one that the multifaceted movement came up with, was a growing affinity for ‘change by any means’. Such narratives of seizing political power ‘by any means’ is dangerous and should be countered. Sri Lanka may have economically ‘stabilised’ to a degree, but it remains on a socio-political powder keg, which can only be disarmed in a significant change in political culture, that will help to regain the lost confidence in the State of Sri Lanka, and its future. As such it is prudent for the law-makes and the political parties in Sri Lanka to heed the message from her citizenry and effect the relevant changes, to improve the governance of the island, to introduced well-debated and effective policies, to be practical and through in their enactment, and to foster transparency and accountability not only in the political arena, but more importantly within the public services.