Performing democracy and violence, agonism and community, politics and not politics in Sri Lanka

Abstract

a b s t r a c tThe paper examines the construction of the political as a space of contestation in Sri Lanka. Empirically, the article draws on two different field projects, one locating in a Sinhala village in the south of the country in the early 1980s, the other in a Muslim town in the East in the late 2000s. The case studies concentrate on the relationship between religion and politics, and specifically the way in which religion -Buddhism, Islam -is presented as a privileged space for expressions of community, unsullied by the agonistic consequences of the political. The paper at once draws on, and critiques, certain strands of radical democracy theory which have been widely discussed in recent political geography.

Introduction: Space, contestation and the political

“…Three papers (Dikeç, 2012;Barnett, 2012;Meyer et al, 2012) engage with specific theorists of contestation and explore their relevance for space and politics, democratic theory and political geography, but mainly do so with careful attention to the phenomenologies of politics as practiced. The second strand of papers engages with key concepts of contestation, agonism and the political in various empirical contexts (Kothari, 2012;Spencer, 2012;Geiser, 2012;Schlichte, 2012). These ethnographies of contestation and agonism enrich the more theoretical debates by suggesting the diverse, generative accounts of political conduct and activity.…”

On sacred ground: the political performance of religious responsibility

“…Sumangala is not the first Buddhist monk to center himself in a political situation and claim to speak from a place outside the dirty world of politics. This process, as identified by a number of authors (Seneviratne 1999;Abeysekera 2002;Deegalle 2004;Spencer 2012), has been evident since the 1940s and has transformed from young monks accompanying political rallies in the early 1980s to the entrance of monks into Parliament in 2004 representing the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU), an ultra-nationalist party formed in the wake of the death of a prominent monk in 2003 (see, Deegalle 2004). The Muslim and Catholic organisations that navigate their activities through political arenas in the north and east do not possess the same powerful vocabulary of 'religious responsibility' that resonates within the SinhaleseBuddhist political imaginary.…”

“…The Muslim and Catholic organisations that navigate their activities through political arenas in the north and east do not possess the same powerful vocabulary of 'religious responsibility' that resonates within the SinhaleseBuddhist political imaginary. Whilst Christian and Muslim institutions lack the capacity to transgress the boundaries of 'the political' in Sri Lanka (Goodhand et al 2009, Johnson 2012, Spencer 2012, an influential monk such as Sumangala can harness the moral authority of the Sangha to engage the world of mass politics in Sri Lanka: transposing religious responsibilities on to political projects.…”

Taking liberties and making liberty: religious bounding and political violence in Sri Lanka

“…The politics--religion boundary presents a potent challenge to academic and everyday debate because there is an acute difficulty of stepping out of 'the political' --so penetrating because of the multiple registers it works in. Spencer (2012) reflects on his research amongst Buddhist and Muslim communities between 1982--2008 through the lens of Mouffe's agonistic conception of democracy. He concludes that agonistic and divisive politics are not seen by most as how things should be, but are regarded as inescapable though undesirable.…”

“…These powerful symbolic acts were an undoing of their religious authority to rebuke the claims they had made on political space. The insurrection illustrated the instability of the religion--politics relationship and the claims of Buddhism to speak from beyond the divides of 'politics as usual' (Spencer, 2012). ii) Priests and the LTTE 'Families stay together and care for one another, the Church also endures because of the difficulties it faces, and because leaders are with the people and give themselves to the community, and console people.…”