Democracy, monkhood and economy

Buddhist clergy surround the Presidential Secretariat demanding the release of Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thera 

           - Pic by Shehan Gunasekara

• Why Sri Lanka must reconcile Buddhist ethics, the rule of law and economic recovery

“Democracy has to be born anew every generation, and education is its midwife.” 

    - John Dewey

Introduction: National controversy with economic consequences

Sri Lanka’s current controversy surrounding sections of the Buddhist clergy, the imprisonment of Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thera, and demands for his release raises questions that extend far beyond an individual monk. At its heart lies a fundamental issue: How should a democratic society reconcile religious respect, monastic discipline, rule of law and authority of an elected Government?

The controversy is not simply about a robe, a prison sentence or a demonstration. It concerns the relationship between individual conduct and institutional responsibility, between religious influence and democratic accountability, and between political confrontation and national development.

The ultimate test of both democracy and monkhood is not the power to command others, but the wisdom to exercise one’s own responsibilities properly. Sri Lanka must protect the Dhamma without placing anyone above the law, strengthen democracy without silencing religious counsel, and pursue economic recovery without wasting the nation’s limited resources on avoidable confrontation. That is not a choice between Buddhism, democracy and development. It is a common path towards a more just, responsible and prosperous Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka cannot afford to treat these questions as isolated religious or political disputes. Following a period of severe economic instability, the country needs public institutions that inspire confidence, policies that encourage productive investment, and a society willing to direct its limited resources towards improving the lives of its people.

My argument is straightforward: democracy must be practised as a way of life, monkhood must be understood as an ethical discipline, and economic recovery must be protected from avoidable political and institutional disruption.

These objectives are not contradictory. Properly understood, they reinforce one another.

Democracy is more than the right to vote

Democracy is commonly understood as a system in which citizens elect their representatives. Elections are indispensable, but they are not the entirety of democracy.

A genuinely democratic society also requires respect for the law, freedom of expression, equality before the law, institutional independence, peaceful disagreement and mutual respect. These principles must govern relationships between citizens, between citizens and the State, and between institutions exercising different forms of authority.

Democracy therefore has a social and cultural dimension. It requires people to recognise that disagreement does not justify intimidation, that influence does not confer unlimited power, and that no individual or institution possesses an automatic entitlement to dictate outcomes to others.

Sri Lanka’s elected Government has a responsibility to govern within the Constitution and the law. Religious leaders have every right to advise, criticise and seek changes in Government policy. Citizens, including Buddhist monks, also possess rights of peaceful expression and assembly, subject to lawful restrictions.

However, the right to express an opinion is not the same as the authority to compel the Government to accept it. Nor does an electoral mandate entitle the Government to disregard the rights of those who disagree with it.

Democracy requires both sides to recognise these boundaries.

The question is not whether monks should participate in public debate. They should be free to do so. The question is whether participation should take the form of reasoned persuasion and lawful engagement or become an attempt to exercise coercive authority over democratic institutions.

Monkhood begins in the mind, not in the robe

A Buddhist monk is known in Pali as a bhikkhu and in Sanskrit as a bhikshu. The word bhikkhu is traditionally associated with one who lives by alms and, within Buddhist teaching, with the pursuit of liberation from suffering and the cycle of birth and death.

Ordination is not merely a change of clothing or social status. It represents a commitment to a disciplined way of life grounded in ethical conduct, restraint, wisdom and the pursuit of spiritual understanding.

This leads to an important distinction.

The robe is a visible symbol of monkhood, but the ethical substance of monkhood must be reflected in the mind and conduct of the person wearing it. One must cultivate the capacity to distinguish what is right from what is wrong, what is relevant from what is irrelevant, and what serves the public good from what serves personal ambition.

In this article, I use the idea of mindhood to describe this internal ethical discipline: the ability to examine one’s own intentions, exercise restraint and act with wisdom rather than anger, ego or the desire for power.

This is not a substitute for the established Buddhist concept of monkhood. It is an argument that genuine monkhood requires an inner disposition consistent with its outward commitments.

The same principle applies to democracy. A person may possess the formal right to vote while failing to respect democratic values in everyday life. Similarly, a person may wear the robe while acting in ways inconsistent with the discipline the robe represents.

The issue is therefore not the appearance of a monk but the relationship between religious status and ethical responsibility.

A robe deserves respect because of the spiritual tradition it represents; it cannot, by itself, establish the moral correctness of every action taken by its wearer.

The Buddha’s Teaching and the Responsibilities of Power

Buddhist history recognises a role for monks in guiding rulers and contributing to public welfare. Monks can offer moral counsel, draw attention to injustice, encourage compassion and remind political leaders of their responsibilities towards society.

Such engagement can be valuable to democratic governance.

A ruler who listens to ethical criticism may make better decisions. A monk who challenges corruption, protects vulnerable people and encourages peaceful solutions can make a significant contribution to national development.

However, the capacity to advise does not automatically confer the authority to command.

The relationship between religious counsel and political power must preserve the responsibilities of both. Elected representatives are accountable for governing the country, while religious leaders are responsible for the integrity of their own conduct and the quality of the guidance they provide.

The Buddhist tradition offers a useful ethical framework through the emphasis on right speech, restraint, compassion and the avoidance of harm. These principles encourage dialogue rather than hostility and reflection rather than impulsive confrontation.

The Sinhala expression associated with Ven. Galkande Dhammananda Thera in the current debate captures the spirit of a civilized solution: “ශීලාචාර විදිහට උත්තර හොයන්න” — seek answers in a civilized manner.

This is not a call for silence. It is a call for a better method of resolving disagreement.

When a religious institution has concerns about prison regulations, the treatment of an ordained person or the relationship between civil law and monastic discipline, those concerns should be examined through evidence, legal reasoning, dialogue and appropriate institutional procedures.

Respect for Buddhism does not require abandoning these processes. Indeed, the credibility of Buddhism is strengthened when its representatives demonstrate the discipline, restraint and wisdom that its teachings encourage.

Rule of law must protect everyone equally

The present controversy illustrates why a clear distinction must be maintained between a criminal sentence and the religious status of the person serving it.

The legal proceedings concerning Gnanasara Thera have included the invalidation of a previous presidential pardon and the enforcement of the remaining prison sentence for contempt of court. The separate dispute over prison attire has generated objections from sections of the Buddhist clergy. These are related public controversies, but they are not identical legal questions.

The State must act within the law, and prison authorities must follow applicable regulations. Equally, questions about the proper treatment of an ordained monk should be considered carefully, with due regard to lawful prison procedures and the relevant religious disciplinary framework.

The answer is neither automatic deference to religious authority nor unnecessary confrontation with it. It is a transparent, lawful and consistent process.

A democratic Government should not grant preferential treatment merely because a convicted person holds religious office. Nor should a person’s religious identity become a reason for humiliating or unfairly treating that person.

The principle is equal treatment under the law, accompanied by respect for legitimate religious freedom.

If there is a legal ambiguity concerning prison attire or the respective responsibilities of State authorities and monastic institutions, it should be clarified through proper legal and administrative channels. If changes are required, they should be made transparently and applied consistently, not introduced as a concession to political pressure.

The same principle applies to the Government. An elected administration must be prepared to explain its decisions and accept lawful scrutiny.

The rule of law is not an instrument for humiliating religion. It is a common safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of power by anyone, regardless of position, political affiliation or religious standing.

When religious and political confrontation weakens governance

Public demonstrations are a legitimate feature of democracy. They allow citizens to express grievances, challenge decisions and demand accountability. Their legitimacy, however, does not make every demand justified or every method appropriate.

The recent protests in Colombo over Gnanasara Thera’s release demonstrate how a dispute involving religious identity and State authority can absorb the attention of political leaders, public officials and the wider community. Reporting on the demonstrations also records court intervention concerning the protesters’ continued presence near the Presidential Secretariat, followed by discussions with the Ministry of Buddhasasana.

The lesson is not that religious leaders should avoid public affairs. It is that disputes must be resolved through institutions capable of examining the issues impartially.

When political actors mobilise religious sentiment to pressure the Government, the judiciary or public officials, they risk converting a question of law and procedure into a contest of political strength.

Such conduct can weaken institutional confidence. It may also encourage future groups to believe that sufficient public pressure can secure exceptions unavailable to other citizens.

This creates a dangerous precedent.

Today, the dispute may concern a monk. Tomorrow, it may concern a politician, businessperson, public official or another influential individual. If institutional decisions become negotiable according to the strength of a constituency rather than the merits of a case, equal citizenship is undermined.

The Government must therefore distinguish between listening to religious concerns and surrendering its constitutional responsibilities. Dialogue is a strength; capitulation to coercion is not.

Religious institutions, in turn, should recognise that their long-term credibility depends not on their capacity to mobilise crowds but on the quality of their ethical leadership.

Economic cost of distraction

Sri Lanka’s economic recovery requires more than improved macroeconomic indicators. Stabilisation must become a platform for investment, production, exports, employment and better living standards.

Every public resource has an alternative use. Money spent on organising and sustaining prolonged confrontations cannot simultaneously be used for education, healthcare, skills development, community services or productive investment. Public officials’ time is also scarce. Time spent managing avoidable institutional disputes is time unavailable for implementing economic policy and improving public services.

This does not mean that demonstrations are inherently wasteful. Peaceful protest can expose injustice, improve accountability and lead to better policy. The relevant question is whether the objective is legitimate, whether the method is proportionate, and whether the dispute is being pursued through appropriate channels.

Sri Lanka needs a more disciplined approach to the use of public and private resources.

Investors consider the predictability of laws, the reliability of public institutions and the possibility of political disruption when making investment decisions. Businesses need confidence that contracts will be respected, disputes will be resolved fairly and public policy will not be arbitrarily altered under pressure from powerful interest groups.

Persistent institutional confrontation can weaken that confidence. It can divert attention from reforms, complicate policy implementation and reinforce perceptions that influence matters more than rules.

The economic chain is clear: institutional credibility supports investment; investment supports production; production and competitiveness strengthen exports; exports generate foreign exchange; and stronger productive capacity improves the country’s ability to service debt and raise living standards.

Sri Lanka cannot afford to interrupt this process unnecessarily.

The Government must focus on expanding productive capacity, improving the business environment, encouraging export-oriented investment, strengthening public administration and ensuring that the benefits of recovery reach the wider community.

Religious leaders and political organisations can contribute by promoting social stability, ethical conduct and cooperation. They should not allow avoidable confrontations to displace the country’s economic priorities.

From political theatre to national development

Sri Lanka needs a constructive relationship between religious institutions, elected Government and civil society. Such a relationship should not be built on subordination or confrontation, but on clearly understood responsibilities.

The Government should engage respectfully with the Maha Sangha and other religious communities when legitimate concerns arise. It should explain the legal basis of its decisions, provide channels for consultation and ensure that public officials act professionally and consistently.

The judiciary must remain independent. The police and prison authorities must implement lawful decisions without political favouritism. Religious authorities should address questions of monastic discipline through their own appropriate procedures, while respecting the country’s legal framework.

Political parties, meanwhile, should resist the temptation to exploit religious sentiment for short-term advantage.

These responsibilities can be translated into a practical program:

• First, establish clear and publicly accessible procedures for resolving disputes involving the religious status of ordained persons in State custody, with appropriate legal and religious consultation.
• Second, encourage structured dialogue between the Government and recognised religious institutions, without giving any group a veto over lawful Government decisions.
• Third, promote public education on democratic citizenship, the rule of law, religious responsibility and the distinction between legitimate dissent and coercion.
• Fourth, ensure that peaceful assembly and freedom of expression are protected, while lawful restrictions are applied fairly and proportionately.
• Finally, bring the national conversation back to measurable improvements in economic and social welfare. Public institutions should be judged by their capacity to deliver reliable services, promote productive employment, protect rights and improve the lives of citizens.

These measures would help move the country away from recurring confrontations and towards a culture of institutional responsibility.

Democracy, monkhood and mindhood: A common ethical foundation

Democracy and monkhood may appear to belong to different spheres of life. Democracy concerns the organisation of public power, while monkhood concerns a religious vocation. Yet both depend, in important respects, on ethical conduct.

Democracy requires citizens and institutions to recognise limits on their own power. Monkhood requires an individual to cultivate restraint, wisdom and an understanding of the responsibilities associated with renunciation.

The concept of mindhood brings these ideas together by emphasising the internal discipline needed to act responsibly.

A democratic politician must understand that an electoral mandate is a responsibility, not a personal entitlement. A public official must understand that authority exists to serve the public, not to protect personal interests. A Buddhist monk must understand that spiritual influence is most valuable when exercised through ethical example, reasoned counsel and compassion.

These are different roles, but each requires a willingness to distinguish personal ambition from the common good.

This is also why the argument must not be reduced to a conflict between the Government and the Sangha. Such a framing would be both unnecessarily divisive and intellectually inadequate. Sri Lanka needs the constructive contribution of Buddhist monks and all other religious communities. It also needs the confidence that public institutions will operate according to law rather than pressure.

The objective is not to diminish religion’s place in society. It is to protect the integrity of religion and democracy alike.

Conclusion: Protect the Dhamma, strengthen democracy, rebuild the economy

Sri Lanka stands to gain little from turning the present controversy into a prolonged contest between the Government and sections of the Buddhist clergy. Nor would it benefit from treating every concern raised by a monk as illegitimate.

The civilized solution is to distinguish legitimate religious concerns from demands for exceptional treatment, and lawful public criticism from attempts to compel democratic institutions.

Monks must remain free to advise rulers, criticise injustice and contribute to the welfare of society. Elected governments must remain responsible for governing under the Constitution and the law. Courts must be able to discharge their duties independently. Religious institutions must be able to preserve monastic discipline without being used as instruments of political power.

Above all, the robe should not become a substitute for ethical conduct, just as an electoral mandate should not become a substitute for good governance.

Sri Lanka’s economic future depends on public trust, institutional credibility, productive investment and the responsible use of scarce resources. These cannot flourish indefinitely in an environment where every disagreement becomes a confrontation and every institution seeks to establish the supremacy of its own authority.

The country needs fewer contests over status and more commitment to public service; fewer attempts to compel and more willingness to persuade; less political theatre and greater economic productivity.

The Buddha’s teaching should not be invoked selectively to defend institutional privilege. It should encourage reflection, restraint, compassion and a civilized search for solutions. Democracy, likewise, must be more than a procedure for electing rulers. It must be a shared commitment to living together under fair rules.

The ultimate test of both democracy and monkhood is not the power to command others, but the wisdom to exercise one’s own responsibilities properly.

Sri Lanka must protect the Dhamma without placing anyone above the law, strengthen democracy without silencing religious counsel, and pursue economic recovery without wasting the nation’s limited resources on avoidable confrontation.

That is not a choice between Buddhism, democracy and development. It is a common path towards a more just, responsible and prosperous Sri Lanka.

(The author served as the Special Adviser to the Office of the President of Namibia from 2006 to 2012 and was a senior consultant with the UNDP for 20 years, and a Senior Economist with the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (1972-1992). He can be reached at [email protected])