Role of the youth in creating a voice for social change
“You just sit there and tolerate it, the same way everything in this country is tolerated. Every deception, every lie, every bullet in the brains. Just as you are already tolerating bullets in the brains that will be implemented only after the bullet is put in your brains” – Imre Kertesz
With a history of insurrections and youth in armed struggle, Sri Lanka has long been depicted as a country with a young population actively involved in attempts to bring about change, despite the many questionable approaches used. Such approaches have led to the emergence of an ideology that youth involvement in pressing socio-cultural issues can only be violent. Both the JVP and LTTE struggles are considered as militant and/or rebel movements, complicating the notion of youth engagement. But youth engagement is exactly what a country needs to address national level concerns such as unemployment, reconciliation, racial and structural inequality.
Change is not simplistic, especially when tangled with different histories, cultures, political views, and ideologies. Therefore, though different youth groups may want to propel a difference of and within the same structure, the approaches taken to incorporate those changes are never the same. For example, initial discussions by the youth of the JVP and LTTE in the late 1980s to find a common solution to inequality came to no avail when culture and identity took the upper hand.
“Both the Sinhala and Tamil youth movements expressed their dissatisfaction with the state and their desire for change through political violence. The state was their common enemy; however, succumbing to their nationalistic politics of the glories of their respective feudal past, they saw each other as enemies not allies.”
(Groundviews: The JVP’s campaign among the Tamils, 1977-1982).
A ‘radical’ push for change is necessary as there aren’t many active agents for change, at ground or national level. The youth of Sri Lanka need to mobilize in understanding, engaging and empowering each other to overcome vulnerabilities across the country. Radical positions need to be adopted for this country to see change. However, being radical, need not involve violence and taking to the streets, targeting key persons and inconveniencing people. Radical thinking, views and opinions that can break the existing structure that will create a push towards change are certainly needed.
Triggers for violence are embedded in structural inequalities within education, employment, political participation and gender discrimination. Despite Sri Lanka’s history of radicalisation, and several socio-cultural concerns being continuously voiced, there seems to be a lack of affirmative action by the youth to address these concerns. Radical action should not result in passive response or a form of aggressive repression by the state or any governing body. Consider the unemployed graduates; the youth unemployment rate rests at 18 per cent as of 2018. However, unrest with regards to employment is not connected to a lack of available jobs, but, in the inability to access public sector jobs, which are seen as attractive, providing secure, long-term employment, benefits and a pension plan. Unemployed graduates move to the street to gain the government’s attention, a move that invariably works. In March this year, the government announced plans to create 20,000 new positions to curb the high rate of youth unemployment, a strategy adopted by the previous government. This well, thought out political gimmick creates the appearance of a positive response from the governing body, leading to a cyclic process of continual protests by graduates and the constant creation of ‘new jobs’ for youth. It is also ironic that student unions and youth activism generally remains within male dominated (and patriarchal) spaces while university class rooms are increasingly filled by females.
Sri Lanka’s recent ‘radical’ history is indicative of how youth are propelled to take tangible action when ethnic or religious factions are involved. Agentive forces can manifest in the shape of individuals, organisations, institutions and movements (more recently through social media) to mobilise youth to incite violence and radicalisation. With no singular platform allowing youth voices to be heard, engagement is increasingly contained within the structures of social media, which however, has limited discussions on relevant and valid topics such as harassment, unemployment, conservation and imposing institutions to the virtual sphere. Conversely, this has also led to an increasing amount of racial tension that has, and will continue to spill out into the ‘real world’. Hatred is simplified and focused on particular social groups, with constructed notions of eliminating social issues that have been discussed vehemently on social media. Other ‘pressing’ issues that garner debate on social media are rarely brought out to spaces that include decision and policy makers.
Therefore, it is necessary for Sri Lanka’s youth to unite to strive for change that provides a new perspective and a new approach to answer and negotiate issues that have been prevalent in the country for many years. Engagement through local communities that also involves youth in policy making or the policy making process can, hopefully, lead to radicalisation that Sri Lanka needs.
(Atarah Senn is a junior research professional and Anupama Ranawana is a senior research professional at Centre for Poverty Analysis -CEPA. Below the line is a regular column contributed by CEPA dealing with poverty and development issues).